Talk:Sri Lankan Tamils/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sri Lankan Tamils. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kuti

What about men who never marry? Do hey remain in the Kuti they were born into? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They stay with their birth kudi but cannot inherit land or temple ownership as they are apssed along the female line.Taprobanus (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit 3

As someone who writes about South Asian topics for a primarily English-speaking audience, surely you must know that many of us have very little familiarity with your subject. I found I require a lot of help in understanding many of the terms for groups of people. Please remember that your readers will need assistance in identifying these new words, understanding what they mean, and remembering them for the entire article. For instance, in this passage: They follow a caste system similar to the South Indian or Dravidian kinship system. The Eastern Tamil caste hierarchy is dominated by the Mukkuvar. The main feature of their society is the kuti system. Although the Tamil word kuti means a house or settlement, in eastern Sri Lanka it is related to matrimonial alliances. It refers to the exogamous matrilineal clans and is found amongst most caste groups; men do not remain members of the kuti of their birth, instead joining the wife's kuti upon marriage. Kuti also collectively own places of worship such as Hindu temples. Each caste contains a number of kutis, with varying names. Aside from castes with an internal kuti system, there are seventeen caste groups, called Ciraikutis, or imprisoned kutis, whose members were considered to be in captivity, confined to specific services such as washing, weaving, and toddy tapping. I don't know how the caste system in South India is unique (help me). I don't know who the Mukkuvar are - can I get a brief explanation to help me remember them? What are they known for? I have to understand kuti very quickly in order to understand and read beyond the word. Can you put it this way: "The main feature of their society is the kuti system, a unique caste hierarchy where members are related by matrimonial alliances..."?

It would make better sense to me to state how the first people arrived at Sri Lanka. The first sentence in Pre-historic period discusses Veddhas as if I, or other readers, know who they are. Walk us through how the island was populated, please. Step by step. Can you change that to state "The first inhabitants of Sri Lanka are believed to be the Veddhas..." and then go into a discussion of their culture?

I find it's easier to understand and follow the article if you discuss facts first, then evidence. For instance, These villages were established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE is after information about archeological excavations. The fact that's most important is the settlement of villages and when they were settled. That sentence about archeology should be after the most important sentence. I found the same paragraph structure in Historic period. Try restructuring the article to move this way in a paragraph: Facts about people (where and when settled, attributes and characteristics), evidence that supports their history (including artifacts, works of art, and accomplishments), and observations by anthropologists, including quotes to describe peoples and societies.

Can you include a map identifying where these groups of people were located? That would help loads.

I moved the image placement because the article looked a bit sloppy on my browser. I just don't know what to do with that Sri Lankan Tamil People template, but the blocking of text between that and the image of the Koneswaram Hindu Temple looks bad.

Scartol told me never to start a sentence with "There" and I thought he was joking. How can you not start a sentence with "There"??? I hate it when other people are right. Only I should be right...

Difficult to understand: In 1949, the United National Party government, which included G. G. Ponnambalam, leader of the Tamil Congress, stripped the Indian Tamils of their citizenship Is the point of this sentence that the Indian Tamils were stripped of their citizenship or Ponnambalam was in the government? I think it's the citizenship thing. If so, please remove the information that detracts from that. If you want to place it elsewhere, that's fine, but I don't understand why these two issues are related.

In Society, what separates or makes these groups unique? Language? Culture? History? This should be the utmost top in describing how many different groups there are and what makes them different. Right now, it's language, and regional, I think. I can't tell. This should be the first sentence in the Society section: "Sri Lankan Tamil people are categorized into X groups based on (language?). Of these, dialect and other cultural attributes further separate inhabitants of the island into XX subgroups."

I know you've worked hard on this, but I am unable to move past the confusing text. I think the article needs a rewrite, and I'm willing to help you, but when I have to pick apart paragraphs like this, it doesn't appear to be ready for FAC. Anthropology and groups are very interesting to me. I've always been fascinated with different cultures. But the writing assumes the reader knows too much to be basic, it uses terms and concepts that are naturally elementary in Sri Lanka and completely foreign to other places. I can't understand the terms, and I have no context to draw upon for these things to make sense to me. You've lost me before I began, and I need too much help to get caught up to speed. I know that I can be fascinated by these people if you show me how. Let me know if you want assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I fond the following sentence to be somewhat misleading.

The study of the genetic admixture also indicated that the Tamils of Sri Lanka have received a higher genetic contribution from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka than from the Tamils of India.

It insinuates that the Ceylonese Tamils are not tamils per-se but have sinhalese as ancestors. Let me quote the original text from G.K.Kshatriya's article.

The Bengalis, the Tamils, and the Veddahs are considered parental populations for the Sinhalese. The Bengali contribution is 25.41%, the Tamil (India) contribution is 69.86%, and the Veddah contribution is only 4.73%. Thus the Sinhalese have a predominantly Tamil (India) contribution followed by the Bengalis and the Veddahs. The fusion of the Veddahs and the Sinhalese was recorded in the ancient chronicles of Sri Lanka (Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa) as early as 543 B.C., but the Veddahs were subsequently pushed to the inhospitable dry zone for a long period of time under pressure from early colonizers.
By studying the Sri Lankan Tamils, one can see that the Sinhalese, the Bengalis, and the Indian Tamils can be considered ancestral populations. The contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20%. Similarly, the Bengali contribution is 28.17% and that of the Indian Tamils is 16.63%. The results indicate a predominant influence of the Sinhalese (who already have a high contribution from the Indian Tamils) and the Bengalis to a lesser extent.

The Article clearly states that " The results indicate a predominant influence of the Sinhalese (who already have a high contribution from the Indian Tamils)" << . [i have made the pertinent line bold; for readability purposes] .Its obvious from the article that the Ceylonese Tamils do have a prominent Sinhalese influence who in turn have an overwhelming Indian Tamil influence. So in order for the article to to be objective and for better clarity; I would like the statement "who already have a high contribution from the Indian Tamils" included right after the sentence that goes "The study of the genetic admixture also indicated that the Tamils of Sri Lanka have received a higher genetic contribution from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka than from the Tamils of India.". This would make a reader(who does not know much about this issue) understand the background for this. And I strongly believe that this clarification should be added (it was even added in the original article by G.K.Kshatriya!) for the sake of academic clarity and to stop any confusion that might arise from the current wording which is woefully inadequate and academically misleading.

Starsiege (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC) starsiege

Anti-Tamil Sinhala extremists are vandalising the history section of this article with distortions. How can we revert the page to how it was before? Nagadeepa (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this section. It was comparing the Sinhalese and Tamil population combined to other ethnic groups. This article is about Sri Lankan tamils, not Sinhalese people. It doesn't make any sense to combine both ethnic groups and compare it to other ethnic groups. (If that's going to happen, then why not combine it with every other ethnic group on the planet and compare). Contribution does not insinuate ancestry, it just means contribution. There has been intermixing in the population for over 2000 years now. Hence each group has contributed to each other. I fully accept that the Sinhalese have a high contribution from South Indian tamils. But this is an article about Sri lankan tamils. That information should be in the Sinhalese article. Which it will be soon, as I'm writing an entry on it. I think you're trying to say that Sri-Lankan tamils and Sinhalese are similar because they both have South Indian ancestry. But it doesn't work like that. If you compare each ethnic group individually to South Indian tamils, they are more closely related to each other than South Indians tamils. Wikinpg (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious issues in tone

There are quite a few points in this article where the tone is far from encyclopedic. For instance, what is "alternative history"? This makes no sense. There is only "history". You cite what the most mainstream theory is and give it precedence while acknowledging any pertinent disagreement. The whole section sounds like an author making an argument. Encyclopedia's don't have authors, just editors. These mistakes are blatant here:

"With more than 100years of archeology, yet NO proof of either a Tamil Kingdom nor the existence of Tamil populations in the North or East of Lanka."

An encyclopedia NEVER adds its own emphasis. That is ridiculous and smacks of POV. And here:

"I have already referred to the gold plate inscription of Vasabha discovered at Vallipuram and to the Nainativu inscription of Parakramabahu I."

I? Seriously? First person in an encyclopedia? This is POV and, actually, quite ridiculous.

The entire history section needs to be rewritten to be more in line with WP standards. The single biggest issue is editors using religious texts as historical texts and making their own points with them. This is not allowed on WP. You can only use notable scholars interpretations of such texts and their take on their historical significance. Right now whoever edited this is acting as a scholar themselves, which is not allowed. If there are two or three scientific/archeological theories for the history of tamils in sri lanka then each should have a short section, citing only scholars and studies and that is all. Anything else is original research. The theory with the most mainstream acceptance should given precedence. As it is right now the history section doesn't meet wiki standards and is also quite unreadable. Capeo (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

False 'alternative history' to blame for issues

A Sinhalese extremist is distorting the article with the false 'alternative history'.

Firstly the following statement is an absolute falsehood:

"When concerning the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka is a violent one, has always involved an invasion"

The history of Tamils in Sri Lanka does not always involve an 'invasion'.

Trade, cultural, religious and political movements and linkages have played a more important role in social transformation than military conquests or mass migration:

http://www.languageinindia.com/march2006/tamileelam1.html

"Jaffna it would seen:1. Has no cultivated lands[15]. 2. No settled populations[16]."

This is absolute nonsense. Jaffna has had a settled population since the early iron age. The fact that the portugese themselves conquered the Jaffna Kingdom in 1619 obviously means that there was a settled population in the centuries just before the 19th century.

Furthermore, Robert Knox an Englishman who visited the island in the 17th century states in his famous book:

"From Anarodgburro it is two dayes Journey further thro a desolate Wilderness before there is any more Inhabitants. And these Inhabitants are neither under this King nor the Dutch, but are Malabars, and are under a Prince of their own."

'Malabars' was the word Knox used to describe the Sri Lankan Tamils who were settled in the North of the country:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14346/14346-h/14346-h.htm#d0e16600

"Although not even a single Tamil inscription belonging to any of those so-called Tamil rulers of Jaffna in and around the Jaffna District"

"In fact the oldest Tamil inscription found in Jaffna, was in Nagadipa by the Sinhala king Parakramabahu Raja, regarding ship wrecks and taxes on Urathota(Kayts)"

This is also false. Professor Indrapala wrote this in his 1965 thesis before the discovery of potsherds with early Tamil writing from the 2nd century BCE in Poonagari, Jaffna. (See under heading 'historic period').

Furthermore, the burial ground of an early iron age chief was discovered in 1980 in Anaikkoddai, Jaffna. In the burial ground a skeleton of the chief was found with a seal with a Tamil inscription in the Brahmi script saying 'Ko' which means 'King':

http://www.mail-archive.com/varalaaru@yahoogroups.com/msg00011.html

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm

Professor Karthigesu Indrapala has updated his findings in a recent book 'The Evolution of an ethnic identity' (2007) and mentions all this. Sinhala extremists selectively quote his work in 1965 but refuse to acknowledge any of his recent and updated findings up to 2007 because they do not fit their Anti-Tamil agenda.

"The Eastern Tamil, came much later in time. This is confirmed by Sir James Emerson Tennet in 1840, who in his letters to the Colonial Office in London, confirms that the East is also ready for Tamil settlements as was done in Jaffna[21]."

Again this is nonsense. Professor Dennis B. McGilvray an expert in Anthropology has written a book on the society and history in the east and clearly states that the Europeans encountered mainly Tamil castes and Tamil speaking Muslim communities in the east in the 15th century:

See Chapter 2 - Past and present:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MTh4pixlifYC&dq=tamil+and+muslim+east+society&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=k6saQrTxsf&sig=FON2ueCdf8-JJ4JHJrbn7ooRKYs&hl=en&ei=sdsKSoevNOGrjAfJrqiXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA55,M1

Nagadeepa (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go. The current history section is far, far better. Capeo (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also concerned about Guyan46's alternative history. I have tried to remove his additions twice but each time has re-added them. He has resorted to personal attacks, accusing me of using sockpuppets. His alternative history has, at the moment, been removed from this article (although it is still on Jaffna kingdom and Jaffna) but no doubt it will be re-added in due course. I have no desire to get involved in edit wars, personal attacks or old arguments so here are my concerns:

The crux of Guyan46's main argument is that the Sri Lankan Tamils have been living in Sri Lanka for less than 200 years, having been brought over from India by the British during the middle of the 19th century. This flies in the face of evidence cited in the rest of the article and the evidence provided by Nagadeepa.
Guyan46 uses two main sources to support his assertions: The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon by Rev Fernao De Queyroz and the Colebrooke-Cameron Reforms. These two pieces of work have long been the bone of contention in the Sri Lankan conflict. Extremists on both sides tend to pick out parts of the works that support their assertions whilst ignoring the parts which do not.
Does an alternative history have a place on an encyclopedia? If it does, wouldn't it be better in a separate article and linking to it on all related articles, perhaps under the See also section as with the denial of the Jewish Holocaust? This would be better than defacing a number of articles with the same information as Guyan46 has.
If the alternative history is to be included in the article shouldn't it be positioned after the generally accepted history? On the Jaffna kingdom Guyan46's alternative history is at the beginning of the article. This is an old tactic used by Sri Lankan nationlists who like place their contributions towards the beginning of the article or even in the introduction.
What is the point of this scan of census data? It doesn't prove Guyan46's assertion that 265,000 Sri Lankan Tamils suddenly 'appeared' in Jaffna District because it doesn't have any data before 1881. All it's doing is taking up space on an article that is already too long.
Similarly, what is the point of this child's drawing?

Obi2canibe (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly can I say that the people associated with this page are either Tamil or Sinhalese and most of us, if not all of us are Sri Lankan so lets not go and childishly "attack" each other calling them Sinhalese or Tamil extremists and so on.

I have read what both of you have said and I know that both of you a obviously concerned, but in fact there is an "alternative history" to the Jaffna Kingdom in particular, and it is even stated briefly in the opening paragraph in the history of Jaffna Kingdom, "Some historians believe that there was an independent kingdom in Uttaradesa (northern part of Sri Lanka) during the classical Sinhalese kingdom period, which is contested by Sri Lankan historians."

I believe that the alternative history should be stated on Wikipedia to show both contrasting views, but obviously some people have a problem with it being on the main page so I suggest Obi2canibe's idea of having its own page with a paragraph linked to the Alternative history of the Jaffna Kingdom.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither Tamil nor Sinhalese. I'm an American who came here because I was curious about the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. What I found was a very poorly written history that didn't use primary sources. WP's policies are simple and straight forward. All evidence must be from primary sources that represent the mainstream consensus. An editor cannot draw conclusions only state the conclusions drawn by verifiable mainstream sources. If one disagrees with the mainstream sources that is, quite honestly, too bad. An encyclopedia is not a place for soap boxing. As it is now the history section is workable though it would still be nice to see links to research papers or books than some of the websites. It does seem to reflect what the preponderance of scholars and archeologists agree upon though. If there is a theory that is well sourced and disagrees with the mainstream consensus then it may deem a small section if it meets notability requirements. What I read in the prior history seemed to meet none of those requirements. It seemed like synthesis and original research.Capeo (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "primary sources". Wikipedia has actually a policy which cautions against the use of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY); I suppose you are referring to secondary/tertiary sources. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your quite right. I'm misusing primary sources. I am indeed referring to secondary sources. Apologies. Capeo (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia tends to have a systemic Western WP:BIAS, it appears to me that a lot (not all) of Sri Lankan historiography falls under WP:FRINGE and should be dealt with accordingly. This is true for both sides in the conflict. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Check this link for Tamils presence in Jaffna and Wanni before the portuguese arrive in Sri Lanka and also when Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka, It is total nonsense to deny Tamils presence in Island as well denying their Kingdom of Jaffna

1. History of Wanni 2. Eelam's country History 3. History of Jaffna 4. Ancient Coins of Sri Lankan Tamil Rulers 5. Ancient Jaffna Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

central discussion

I have created a central spot for discussion relating to the history of Jaffna, which seems to be a topic on several talk pages. Please raise your concerns and suggestions there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people.2C_History_of_Jaffna.2C_Jaffna_kingdom Jasy jatere (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian and Roman Catholic minority?

Catholics are Christians!! Please fix it. --Againme (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In Sri Lanka, protestants are, weirdly enough, called "Christians", which stands in opposition to "Catholics". But for an international audience, this should be fixed. You can be bold and do it yourself. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot. This article is currently subject to editing restrictions... --Againme (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetic studies

Genetic studies indicate that they are closely related to the majority Sinhalese people. <-- can someone alter this in the article. There is no citation or evidence. Tamils and Sinhalese are not related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.57.92 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the reference. The Sinhalese and Sri Lanka tamil gene pool are very similar. I am in the process of writing a "Genetic relationship" section for the sinhalese article and there are lots of studies showing no significant genetic difference with regards to blood groups, SNPs and other genes in the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan tamil population. I'll let you know when it's done.(It's done)Wikinpg (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamils

I have used the section of article from Sri Lankan Tamils to Northern Province, Sri Lanka. I fany one have disagreement with me. kindly contact me. Thank you.--BlueLankan 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamils in India

Text and/or other creative content from Sri Lankan Tamil people was copied or moved into Sri Lankans in India with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

--JAIKAYY 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading and direct lies on Tamil Loanwords in Sinhala

Kuiper does NOT say 'Tamil loan words in Sinhala also follow the characteristics of Sri Lankan Tamil dialects'. What he says is this - "From these data it may be inferred that there is, in Trincomalee as well as in the Jaffna district, a form of speech in which the medial plosive phonemes are more or less voiced between vowels and after nasals. (!This is a feature from 1350 AD to 1800 AD) This type of Ceylon Tamil is also reflected by such loan-words in Sinhalese as agil, abin, adaya from Tamil akil, apin, atai. On the other hand, the other dialect with voiceless plosives is not confined to Ceylon. According to personal communication of Dr. H.J. Pinnow (Berlin) the same phenomenon is met with in the south of the continent, from Cape Comorin to Tiruchendur up to about Tinnevelly-Palacottah, where [rapa:l] and [pa:mpu] is the norm. Apparently the Ceylon dialects cannot well be studied as isolated forms of Tamil but will finally have to be considered in the wider context of Tamil dialect geography as a whole" => Meaning =>> there is no such differentiation between Tamil Nadu and Jaffna Tamils as you calim, and these features are also present in Tamil Nadu SriSuren (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He further stresses that the theory that Jaffna dialects' voiceless plosives preserves an antique feature cannot be attributed to what u claim here, namely that Jaffna Tamils have lost contact with mainland Tamils, and have been living in Sri Lanka from pre-Sangam times. He says also, that he can't accept the arguments as decisive in one place and he stresses it again by saying that ' 'the claim that this feature is antique lack foundation As far as I can see, he rejects this 3 times. ' SriSuren (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Further if this is true, how come the Tamil loan words in Sinhala is from Jaffna Tamil? There's is no consistency in what you people say. SriSuren (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Loan words in Sinhalese

The article originally read "Tamil loan words in Sinhala also follow the characteristics of Sri Lankan Tamil dialects" quoting Kuiper. Now you have reproduced the journal article here for everyone to see. I fail to see why any editor cannot write basically what was written in the article about the loan words quoting Kuiper. Deleting that sourced information is vandalism, what I suggest you do is to add to it say that such features are also found in "some" mainland dialects. What was written before was not misleading or a lie. Please maintain civility while you discuss here. I intend to discuss every issue you bring, line by line and intend to improve the article along theway. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

I just reverted to an earlier version to remove sentences like ″number of Sri Lankan Tamils, many of whom thought to be LTTE combatants or sympathisers, have sought refuge in countries like Canada and Australia". This sentence, for example, is not supported by the reference given.

Under the education section there is this sentence " and this work force, refused to learn or speak Sinhalese, was supposed to serve the country, which was predominantly (70%) Sinhalese". This was clearly a false representation of what is said on the source given. The source does not say that the the work force refused to speak sinhalese. If you haven't noticed this article is listed as a good article. To make such edit you must provide a reliable source and must avoid WP:Synt.

Finally I agree with Kanatonian. This user has provided the journal that he is getting his information from. Furthermore, the sentence that the user wants to keep is actually in the journal. All argument against the "Loan Words in Sinhalese" topic is WP:OR and none really relate to the issue at hand. The issue here is that SriSuran wants to remove cited material but does not give any solid argument against the material. Watchdogb (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Well integrated"

I was reading the article and noted the phrase "The Tamil Canadians are a well-integrated group...", and followed the cite out of curiosity. I note that the cited page doesn't make any reference to how well the Tamils in Canada are integrated - it really just gives numbers, says they're mostly in Toronto, and then gives a history of the Sri Lankan conflict. Perhaps someone linked the phrase to the wrong cite? I'll remove it unless someone can point to something I'm missing. (Remove the cite that is - I won't remove the phrase but will add a request for a cite.) Random name (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Srilankan tamils cannot be considered as a different ethnic group

Both Srilankan Tamils and Indian tamils are one and the same people(with just 15 km of water separating them). How come Srilankan tamils considered as different ethnic group ? Only nationalities of these 2 groups are different. Other than that its same ethnic group.

The first line in this article should be modified to reflect Srilankan tamils are part of tamil ethnic group which is found in Tamil nadu state of India and North eastern part of Srilanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugunth (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's what Sinhalese politicians do: divide et impera, it's quite interesting that in statistics on Sri Lanka's provinces there is no info on mother tongue, only on ethnicity (with Tamil split into: Sri Lanka Tamils and Indian Tamils) and religion. Truth to be told, all Tamils in Sri Lanka have Tamil as their mother tongue which is identical in its written form to Tamil Nadu Tamil(as expected as this language is diglossic and all spoken variants are not considered prestigious), and also most Muslim and Catholic people in the hill region and on the North and East Coast have Tamil as their 1st language.

So, bring some linguistic statistics of Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil community in Malaysia

Your article currently states that the Sri Lankan Tamil community in Malaysia numbers 24,436 according to a census in 1970. I feel that you should update that figure as it is obviously far greater than that now. I imagine that Singapore would also have a sizeable community of Sri Lankan Tamil descent that is probably worthy of mention. Prajiv Proctor (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Find us a reliable source and we can add it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Naga people is not a custom used only by Dravidians. It is common custom find in tropical climates including Amazon. Time to Time Kingdom of Rajarata was ruled by 10 king sinhala who are from Naga tribe. http://mahavamsa.org/mahavamsa/simplified-version/kings-of-sri-lanka-131ad-to-238ad/

Mahallaka Naga (135-141 CE)
Bhatika Tissa (141-165 CE)
Kanittha Tissa (165-193 CE)
Cula Naga (193-195 CE)
Kuda Naga (195-196 CE)
Siri Naga (196-215 CE)
Voharika Tissa (215-237 CE)
Abhaya Naga (237-245 CE)
Siri Naga II (245-247 CE)
Vijaya Kumara (247-248 CE)

The person who wrote "People of the Maldive Islands" didn't had any significant idea about Sri Lankan People. Sinhala which came from siw + hela meaning four natives. Raksha, Yaksha, Naga, Deva are the tribes belongs to siw hela which unified when king Pandukabhaya unified the Sri Lanka. The history of Sri Lanka Naga gone far beyond era mentioned in Ramayanaya. Indrajit , Raksha price married to a Naga princess. No one can prove that Naga princess is Tamil.--Himesh84 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To Obi2canibe - Don't believe my word. I have referenced Mahavamsa which is used as respectable source to find the history in South Asia. It shows 10 Sinhala Naga kings who ruled Kingdom of Rajarata. Having 10 kings it is sufficient to understand about Sinhala Naga. Also Lord Buddha visited Kelaniya (Near Colombo) as a invitation from Naga King. It is a Sinhala dominated area. If you don't know the formation of Sinhala means Siw (four) + respected natives (Hela). The formation was happened when whole Sri Lanka was converted to Buddhism. Raksha,Yaksha,Naga,Deva who were identified by their worships lost identification over formation to one Religion. These are not my findings. These are well known things in historical books. This clarification is more than enough to source the Sinhala Naga power. Logically it needs only one fact to falsified a claim. But here we have many. That's why I removed the sentence. Having above facts it will automatically falsified the sentence (if any. I can't find any sentence about Sri Lankan Naga in his book) by author referenced by you.To support your sentence (by this author) you have to prove that things in Mahavamsa,... etc are false and unreliable. If it is reliable you have to accept there were Sinhala Nagas and all Nagas were not Tamil--Himesh84 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Himesh84,

The Sinhalese are also known as "Hela" or "Sinhala". These synonyms find their origins in the two words Sinha (meaning "lion") and Hela (meaning "pristine"). The name Sinhala translates to "lion people" and refers to the myths regarding the descent of the legendary founder of the Sinhalese people, the prince Vijaya. The royal dynasty from ancient times on the island was the Sinha (Lion) royal dynasty and the word Sinha finds its origins here. This is want Mahavamsa defining to 'Sinhala'. Your claim about the name for Sinhala has NO evidence at all.

Your claim about the NAGA kings it may be good for an argument. Let me clarify you few think,

- When Vijaya landed in Ezham( an ancient name of Sri Lankan - If you want I can give the evidence to you, if you failed to find it by your self.) there was two native peoples in Ezham, they are NAGAs and IYAKSA. There are lots of evidence in Mahavamsa also. Please refer it first. Its means there is NO EVIDENCE to connect NAGAS and IYAKAS with Sinhalese .
- It has been already proven by many schoolers that NAGAS and IYAKAS are belongs to Dravidian civilization category. Further, NO one give the evidence that they are Sinhalese. Because all the schoolers agreed that Sinhalese are Indo-Aryan.
- If you claim that NAGAs were Sinhalese just only because of NAKA's were ruling Rajarata, its seems childish. If you claim like that, anyone can say British also Sinhalese in future.
- Finally, king Ravana, Indrajit are Tamils and they ruled in Langapuri. And the Mandothari, wife of Ravana and mother of Indrajit is a NAGA girl.

So, Please understand the actual facts and don't edit/change the contents that have been already accepted by schoolers. Thank you.

Shayanthan Kanaganayagham (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

- Please stop your none senses. Who are the schoolers ? May be still going to school.

Ravana is Sinhalese- http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/SriLanka/Ravana-is-a-hero-for-Sinhala-nationalists/Article1-249335.aspx

- Ezham may be the tamil name. Lanka is the Sanskith name. It was using since Ravana time. Better you learn from me if you don't know.
- Nagas,Yakkas may be part of Tamils. But I suspect Tamils don't have patent on it. Nagas,Yakkas worshiped in many topical countries. Not only in India or Asia.
- I know Mahavamsa better than you. Vijaya is Indian. Then Padusadev is Indian. But king Pandukabhaya is a combination of Indian and Sinhalese. Sinhalese (Yaksha) supported the Yaksha price Pandukabaya. He foundaded the Anuradhapura kingdom and kingdom was again back to Sinhalese from Indian. All these legions are written in the Mahavamsa. Scholars accepts Sri Lankan Tamils are people who came with Magha's invasion. Rest of the people considered as none other than Sinahalese. Tamils calls as Sri lankan tamils today are not descendant of who (may be Tamils) lived in Sri lanka before 1215. People who lived in 1215 are only ancestors of Sinhalese.They were expelled from Rajarata by your ancestor , the great barbarian thief Kalinga Magha. No surprise his descendants are inherited from him. This is my last contribution - Himesh (Temporary Blocked by an idiot believing shameless effort of promoting Ealam concepts, believing fake facts and well contributed by LTTE. I don't know why that MF didn't deleted my account. If you know let me know how to delete my account or how to get delete it. I know Tamil idiots may well aware these kind of things. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.165.54 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article is a dog's breakfast. All readers of this article should use great caution in believing its contents to be complete and accurate.

Neutrality , Original research -

This article has clearly biased content. This page trying to link all possible thing tags as Tamil to show the history. But authors haven’t been able to prove the relationship between Tamils lived in Sri Lanka before 1215 and people identified as Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka. In 1215 Sri Lanka faced to a major invasion of their entire history. This led natives to abandon the Rajarata Kingdom of Rajarata. But authors of the page not provide facts to support Tamils who lived in the kingdom in 1215 joined with Kalinga Magha’s clan who later became Sri Lankan Tamils. But this conflicted in History. Later Sapumal kumaraya , adopted Tamil prince of Kotte king Parakramabahu had invaded Jaffna Kingdom in 1455. After the death of king, Sapumal Kumaraya came back to the Kotte (Colombo) and became the king. So authors of this article have assumed Tamils before 1215 joined with Magha in entire document.

Pre-historic period

Historic period

Also irrelevant things have used to show the history.

Excavated ceramic sequences similar to that of Arikamedu were found in Kandarodai (Kadiramalai) on the north coast, dated to 1300 BCE.

South Indian type Black and Red ware pot

There are Roman coins, Greek coins, things made in china has found in different areas of Sri Lanka. But this doesn’t say Roman,Greeks,Chinise people lived in Sri Lanka.

Lack of references -

There are facts without citations. More than 70,000 people and the forced disappearance of thousands of others,….. There are many places citations are not provided for numbers.

Factual errors -

Also many factual errors are in the page. Jaffna's history of being an independent kingdom lends legitimacy to the political claims of the Sri Lankan Tamils, and has provided a focus for their constitutional demands.

It was a independent kingdom only from 1343 - 1600 . It was freed from Pandya empire in 1343 when Pandyan(Madurai) was defeated to Delhi Sutanate. From 1215-1343 it was a part of Pandyans and milatary familly aryacharkrawarthy ruled as a minister. Jaffna was destroyed by Portugese in 1600 and Tamil king's family was exilled and executed. It was a dependent from 5th BCE to 13th century to kingdom of rajarata

People in the Vanni districts considered themselves separate from Tamils of the Jaffna peninsula but the two groups did intermarry. British records clearly proves British started dry zone civilization bellow Jaffna penisula in 1936. Also Sri Lankan history shows Tamil withdrawn from Wanni to Jaffna in 1343 when Sinhalese rise after the defeating of Pandyan in India.

There are many factual claims in this page --Himesh84 12:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a good article. It has 168 in line citations. And yet you place these tags? This is clearly WP:POINT. I have tagged Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka so you have tagged this article and Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. This and your other behviour over the last week has shown your true character - childish and unimaginative. Please grow up.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The tags, citation required tags are 100% correct and 100% required to prevent readers getting mislead. But there are severe issues in logic and major claims. This page is clearly an original research in the big picture.
The page builds upon 3 major but very weak claims (99.9% fake claims) and unable to give references to major claims even it has over 150 online citations to depend unrelated facts. Unrelated facts used to prove the claims but relation between events haven’t been depended yet. Relative pages (Jaffna_Kingdom, Kalinga Magha) linked by authors are conflicting with the claims and are confirming that claims are 100% fake. I think this page need a massive cleanup to remove fake claims.

These are the 3 major claims in the page.

- Sri Lankan Tamils are natives to the Sri Lanka
- Sri Lankan Tamils has long history in Sri Lanka
- Jaffna kingdom was stable independent kingdom for very long period.

Authors haven’t been able to provide facts that the ancestors of “Sri Lankan Tamils” lived before [Kalinga_Magha|Kalinga Magha’s Rajarata Invasion] in 1215. First Tamil Kingdom (not Tamil kings who ruled Sinhalese kingdom) in Sri Lanka (Jaffna Kingdom) started to appear around 13rd or 14th centuries. Authors haven’t able to provide details about Jaffna kingdom or any other Tamil kingdom before 1215. Also statistics clearly shows independent Jaffna Kingdom only existed only for around 300 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.30 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does it state "Jaffna kingdom was stable independent kingdom for very long period"? Where does it state there was "Jaffna kingdom or any other Tamil kingdom before 1215"? Nowhere. You still haven't learned Himesh84. Wikipedia has no place for your games. Please edit using your registered account rather than dynamic IP addresses.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is every where.

Jaffna's history of being an independent kingdom lends legitimacy to the political claims of the Sri Lankan Tamils, and has provided a focus for their constitutional demands. (This says Tamils have a right to separate constitution (alternative word for separate country)). But it doesn't say how long it was independent. For new constitution it would require much more time than just 300 years. Using words "right for new constitution" in the sentence, it imply Jaffna was independent kingdom for at least 1800 years ( Sinhalese of "Rajarata" (kingdom) ruled Jaffna 1800 years from 543BC -1215)).

native to the South Asia island state of Sri Lanka.

Negombo Tamils, or Puttalam Tamils, are native Sri Lankan Tamils who live in the western Gampaha and Puttalam districts.

In the 16th century the area came under the nominal control of the Kandyan kingdom, but there was considerable local autonomy under native[citation needed] Vannimai chiefs.

Tamils who came to the Sri Lanka in 1215-1343 are the only ancestors of group called as "Sri Lankan Tamils". It is also state in this article. If it is the fact why authors trying to mislead readers using words like native,separate constitution ? Why you trying to claim rights of the Tamils who lived before 1215 (in 2BCE) and moved with Sinhalese in this page ? Sri Lankan Tamils (SLT) are not descendants of those ancient Tamils. Ancient Tamils moved with Sinhalese. Ancestors of SLT know it very well when their kingdom was destroyed by ancient Tamils in 1450. Sri Lankan Tamils can use word "native" only if Sri Lankan history started in 1215. But it is not List of countries and islands by first human settlement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.168.53 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

While I suppored your right to make these comments, please note that they are useless for Wikipedia unless they are supported by reliable sources. We're not here to argue about history, we're here to discuss how reliable sources discuss the history of the Sri Lankan Tamils and then summarize those sources with respect to due weight. Please do not attempt to turn this into a more general discussion on the subject of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What I am trying to say in here is none of the above claims (stated in my previous comment ) are not backed by any sources. Those statements should not allowed at first place. Himesh84 made citation required tags for above claims in the article. But these people removed them without providing either reliable or non reliable sources. Providing of sources to back claims ( Sri Lankan Tamils are native to Sri Lanka, SLT have a right for new constitution ) is a responsibility of the authors who wrote the article. But here unethically they are not providing sources to back claims in the article. But they deleting citation required tags. So we have to disprove them in the talk page. That's what I did.

SLT are not native to Sri Lanka Since they came to Sri Lanka in 1215 and any of the written history haven't mentioned about any Tamil kingdom before 1215 and Sinhalese had Kingdom in Sri Lanka since 543BC. Source to disprove these things not needed to provided. Those are there in the article. Fake claims build upon the real history. The article already contains SLT are the descendants of Jaffna Kingdom. Then in Jaffna kingdom, it was founded in 1215 from the Magha clan of India. ^[1]

Also in the Jaffna kingdom page it says Portuguese destroyed Jaffna kingdom around 1600 and executed last king of Jaffna. So Jaffna kingdom was ended around 1600.

Tamils who lived around 2BC are ancestors of Sinhalese. They moved with Sinhalse. Tamil prince Sapumal_Kumaraya and his clan who lived with Sinhalse destroyed the Jaffna Kingdom in 1450. He ruled Jaffna 17 years before comes to claim the Sinhalese kingdom after his adopted fathers (King of Sinhalese) dead. Kotte was ruled by mixed of Sinhalese and Tamils blood.^[2]

Since authors not provided sources to back claims and I have disproved it using history in references, I believe following claims should be removed from the article.

Jaffna's history of being an independent kingdom lends legitimacy to the political claims of the Sri Lankan Tamils, and has provided a focus for their constitutional demands

native to the South Asia island state of Sri Lanka.

Negombo Tamils, or Puttalam Tamils, are native Sri Lankan Tamils who live in the western Gampaha and Puttalam districts.

In the 16th century the area came under the nominal control of the Kandyan kingdom, but there was considerable local autonomy under native[citation needed] Vannimai chiefs.

Sri Lankan Tamils have a very long history in Sri Lankan history and have lived on the island since around the 2nd century BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.20 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] A History of Sri Lanka, p.91-92

[2] Architecture and Identity By Peter Herrle, Erik Wegerhoff page 491

[1]

[2]

Other Sri Lankan Tamils in the article image?