Talk:State-sponsored Sinhalese colonisation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the State-sponsored Sinhalese colonisation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

On 16 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonization schemes to State-sponsored Sinhalese colonisation. The result of the discussion was moved.

Very biased and lacks factual, historical sources

All the sources in this article (except for Library of Congress's country studies article and the article from Jaffna University Teacher's Association) are from pro-seperatist and political groups with extreme biases and disputed historical accuracy.

Some of the words used in the article, such as "colonization" and "traditionally-Tamil lands" are controversial and are considered by some as "allegations". The casual use of such terms does not address or explain the politically sensitive nature of the controversy.

The article also leaves out important sociopolitical and historical facts pertaining to the issue such as economic conditions of the country at the time, whether the resettled land had previously been occupied, the economic status of the settlers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Vohra (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

economic reasoning

While important to the grand scheme of things in relation to the SL situation, this article solely relies on the perceived intentions to state sponsored colonisation and not the economic reasoning behind it.

traditionally ??

i think the preson should first check the dictionary and the read a couple of histocal books about our history..Well, iam highly interested to see the evidence for those traditionally tamil lands or tamil-homelands as they say. thanks--Iwazaki 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulative /Kilinocchi

The heartland of LTTE is the area around Mulative and Killinocchi..Ironically both these districts were newly created and government encouraged tamils who were living in densly areas in jaffna to settle there.Esp during the time of DS Senanayake this colonization took place,and as a result these districts became (more)inhabited.Editors of this article have left this part, also totally ignored the economic aspect of this decisions. I will add this information as soon as i get my details ready. --Iwazaki 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete This page

Some of the Tamils who live out side of Sri Lanka try to mislead the world with the word Traditional. Sri Lanka had it's own developed civilizations since 500BC. The kingdom of Rajarata (UNESCO World heritage site - whc.unesco.org/en/list/200/ ) ruled the Island more than 1700 years (543Bc to 1200). Where were those Traditional land owners in that era when Kingdom of Rajarata ruled Island from northern part ? Kingdom of Jafna start to exist when Tamil invader Kalinga Magha invaded and destroyed Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215 and hide from heavy vanni forest from Pollonnaruwa due to native resistance started from Dambadeniya kingdom. Kingdom of Jafna established when Malik Kafur exiled last South Indian : Pandyan king in 1323 and annexed Madurai to powerful Dilhi Sultan administration. When 1323 Tamils too withdrawn from Vanni since they lost help from Pandyan. After losing Pandyan help Jafna Kingdom was very weak. After 100 years of establishment , in 1450 Sinhala King Parakramabahu6 invaded Jafna and re unified the Island. Then again it was exist another 125 years until Portuguese invaded in 1600. When British started Tamil Colonization in Vanni in 1905, Vanni was a vacant area. Now it has been a traditional Tamil land for some Tamils who live out side of Sri Lanka. This page is a joke. These people trying to spread a myth against a UNESCO world heritage site which ruled Northern part of Lanka over 1700 years(543BC-1215). Pandyan ruled Vanni for 100 years (1215-1323). It was ruled by Kingdom of Kandy for 200 years. British ruled Sri Lanka 150 years. It was under Sri Lankan government since 1948. . How long Jafna kingdom which exist 250 years ruled Vanni? --Himesh84 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Delete template but not sure what to do. The page is too biased and have too many Tamilnet Citations and Taminet is not reliable and only shows things strictly from the perspective of Pro-Ealam.Admins should take care of the rest...I guess UMDP (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, part of the global campaign supporting ltte terrorists

Facts in this article and many other articles related to Sri Lankan Tamils seem to be manipulated by pro tamil eealm diaspora members in an organized attempt. Seems to be part of their global campaign to mislead the world on the their socalled traditional lands. This lacks credibility and obviously written in a biased manner, highlighted ONLY THE FACTS showing discrimination towards Sri Lankan Tamils but intentionally hiding the separatist movements and the acts committed by those. Navaka Navaratne — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TamilNet

Is the site TamilNet a trusted reference? --Lee (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:RS.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unreliable and biased sources

Greetings!

I have removed references in the article from Tamilnet and a PDF document hosted at sangam.org published by the "LTTE Peace Secretariat". I believe a source from a designated "terror group" can hardly be considered unbiased. Tamilnet historically has been allegedly providing a front for the LTTE and other separatist movements whilst publishing unverifiable claims about the war and its aftermath. However, If you do find unbiased sources to back up the claims please feel free to add them and leave a note here. You can check my changes here. Thank you.

- R5bckv (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R5bckv:: This is nothing but racism. Just because Tamilnet is a Tamil media source it is instantly discounted. Whereas Sinhalese and European media sources get a pass. For example, during the war time Tamilnet was the only English media source covering the war crimes and atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan state, case in point:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18447

International media and Sinhalese media refused to cover these crimes, partly due to media censorship, and also due to bias as most European governments were involved in the war against the Tamils:

http://www.ptsrilanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/britains_dirty_war.pdf

And if they did say anything, they parroted the racist Sinhala government lies covering up countless atrocities. During the final stages of the war in 2009 it was only Tamilnet which released the evidence of the mass atrocities, but no Europeans or Sinhalese gave it any credibility because of racism. Lo and behold years after when a European media source says the same things in their killing fields documentaries and No fire zone movie, it now become truth.

"publishing unverifiable claims"

Please tell me how the Vankalai massacre is unverifiable? I see a clear massacre of men, women and children. And the thousands of other murders which Tamilnet bravely covered when no one else would. Please tell me how these crimes can be documented on wikipedia when ONLY Tamil sources document them all.

As user :@Obi2canibe:: says it's a WP:RS and should not be removed, just because of Anti-Tamil racism.Oz346 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oz346 Thank you for your swift response as always. I dont really see as to how this could be racism. If it passed off that way I convey my deepest apologies. Lets go at this with facts and not emotions shall we? Alright, so TamilNet has been deemed as "pro-LTTE" virtually everywhere it is cited (not by me), and with good reason (hailing the LTTE as freedom fighters, not covering attrocities committed by the LTTE, almost exclusively covering attrocities committed by government personnel, etc etc). If a source is being cited in Wikipedia, it has to be unbiased. In a situation like that using TamilNet as the only source in a politically sensitive topic, is rather reckless and not appropriate for the verifiability of content in Wikipedia. I am not denying or confirming anything thay may or may not have happened, I am simply underscoring the need to have a better source. "International media and Sinhalese media refused to cover these crimes...", Im not sure as to how that is true? Sri Lankan media, sure, you could say maybe the government silenced them, but International media? Look at Channel 4 and what they have been doing. Channel 4 is a reliable source, they have built up their credentials where as TamilNet has not. I dont personally have anything against TamilNet, Im merely raising concerns about the reliability of the sources. Please add a better source if you have access to any. Please see WP:NOTRELIABLE. Also please be a bit more professional in discussions, leave out the emotions. Thanks. -R5bckv (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oz346 also please clarify how a document published by the "LTTE Peace Secretariat", unbiased? As it seems it directly falls under WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUB. Thanks. R5bckv (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Alright, so TamilNet has been deemed as "pro-LTTE"

All mainstream Sinhalese media is pro-Sri Lankan army and pro-Sri Lankan government, I don't see you removing all those news agencies sources from Wikipedia. They have been guilty of covering up mass atrocities committed against Tamils consiste Metta79 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistently. They have been so successful that the average sinhala thinks the SLA has never killed a single Tamil civilian.

Channel 4 only reported on these atrocities when the horse had already bolted. Only tamilnet documented these atrocities during wartime. It's really disgusting that you only give Tamils room to recognise their dead well after the crime committed and conspire to cover up the reporting of these atrocities when they were occuring under the guise of 'pro-ltte' source Metta79 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of Sinhalese regard their rapist and mass murdering army members as war heroes. But you seem to have a double standard. Metta79 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R5bckv::"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."

Tamilnet does not have a poor reputation for checking facts or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Their editor in fact was murdered by the Sri Lankan government for his truth exposing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraki_Sivaram

In the few Tamilnet articles that have also been covered by international press (e.g.channel 4), Tamilnet's accounts have been corroborated and vindicated. So to paint Tamilnet as "unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" and WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUB is not accurate. Tamilnet is based on the works of grassroots Tamil journalists, many of whom have been hounded out of the country such as A. Lokeesan, or even worse killed:

https://www.silencedvoicesfilm.com/synopsis.html

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/02/new-film-tells-stories-of-sri-lankan-silenced-voices-journalists-forced-into-exiles/

Calling them as WP:SELFPUB is unfairly branding the whole of homegrown, grassroots Tamil journalism as not proper simply because it has no government backing or international presence.

No media is free of bias, and Wikipedia recognises this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

Oz346 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metta79 Oz346 thank you for your responses. I have been polite and reasonable about this whole issue. I DO NOT want to whitewash any party. The war was brutal. And countless civilians and fighters perished, Im not very sure what all this hate I'm getting is all about. Anyhow, This is a simple matter of reliability. Also I did not at all say TamilNet was WP:SELFPUB. I claimed the so called report published by the LTTE is. And cannot be used as a reliable reference. In the case of TamilNet, as I said earlier, is a matter of reliability. Also Wikipedia is not a place to direct hate at any party no matter what your personal opinion is. If there are reliable sources, you may cite them. Sad to see this discussion has yielded no fruitful outcome. Please look at sensitive issues like these with an open mind. If you can, please cite another reliable source alongside the TamilNet source if you really do believe the TamilNet reference is needed. Thank You. - R5bckv (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R5bckv::I have removed the LTTE source and added census sources.Oz346 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oz346 Thank you. Please consider adding additional sources where TamilNet is referenced if any, to further validate the content. - R5bckv (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R5bckv:: Kanthalai used to be a Tamil majority area, its only after Sinhala colonisation as it become a Sinhala majority region in recent times. The first full census in 1911 calls it as Kantalai.Oz346 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/censusofceylon1900ceyl

p178

Oz346 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oz346 Hi, apologies for the very late response. I was on a break. You are absolutely right, thank you for citing a reliable source as well. However the name of the area currently is "Kantale" not "Kantalai". The same way the city in Turkey is Istanbul and not Constantinople, that does not mean it was not formerly called Constantinople. Thank You. R5bckv (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to State-sponsored Sinhalese colonisation (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonization schemes → Sinhalese colonization – The current article title is too broad compared to the content, which focuses solely on contested colonization schemes in the north and east where Sinhalese were settled. There are many "Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonization schemes" throughout Sri Lanka, including in the wet-zone, and there schemes where Tamils were the majority of colonists. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposal. Oz346 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Firstly, I'm objecting the removal of "state-sponsored" from the title. The main reason that these schemes were controversial was that they were carried out by the state for political reasons: state land was given to an ethnic group different from locals in order to alter the demographics of the area and thereby thwart the demands of Tamils for autonomy. Secondly, I don't think there's any need to limit the content of the article to colonisation by one ethnic group - the article is quite small at the moment so there is no issue in adding other colonisation schemes. If, at some time in the future, the article does get too big, then we can split using some appropriate criteria.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially change it to "State sponsored Sinhalese colonisation schemes"? Oz346 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we add stuff about colonization schemes that are not related to the ethnic conflict, the page will get massive. There are plenty of schemes outside the north and east, and even among those in the north and east, there are non-political things to discuss like the technical successes and failures of the schemes by X, Y, or Z metric. I'm fine with Oz's proposal. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not convinced there is enough content to warrant having separate articles for each ethnic group, I'll go along with Oz346's suggestion.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, what about "State-sponsored Sinhalese colonisation"? just to make the title more succinct and less wordy. Oz346 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with me.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.