Talk:Sri Lanka Matha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tagore claim has been rebutted

Unless evidence can be presented to dispute this rebuttal do not add Haroon's claim as if it merits no questioning. BlueLotusLK (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueLotusLK: You have provided a single source, Kamal Wickremasinghe's article from The Island, which refutes the claim that Tagore wrote the national anthem. This is does not constitute an overwhelming rebuttal and does not excuse you removing referenced content.

As I stated when others tried to remove this content one of Wikipedia's core content policies, neutral point of view, requires all significant views that have been published by reliable sources to be included. Prior to your removal this article provided all views and allowed readers to make up their mind:

• 1. Haroon Habib and Junaidul Haque say Tagore wrote the music and lyrics for Nama Nama Sri Lanka Mata in 1938 in the Bengali language for his student Samarakoon. According to them, Samarakoon then returned to Ceylon in 1940 and translated Tagore's song into the Sinhala language Apa Sri Lanka, Namo Namo Namo Namo Matha, Sundar Sri Boroni.
• 2. Nayomini R. Weerasooriya says Tagore helped Samarakoon write and compose the song.
• 3. K. M. de Silva, Howard Wriggins, The Times of India and IBN Live say Ananda Samarakoon was inspired by Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore.
• 4. Rupavahini, Sunil Ariyaratne and R. K. Radhakrishnan say that Samarakoon returned to Ceylon from India around 1938 and wrote Namo Namo Mata in October 1940, whilst teaching at Mahinda College, inspired by his learning under Tagore.{{Source needs translation}}{{Source needs translation}}
• 5. Sumana Saparamadu says Samarakoon had been asked to write a patriotic song by the Chief Inspector of Schools for the Southern Province T. D. Jayasuriya.

Clearly there are differing views about the origins of the national anthem and the majority of sources on the subject do not support you as you claim. You have removed 1-4, as well as vast swathes of other referenced content, and left just Sumana Saparamadu's view. What you and others are trying to do is WP:CENSOR (as was this).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, here we go. The "inspired by" faction is in line with my view and is the majority opinion. You believe based on the claims of two Bangaldeshi nationalists with no ties to Tagore NOR Sri Lanka that Tagore actually wrote the anthem. The source presented comes after the claim of these two Bangaldeshi nationalists and presents a fact that none of Tagore's extensive work makes any mention of or contains anything resembling an original version of "Namo Namo Mata." I have reached out to the Bangaldeshi nationalists asking for their evidence and they have not replied. As it stands their claim lacks evidence even if it was presented in a mainstream Indian newspaper. There's a factual contention that their is no primary record of Tagore writing "Namo Namo Mata." Therefore there is no reason to present the unsubstantiated claim as indisputable - which is what you are trying to do. You are free to provide a primary source from Tagore or someone associated with Tagore that he wrote "Namo Namo Mata" or any source refuting what Kamal said. Unless you do that there is no reason to provide the Bangaldeshi nationalist claims as fact beyond questioning. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueLotusLK: You have not responded to my point that WP:NPOV requires all significant views that have been published by WP:RS to be included.

You have not explained why you removed the following, which has got nothing to with who wrote the national anthem, from the Multilingual section:

"The Sri Lankan national anthem can be sung in Sinhala and Tamil, both of which are official languages of Sri Lanka. It is one of a number that are sung in more than one language: Belgium (French, Dutch and German), Canada (English, French and Inuktitut), New Zealand (English and Māori), South Africa (Xhosa, Zulu, Sesotho, Afrikaans and English), Suriname (Dutch and Sranan Tongo) and Switzerland (German, French, Italian and Romansh).

You have not provided WP:RS to WP:V that your view is the "majority opinion".

Why do say that Habib and Haque are Bangladeshi nationalists? Because they disagree with your WP:POV? They are both journalists who have written for WP:RS.

What do you consider to be a primary record? Here in Wikipedia we don't use primary sources, we use published secondary sources which is what Habib, Haque and all the other WP:RS are.

Kamal is a single source, you cannot exclude vast swathes of reliably sourced content based on one person's opinion.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works which is why you haven't quoted a single policy to back up your argument.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Habib's view is presented in the article along with a critical review of it from another reliable source. Wikipedia is not about including every claim ever made even if it is backed up by nothing without any critical analysis. Just because Habib writes for a mainstream Indian newspaper does not mean that he can claim things without any evidence. You still fail to provide any evidence at all for Tagore being the author of "Namo Namo Mata." Habib has failed to back up his claim and is not even an authority on the Sri Lankan anthem or Tagore. There's no reason to place his claim unbacked up by anything on the same heading as actual scholars like Sunil Ariyaratne. Habib is Bangaldeshi nationalist because he's a so called "freedom fighter." BlueLotusLK (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a policy for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. BlueLotusLK (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You have not presented Haroon Habib and Junaidul Haque's (whom you've failed to mention, along with Nayomini R. Weerasooriya) views fairly - you have worded the paragraph in a way as to dismiss its value. This is a violation of WP:WikiVoice because you are criticising their views in Wikipedia's voice.

As I have stated, and state again, there are differing views about the origins of the anthem. Prior to your POV wholesale removal of referenced content, this article gave all the views in a neutral manner and allowed readers to make up their own minds. Following your intervention this article only gives one view, that Samarakoon wrote anthem entirely by himself, and belittles all other views.

There is no policy which states that the sources we provide need to provide "evidence", they just need to be WP:RS, which Habib and Haque are. You must get away from the mentality that only Sri Lankans can write about Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 00:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no differing views. There's a majority view accepted by almost all and an extremely fringe view only found in 2 articles from the 2000s. THere's no reason to give special treatment to a fringe view. I linked to a specific policy directed at this but you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. A view held by an extremely small minority is not treated just as the view held by the majority. Also you should also be the last person trying to force a view on to this article considering your feelings about Sri Lanka which makes you not a neutral party. Stop trying to sabotage this article. If you can get a neutral administrator to state that this view should be given equal treatment as the view of the majority then I can accept it but not coming from you. Please stick to editing your Eelam articles. Your biases find a better home there. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

According to you if a mainstream RS source makes a mistake we have to treat it as the gospel truth and feature it alongsides what every other source says to allow the reader to decide if it's true even though it is patently wrong. Wikipedia has standards and it involves deciding what is reasonable and what is not. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Look even the CIA says Ananda Samarakoon wrote "Namo Namo Mata." Your claim that only Sri Lankans say so is so easily proven wrong. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ce.html

Lonely Planet says Ananda Samarakoon wrote it. NEARLY EVERY SIGNIFICANT SOURCE SAYS ANANDA WROTE IT BUT TO YOU IT IS STILL IN DOUBT BECAUSE 2 BENGALI CHESTBEATERS MADE A CONFLICTING CLAIM ONCE EACH IN 2011. ttps://books.google.com/books?id=6QAgHA69_rwC&pg=PA50&dq=sri+lanka+national+anthem&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiii9vehLXRAhVJyoMKHRftCcgQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=sri%20lanka%20national%20anthem&f=false

Since you can't seem to read what I quoted above I'll share the relevent text of the wikipedia policy and bold it this time:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well

When a claim is only made by two sources from the 2000s in relation to something that happened in the late 30s/40s that's even less reliable than the Flat Earth theory. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@UMDP: Thank you for your comments ↓below↓, a WP:THIRDOPINION is always welcome.

@BlueLotusLK: Your assertion that Habib and Haque's views are so fringe that they don't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia doesn't actually stand up to much scrutiny. Here are some more sources that say that Tagore wrote the anthem:

• Charnamrit Sachdeva - "not many are aware that...the lyrics of Sri Lanka’s National Anthem were given by [Tagore]."
• India Today - "[Tagore] wrote...'Nama Nama Sri Lanka Mata', in Bengali, for Sri Lanka."
• Hindustan Times - "few know that Sri Lanka's national anthem is based on a Bengali song originally written by Tagore in 1938. It was translated into Sinhalese and adopted as the national anthem in 1951."
• Khaled Ahmed - "Another poem by [Tagore] about Sri Lanka was actually translated into Sinhalese and set to music by Sri Lankan genius Ananda Samarakoon, a Tagore pupil, in 1940; it became the national anthem of Sri Lanka in 1951."
• Sudip Bhattacharyya - "Another poem by [Tagore] about Sri Lanka was actually translated into Sinhalese and set to music by Sri Lankan genius Ananda Samarakoon, a Tagore pupil, in 1940; it became the national anthem of Sri Lanka in 1951."

And here's a source that actually mentions Habib's article:

• Raj Gonsalkorale - "In recalling the history of the Sri Lankan National Anthem, the great Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore’s association with it is reported in The Hindu."

I'm not saying that Tagore wrote the anthem but it is clear there are differing, contradictory views about its origin. What is the harm in presenting all views in a neutral manner and letting readers make up their own mind?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 01:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be a source mentioning Habib's article because that's what inspired those other articles in the Indian media saying the same thing. Their source is the Hindu. I'm not sure how reliable those sources are - they seem like glorified blogs. The harm is it is denigrating Ananda Samarakoon's legacy based on inuendo that is sourced to 2011. BlueLotusLK (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is probably getting metta now but a lot of new online journalists look at Wikipedia especially in a developing country like India. For the longest time this article said Tagore wrote the national anthem disregarding the more widely held view that Ananda wrote it which is what most likely inspired those new articles you present. 01:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper and magazine blogsPolicy shortcut:WP:NEWSBLOGSeveral newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

All the new sources you found are of very low quality and from 2015 which would give rise to the fact that they were influenced by your original sources including the Haroon article. The Indian Express article is a column and not by a significant author. The book is by a self publishing company. Those two are clearly not reliable. NewsX is a tv network and not a newspaper. And the Hindustan Times and the India Today don't even have a credited author. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

By this policy Haroon's article which is filed in the opinion section of the Hindu shouldn't be used as a reliable source for statement of fact as attempted to be done with this article. 08:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I also question the reliability of the Daily Star considering its Wikipedia article states that it has admitted to running false articles. 08:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

With that only 3 of your sources - Hindustan Times, NewsX and India Today - do I have no strong specific argument against based on policy. That is certainly a fringe view especially when the material being cited only make up one or two lines at most in these sources. BlueLotusLK (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Though I would argue WP: CIRCULAR for these 3 - This is Wiki at the time of the Hindustan Times and News X article in May 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Matha&oldid=659275665 after a revert by you, Obi. And here it is in August time for India Today's article blatantly saying Tagore wrote the anthem after more editing by you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Matha&oldid=672388878 BlueLotusLK (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are totally wrong to state that "For the longest time this article said Tagore wrote the national anthem". It wasn't until April 2012 that the article mentioned Tagore's connection. The article was created in August 2003 so for nine years the article only mentioned Samarakoon. Here's the version of the article when Haque's (7/5/11) and Habib's (17/5/11) articles were published - no mention of Tagore.

WP:RS are WP:RS - it is not up to you decide who is low quality (Indian) and who is high quality (Sri Lanka). The Hindu, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times and India Today are national news outlets with editorial oversight. You accuse the Indian sources of being blogs but in fact, if anything, they are opinion pieces. Before you interfered all views, irrespective of whether they were opinion pieces or not, were attributed in accordance with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG.

Many of the arguments you use to exclude Indian sources may also be used to exclude Sri Lankan sources. For example, Kamal Wickremasinghe's article is an opinion piece. Wickremasinghe isn't a journalist, he's a medical researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Australia. Hardly makes qualified to comment on the matter. Wickremasinghe is Sinhalese nationalist whose jingoist articles have been lapped up by racist websites such as sinhalanet.net and lankaweb.com. He has been criticised in mainstream media such as The Island.

If you are going to use WP:CIRCULAR to exclude recent sources that say Tagore wrote the anthem then quid pro quo we should exclude any sources prior to April 2012 which state that Samarakoon wrote the anthem because they may have copied from Wikipedia. This would apply to Sunil Ariyaratne, Gaveshaka, Sarasaviya, Sumana Saparamadu and Gerald Wickramsuriya.

Finally, here are some more sources that mention Tagore's connection to the anthem: Ashis Nandy, Sushmita Seb, NTV, Bipin Dani, Aakanksha Singh and Mamun Rashid. None Sri Lankan I'm afraid!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's okay! I have the SRI LANKAN CIA and Lonely Planet cuz I only look at Sri Lankan sources unlike the global Eelamist you are! And I don't have to worry about WP Circular because I have plenty of sources that precede the creation of wikipedia and 2011 unlike you! Sunil Ariyaratne, Geral Wickramasuriya and others have personal experience in the industry unlike your online Indian journalists. And we can do away with Kamal if he's not to your liking as he is not needed because the two sources he was being used against have been found unreliable! Although I think a doctor is more than qualified to counter a senior airline official. The article said Tagore long enough to influence the series of 2015 articles you are pushing as sources. I didn't say wiki influenced the airline official or the freedom fighter. BlueLotusLK (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you yourself concede that your sources are opinion pieces read WP: RS which state that opinion pieces can NOT be used to back up statements of fact. Now either present a source from the WEST (cuz they are likely to have even a minimal level of fact checking) and not a developing country or find other ways to discredit the Sinhalese. This is not going according to plan. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I know there is a disagreement here but where exactly is the issue in the text of the article?Peter K Burian (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In the history section. At this moment the section begins with the official and widely held view that Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed "Namo Namo Mata" inspired by his education under Rabindranath Tagore. Later it mentions the claim that Tagore in fact wrote the song which originated in 2011 - nearly 70 years after the fact - from 2 Bangaldeshi opinion pieces. Obi wishes to feature this claim as unchallenged alongsides the more widely supported view to make it seem like there's a major disagreement over authorship when the claim he is supporting was only seen in 2 articles from 2011 and later parroted in Indian newspapers in 2015 after it was made the only accepted view here on Wikipedia by Obi. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian newspapers have a long history of making errors. See some examples of their professionalism in 2015 the year they said Tagore wrote "Namo Namo Mata": https://www.buzzfeed.com/sahilrizwan/everyone-makes-typos BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: I'm afraid BlueLotusLK has not given a fair description of the dispute, the history of the this article or the sources. Please check for yourself. Here are the relevant paragraphs BEFORE BlueLotusLK unilaterally changed them:

"There are differing accounts as to the origin of the Sri Lanka Matha. According to K. M. de Silva, Howard Wriggins, The Times of India and IBN Live, Ananda Samarakoon was inspired by Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore. Rupavahini, Sunil Ariyaratne and R. K. Radhakrishnan state that Samarakoon returned to Ceylon from India around 1938 and wrote Namo Namo Mata in October 1940, whilst teaching at Mahinda College, inspired by his learning under Tagore.{{Source needs translation}}{{Source needs translation}} According to Sumana Saparamadu, Samarakoon had been asked to write a patriotic song by the Chief Inspector of Schools for the Southern Province T. D. Jayasuriya. Nayomini R. Weerasooriya says Tagore helped Samarakoon write and compose the song. However, according to Bengali journalists Haroon Habib and Junaidul Haque, Tagore wrote the music and lyrics for Nama Nama Sri Lanka Mata in 1938 in the Bengali language for his student Samarakoon. According to them, Samarakoon then returned to Ceylon in 1940 and translated Tagore's song into the Sinhala language Apa Sri Lanka, Namo Namo Namo Namo Matha, Sundar Sri Boroni. After the song was sung by the choir from Musaeus College at a public event it became hugely popular in Ceylon and was widely played on radio."

Here are the relevant paragraphs AFTER BlueLotusLK unilaterally changed them:

"Ananda Samarakoon had been asked to write a patriotic song by the Chief Inspector of Schools for the Southern Province T. D. Jayasuriya., Sunil Ariyaratne and R. K. Radhakrishnan state that Samarakoon returned to Ceylon from India around 1938 and wrote Namo Namo Mata in October 1940, whilst teaching at Mahinda College. K. M. de Silva, Howard Wriggins, The Times of India and IBN Live say Ananda Samarakoon was inspired by Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore. It was first sung by students in Mahinda College Galle. After the song was sung by the choir from Musaeus College at a public event it became hugely popular in Ceylon and was widely played on radio.

A Bangaldeshi columinist and senior airline official named Junaidu Haque writing for the Daily Star asserted in May 2011 that Tagore wrote the Sri Lankan national anthem and gave it to Samarakoon. A subsequent search by Dr. Kamal Wickremasinghe of the complete works of Tagore in original Bengali - the 30 volume Rabindra Rachanavali - failed to show any poem by Tagore that resembles "Namo Namo Mata.""

-obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's doing anything unilaterally it has been Obi. The history of this talk page is littered with people who disagreed with his decision but got shut down by his persistence and manipulation of wiki policy. And the before version he is offering is a compromise he made from his preferred version which gives precedence to Tagore. He had to abandon this after being confronted with overwhelming evidence against it and contrived a way to keep the Tagore theory alive as seen above. BlueLotusLK (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be citations in favor of both users' point of view. As in any situation of this type, the quality of the source quoted must be evaluated. Is it recent? (preferable to old articles) Is it in a news medium that is highly respected and does fact checking? e.g. New York Times or Toronto Star in North America; other sources in Asia, of course but I am not familiar with the news media there. An editor who is more familiar with Asia would be capable of evaluating the quality of the sources cited by each user.

There is a web site that rates newspapers in Sri Lanka but I don't know if that is reliable. http://www.4imn.com/lk/

Here is one way to find information that is recent. In Google mark past year only. e.g. https://www.google.ca/search?q=tamil+national+anthem&rlz=&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=N8V2WNroJoKgjwTGxKWQAw#tbs=qdr:y&q=origin+sri+lanka+national+anthem

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To avoid any possible biases be it pro-Sri Lankan or pro-Indian, I have provided a source that is neutral and from the last year - the CIA World Factbook. I think that is authoritative and should settle the matter. BlueLotusLK (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Note the original version of the Sri Lankan anthem - "Namo Namo Mata" is in Sinhala not Tamil. The NTV source that Obi linked to claims that what Tagore wrote was translated to Tamil and then made the National Anthem. This is absolute ignorance of the basic nature of what is being discussed and illustrates the invalidity of his sources. I don't think his sources are even aware that a majority of Sri Lankans speak Sinhala. BlueLotusLK (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest article to weigh in on the issue from December 2016: http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/zOfCp6dOuYqYw3KL28QcgP/The-national-anthems-moment.html And it says Tagore inspired Ananda Samarakoon. BlueLotusLK (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many recent articles in major newspapers about the origin. Some of them discuss this topic in more detail than the quotes I have provided below. (I am not sure why anyone would find it difficult to find recent sources from major news agencies.)

• The anthem, called “Sri Lanka Matha,” was authored by Ananda Samarakoon, a student of Shantiniketan. It is said to have been influenced by Rabindranath Tagore. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/sri-lanka-iday-to-have-anthem-in-tamil/article8189939.ece
• The anthem, called “Sri Lanka Matha,” was authored by Ananda Samarakoon, a student of Shantiniketan. It is said to have been influenced by Rabindranath Tagore. Criticising the government’s move, Uday Gammanpila, leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya , said there is no Constitutional sanction for the action. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/sri-lanka-iday-to-have-anthem-in-tamil/article8189939.ece
• The original Sinhala song written by Ananda Samarakoon has been translated into Tamil by poet Muthuthambi. And the music score is the same. Therefore these hardliners are nothing but extreme racists who reject anything Tamil and who are trying to take our country backwards. Tamil speaking people of this country have been using the Tamil national anthem for the last 65 years until a group led by Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila opposed it in 2010 – Leader of the Democratic People’s Front Minister Mano Ganesan ..... “The original Sinhala song written by Ananda Samarakoon has been translated into Tamil by poet Muthuthambi. And the music score is the same. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2015/03/22/national-anthem-in-tamil-mixed-reactions/
• Most of you readers must be aware as to who composed our national anthem. It was Ananda Samarakoon.

On his return from Shantinikethan, Rabindranath Tagore's School of Music and Dance, he set a new style both in the composition of songs and in singing which were very different to the Tower Hall style then in vogue in Ceylon. The songs were in simple every-day Sinhala and the tunes appealing to the masses. Ananda Samarakoon has admitted that he was greatly influenced by the Tagore school of music this was in the late 1930s.

• It is on record that Namo Namo Matha - now Sri Lanka Matha - was composed while he was a teacher at Mahinda Colege, Galle. T.D. Jayasuriya then Chief Inspector of Schools for the Southern Province had suggested to Samarakoon to compose a song that would inspire a feeling of patriotism in the listeners. Namo Namo Matha was his response to Jayasuriya's suggestion. He called it a Jatika Geeya national song. Samarakoon has made a note in one of his books that he composed it in October 1940.

This fact was stated in an article in the tabloid Nava Yugaya of Nov. 5, 1984. It was first sung in public before W. Dahanayaka, then Mayor of Galle. He was accompanied by Elain de Silva with whom he had earlier sung the duet Endada Menike. Two years later in 1942 he sang Namo Namo Matha in a 'Sarala Gee' programme on Radio Ceylon. This time he was accompanied by a pupil of his, Swarna de Silva who was then his partner in singing duets. The song first appeared in print in 1943 in a book of songs titled Kumudini with a foreword by T.D. Jayasuriya. Namo Namo Matha and some other songs that Samarakoon sang with Swarna de Silva were recorded by H.M.V. the gramaphone record company. http://www.hirunews.lk/125414/origin-our-national-anthem

• It was in 1951 that newly independent Lanka adopted Shantiniketan-trained Ananda Samarakoon’s Sinhalese-language song “Sri Lanka Matha, Apa Sri Lanka” as the national anthem. Simultaneously, a Tamil version, “Sri Lanka Thaaye Nam Sri Lanka”, composed by the Lankan Tamil poet, M.Nallathambi, was also adopted. For decades, both versions were sung, although only the Sinhalese version had constitutional sanction. http://www.adaderana.lk/news/30176/sirisena-allows-singing-of-lankan-national-anthem-in-tamil#sthash.PdpkXKbA.dpuf
• The Sri Lankan National Anthem was written and composed by the late Ananda Samarakoon in 1940. It was officially adopted as the National Anthem of Sri Lanka on November 22, 1951, by a committee headed by Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne. Samarakoon who was a student of the great Indian musician Rabindranath Tagore and reportedly the tune had been influenced by Tagore's genre of music.
• The Sri Lankan national anthem was translated into Tamil by M.Nallathamby and for decades, both versions were sung without any restrictions, although only the Sinhalese version had constitutional sanction. As the majority of Sri Lankans speak the Sinhala language, theSinhala version of the National Anthem is mainly used in Sri Lanka for State and private events. The Sinhala version is also the only version used during international sports and other events. http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2015/03/22/fea15.asp Peter K Burian (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

YES! Thank you! would you agree then that when the subject is the national anthem itself and it is discussed in detail Ananda Samarakoon is credited as the writer and composer inspired by Tagore and this is the only viewpoint that really needs to be included in the article? BlueLotusLK (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

These sources bear a great deal of information more than what is present on Wikipedia at any point of the article's existence unlike the sources provided by Obi and thus would not give rise to a question of WP:Circular. They are also not identified as opinion pieces passing WP:RS. Due to these two factors they seem more credible. BlueLotusLK (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

References