Talk:Sri Vikrama Rajasinha

Name of Article - Edit Conflict

There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included".

Secondly, Tamilan101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.

Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.47.97 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.143.123 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make the following changes to the Infobox

If someone could edit the following in the infobox that would be much appreciated: 1) Change: "Consort to" to "Consort(s)" 2) Change: "Offspring" to "Issue"

These changes would make the infobox more consistent with other wikipedia pages concerning monarchs, the current rendering sounds somewhat archaic and stilted (monarchs are seldom described as a "consort to" to their spouses, to avoid confusion between queen and prince consorts etc.).

P.S. I have tried to make the changes myself, but for some reason they do not seem to be taking effect.

Writing Vikrama Rajasinghe's name in Tamil

Is there a reason for writing Sri Vikrama Rajasinha's name in Tamil too? It is the same as written in English. Do the Tamil readers of this English Wikipedia find it hard to read his name in English? Writing the name of the Kandyan kingdom in Tamil is alright, because it is different in Tamil than in both Sinhala and English. Sri Vikrama was ofcourse king for all Sri Lankans, so he was important for the Tamil people too, especially since the most of the north and whole of the eastern province of the island was also under the Kandyan kingdom. Also the Kandyan kingdom, which was the continuation of the Sinhalese monarchy from Vijaya's line was important for all Sri Lankans. But he was not a Sri Lankan Tamil or Tamil of any sort, but a Sinhalese Buddhist king with Telugu (i.e Andhra) ancestry. (He adopted Buddhism long before his coronation). Are we write his name in Sinhala and Telugu as well? SriSuren (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Sri Wikrama Rajasinha was a king of Telugu origin who spoke Tamil. He was not of Sinhalese origin in any way, though he supported the views of Sinhalese people. He is of Hindu religion but he adopted Buddhism after. Since he was a king who spoke Tamil, his name must be written in Tamil on this article as well.(Tamilan101 (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

The Tamil and the English names for the king is the same, therefore there is no need to write it using the Tamil alphabet. I suppose everybody reading the English Wikipedia, can read English. Avoid unnecessary lengthening of the article, and laying unnecessary weight on the language the king supposedly spoke. The Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, and the king most definitely spoke Sinhalese. Also if you are going to write the name in Tamil, according to Wikipedia rules you have to give the transliation, which ofcourse is the same as English. Sri Wikrama Rajasinhe was born in Kandy and his father was Pillimatalavuva according to some scholars, so that makes him a Sinhalese. I'll be adding this information and other information soon. The references you have given for your last edit are TOTALY unreliable, and therefore your edits are undone. See section below for reasons. --SriSuren (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just a clarification that Sri Vikrama Rajasinha's father was Venkata Perumal (d.1787) and not Pillimatalavuva as you stated above. This is mentioned in the current version of the article and is based on the official family trees of the royal family (including British pension records). The assertion that Pillimatalavuva was his father goes against official records and is based on rumour and unsubstantiated speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.27.22 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SriSuren, how on earth a Telugu origin Tamil speaker is Sinhalese for you! Is this the history of all Sinhalese according to you.Why name of your president Mahinda Rajpaksa is in SINHALA in English wikipedia! Do Sinhalese who can read English have SELECTIVE blindness when it comes to the name of that man alone  !? (Arun1paladin (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Arun1paladin)

@ Arun1paladin Clarification:Sri Vikrama Rajasinha is NOT a Sinhalese by Ethnicity but he is the last King of Sinhale (Country) and Sinhalese.Further he was NOT a King of Tamils and he was NOT a Tamil too.MediaJet talk 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

References and undue stress on the unimportant issue of the ancestry and languages of the king

Your 5 edits from 8 January 2012 and undoing Blackknight12's edit, is totally unaceptable and you are concerntrating on the ancestry of the king and the language(s) he supposedly spoke and trying to make that the main issue of about this king of the Sinhalese Buddhist kingdom of Kandy. This king did many other things and is important for other reasons than his knowledge of laguages or his ancestry, which you are totally incapable of grasping. Also your references are totally unreliable. Reasons: Your 1st reference: The Continuum complete international encyclopedia of sexuality - the sentence after the one you are interesed in states that Sri Wikrama Rajasinhe signed a peace treaty with the British, and abdicated his throne. Which is completely wrong. Sri Wikrama Rajasinhe didn't sign the Kandyan convention, and he didn't abdicate his throne. Therefore your reference is totally unaceptable and unreliable.

Your 2nd reference: Frontline, Volume 15, Issues 1-8. Refers to a writing by S. Rangarajan for Kasturi & Sons. The authour is not an historian and was a former judge of Delhi Court. Moreover, your edit which claims that the court language was only Tamil is not supported by it.

Sri Wikrama Rajasinhe most probably didn't even speak Tamil, since he was born and brought up in Kandy, a place which was almost exclusively Sinhalese upto the time British annexed Kandy to British Ceylon. Some Sinhalese kings did have, part Tamil ancestry, but this one didn't, he was a Vaduga. --SriSuren (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tamilan101: Ref. your revert which is the third or maybe even more than third revert of the same edit, Do not undo my last edit without discussing here first. Your edit contains several disputed and irrelevant issues, which you are trying to give prominence. These are the issues with your edits:
1. stressing on the language supposedly spoken by this king by writing his name only in Tamil, and claiming that the court language was only Tamil. Go to any other country's history pages, for instance the British - Do they stress that the kings spoke English? How stupid would it be, if I wrote in all the Sri Lankan kings' article pages that they spoke Sinhalese? This is irrelevant to mention - especially in the first sentence, and the fact that you have to stress so much about the king supposedly being a Tamil speaker shows that speaking Tamil was not the normal thing to do in the Kandyan kingdom. :) :) :).
2. Giving him an alias. He was not known by any alias as king.
3. Ignoring that he ruled prior to the British gaining control of Sri Lanka, and British Ceylon was established only after this king was deposed. Explaination: So you can't state this: "Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)", because Ceylon did not exist. There's no such thing as Kandy in Sinhala, the name for the Kandyan territory was Sinhale (Sinhalaya or Thun Sinhale) - this is the name which was remaining parts of the Sinhala kingdom after the various foreign invasions, both Tamil and European. All Kandyan kings, were sworn in as Buddhist kings of Sinhalé. That is the title they took. Not Kannasamy, as you have written. (I'll write in these things in the relevant articles with proper references....)
4. The king was born in Kandy.
5. The two references you have given are not reliable as stated and explained clearly above- one written by a Tamil non-academic person, and the other clearly stating wrong things (eg. claiming the king signed a "peace treaty" with the British....).
6. The state religion of the Kandyan kingdom was Buddhist - you had asked me for references - it is like asking references to the earth being not flat. :) (I'll add some references there if you want - but you need to read some more about Sri Lanka). The ancestry or the languages of the king didn't matter at that time, it does not matter now either - you are trying to give undue weight to these things to promote a policital view. The king ruled a Sinhalese kingdom, and he was born in Sri Lanka and he spoke Sinhala not Tamil. He had relatives in south India, who might have spoken Tamil, but the Vadugas were Telgu speaking.

IF YOU UNDO AGAIN WITH DISCUSSING HERE AND COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, I'LL ALERT THE ADMINISTRATORS NOT ONLY ABOUT THIS, BUT ALSO OTHER NON ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR FROM YOU. --SriSuren (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I gave you 1 day to come up with your referenced sources and still none. Bakcup your radical claims by sources(if there is any). Sri Lankans dynasties don't all have to be Sinhalese. The Kandya kingdom reigned over many Tamil speaking areas as well. You state so many claims without reference. You have no right to claim which is a real source or not. The ancestry of this king CLEARLY does matter because he was not a normal Sri Lankan king (either Tamil or Sinhalese), he was a Nayakar from South India. He was known as Prince Kannusamy to the Tamils of the island. It does not matter which state religion they had, the fact is that this dynasty had Hindu elements near the end but at the same time embraced Buddhism. You have absolutely no references or sources for all of your claims above. Don't delete referenced content, wikipedia gives right to everyone to write. This isn't your article, neither is myne, however I have proof to back up my claims. If there is an issue with the Kandyan Convention then go find a source to back up your point. I didn't claim he was a Tamil speaker, I clearly wrote that he was of Telugu origin but spoke Tamil as well. I'm not the type of user to be afraid of your threats here friend. Leave that for something else, don't delete referenced material which is a violation of guidelines and don't write in your POV which is also a violation.(Tamilan101 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

Your edits have serious errors and POV pushing and you have reverted the edit more than 4 times, adding more and more controversial edits and just concerntrating on how you can present this king as Tamil. Important facts about his reign and kingdom is not even mentioned, but it is only about distorting facts to Tamilize the king, and trying to present him as if he was ruling a Tamil kingdom. The Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, established and ruled by the Sinhalese monarchy, which was the continuation of the Anuradhapura kingdom.
Anyways, these are the problems with your edit:
a. Flasely claiming that the king had an alias called Kannasamy, and that he was known to the Tamils by the name of Kannasamy.
b. Entering that name in the infobox in the heading itself and then writing this Kannasamy as his title too. A title is not a name, but a title.
c. Writing the name of this Sinhalese king who ruled the last Sinhalese kingdom first in Tamil, as if he is a Tamil king. Also the name itself is not Tamil, but Sinhalese.
d. Writing his name in Telugu.
e. Claiming that the ONLY court language was Tamil in Kandy. Tamil might have been used by some of his south Indian Tamil speaking relatives as an additional language also in court, but it was not THE court language. The Kandyan highland was almost exclusively Sinhalese, until the fall of the Kandyan kingdom. Even your references do not support this claim.
==>>For the above reasons your edit is reverted except for the writing the name in Tamil and Sinhala scripts, which I will come back to, after consulting the adminstrators. Explainations for reverting your edits are given below:
1. What are my radical claims that you want me to back up with references? Specify.
2. The king didn't have an alias. He was the king, for God's sake!!!
3. He was not an ethnic Tamil. After arguing for several days, you yourself have admittedthat and saying "I didn't claim he was a Tamil speaker, I clearly wrote that he was of Telugu origin but spoke Tamil as well. ..." - Does it so warrant for this king's name to be written Tamil first? He was not a Tamil as you yourself has said here. A Tamil person is a Tamil speaker, if his origins are Telugu and he adopts Tamil, or spoke Tamil besides Telugu, he is still of Telugu origin, he might choose to keep his ethnic identity or become Tamil. In this case he was a Sinhalized Nayakkar of Telugu Hindu origin. He was fully incorporated into the Sinhalese, first undergoing teaching under the Sanga and then converting to Buddhism (see one of your own references), before he discarded his "Tamil" name and took the Sinhalese name and title Sri Vikrama Rajasinha and assumed the Sinhalese throne. The king's origin must be included in the article, but the whole story must be written, because leaving out the facts that the Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, and that he adopted Buddhism and was fully incorporated into the Sinhalese social system, gives the impression that the Kandyan kingdom was a Tamil kingdom. In addition to this you are claiming that the ONLY court language was Tamil and that he had an alias!!!
4. The first Nayakkar king (Vijaya Rajasinha) was adopted as son and heir by king Narendra Sinha in 1732 and came to power in 1739, when Narendra Sinha passed away. Even if the Nayakkar kings spoke Tamil, how can you claim "Tamil was only court language in Kandy". Your references (the reference by the Indian Tamil) states that the court language became Tamil, but even he does not say that the court language was ONLY Tamil
All the ministers (Adigars, Cheifs etc) were Sinhalese, how can the court language be Tamil?
5.The king didn't rule as a Hindu, but as a Buddhist as required by the ancient Sinhala kingship rules (I'll be additing a section on this later, maybe in a new article, and maybe you could help writing that and learn something new about the people you are so against). So mentioning that he was a Hindu and leaving out that he was sworn in as a Buddhist, gives the impression that this was a Tamil Hindu kingdom!!.
6. Info box: your writing in the info box that the king had an alias and entering the same alias as his TITLE and claiming that he was known to the Tamils as Prince Kunnasamy is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Can you give a reference that he was KNOWN to the Tamils by the name of Prince Kannusamy and this was an ALIAS? This is a king we are talking about!!! kings do not have aliases. Also, are there any Tamil works from that time which refers to this king at all? As far as I know, this person was not even in line for the throne, but Pilimetalava made him king and he became known as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, the name he took when he assumed the throne and it was after that he first became known even to the Sinhalese.--SriSuren (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, here is your problem, bring your references and sources to backup your claims! What do you not get? This is wikipedia. I have referenced numerous sources that claim he spoke the language Tamil but his origins was of Telugu. Language does not equate race. Understand that, or don't even bother editing articles on this site. You can write all you claims in whatever section of this article as long as their are sources to back it up. You claim everyone else was "Sinhalese" in the kingdom but can't find the proof? Don't waste your time with me. I have been showing you proof beyond proof. If you can find a source that claims he spoke Sinhalese then add it to this article. It could be added with Tamil. He was a Hindu, and this article is ABOUT HIMSELF. This is only the introduction to the article, the fact that he converted and supported Buddhist beliefs can be added to other parts of the article. Writing everything in the introduction is not necessary. What you mean by "Tamil works", that has nothing to do with this article. It doesn't matter who he first known to, but the fact is he is A NAYAKKAR of MADURAI which was embracing both Tamil and Telugu as a language. You have some very radical claims about his origins, but sadly wikipedia doesn't allow POV edits or history. IF you can find sources with what you have said then add it to the other parts of the article that will be read. However many sources have shown us that the Kannasamy was a Tamil speaker of Telugu origin, in this case he was a Dravidian. The king's name was Prince Kannasamy and I have sources for that also which I will be adding. The only edit I will change is the "Tamil was the only court language", where I will add Tamil was used in the court as said on the source given. Don't revert, or else I will report you. You are violating rules. I already have told you numerous times that if you bring your sources, then you can write it as well. (Tamilan101 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

He was a king who spoke Tamil as the original language. So Tamil must be arranged first. Also he wasnt reffered as Kannasamy by Sinhalese.(Tamilan101 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

He was not an ethnic Tamil. Also ruled the Sinhala kingdom. His significance is not his ancestry or what languages he spoke. You yourself have told that he was not a Tamil, but a Telugu. If he was not an ethnic Tamil, but a Telugu then shouldn't we write it in Telugu first? The fact is that he was a Sinhala king with Telugu ancestry and born and brought up in Kandy, and he spoke several languages, amoung others Tamil.

This was more explainations to my edit which I was about to post when you had already reverted my edit:

1. Please keep the threading of the discussion, so that it is easier to follow the discussion.
2. State your reasons for writing this Sinhala king's name who ruled the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy, with the Sinhalese Royal title and name of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in Tamil first.
3. State your reasons for writing this Sinhala king's name who ruled the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy, with the Sinhalese Royal title and name Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in Telugu.
4. State your reasons for writing this Sinhala king's birth name Kannasamy, which is a Telugu name only in Tamil.
5. Give a source which says that this KING had an ALIAS called Kannasamy. Moreover birth name is not an alias.
6. Give a source which says that this king's title was Prince Kannasamy.
7. Give a source which says the the court language was also Tamil in the kingdom of Kandy, which was esbalished in 1469 A.D., 339 years prior to Sri Wikrama Rajasinha became king. Because that is what your wording in the edit says. The court language of all the Sinhalese kingdoms was Sinhala. They might have used Portuguese, Dutch, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, French, English, Persian, Arabic etc when necessary, but the court language was Sinhala, in the Sinhala court. There's a difference in "the court language" and "a language used in court". When you state that "the ONLY court language was Tamil" and now somehow after debating for days you have gone down to "Tamil was one of the court languaes". What were the others? Why mention only Tamil. Count the occurances of Tamil in your edit of the first paragraph. The real situation is that Tamil crept into the court. If anything about the court language is to be mentioned the whole process of Tamil creeping into the Sinhalese Royal court, in the last years of this king's reign must be mentioned.
8. This an article is about a historical person with a historical significance. The historical significance of this king is not that the last 4 kings were Vadugas or what languages he spoke or his race (as u yourself say) or ethnicity, but amoung other things that with the fall of this king, the Sinhalese monarchy of 24 centries ended and the whole island came under British controll.
9. What I mean by 'Tamil works' is Tamil literature or writings, since you say that this Sinhalese king was known to the Tamils as Prince Kannasamy. The king, after he became king was not known to anybody by any other name than king Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. It is like Queen Elizbeth is not known to anybody as Princess Elizabeth, but as Queen Elizabeth.
10. Was he a Sinhala king with Telugu ancestry who also spoke Tamil or was he a Tamil king with Telugu ancestry and spoke Tamil?
12. Was the Kandyan kingdom a Sinhalese kingdom or a Tamil kingdom or Telugu kingdom?
From your own source :The Pilimatalavuvas in the last days of the Kandyan kingdom (Sinhalé) By Ananda Pilimatalavuva.
- Sinhala throne of Kandy
- Sinhala name of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha
- The kingdom of Kandy (Sinhalé)
- He was raised in Kandy
11. Whatever the ancestry of the king was, he was incorporated into the Sinhalese people and society, and ruled the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy (Sinhalé), his title was Raja/king not Prince Kannasamy and he didn'y have an alias.
12. Your edit does not contain historically important facts and have taken away important historical dates and is poorly formulated. There is a link to the articles of Madura Nayakas and Kandy Nayakas. Court language is not relevant at all. Also you do not know what the word alias means, you are mixing it up with birth name. Look it up in the dictionary link I have provided. I suggest you read some and understand the meanings of basic words. --SriSuren (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep claiming he is "Sinhala King" but with absolutely zero sources and references. I have already stated everything, however what is sad here is you keep reverting my edits to change history. Wake up buddy, history cannot be unchanged. I have watched all of your radical edits, which serve the purpose to erase the presence of Tamil speakers and the language itself from the island's history.

1. The name "Vikrama Rajasinha" can be used by Sinhalese. I am not claiming it is not, btw this name is of Sanskrit origins just as most names are in the South Asian subcontinent. You can trace the name Vikrama to Vikram which is a HINDU name. Raja=King, and Sinha=Lion, both names are of Sanskrit origin and are used by many speakers throughout the subcontinent including Tamils. The king was important to Tamils, Sinhalese and since his ancestry is traced to Andhra Pradesh origins, his name should be written in the language of the state which is Telugu. The Nayakkars of Madurai embraces both Tamil and Telugu, not Sinhalese. He may of supported the Sinhalese views, however is origins are Dravidian.
2. Language has nothing to do with ethnicity. If a Tamil from Jaffna moves to Colombo and is raised to communicate by the SInhalese language as well, that does not mean he is SInhalese. That individual will still be a Tamil, therefore, Prince Kannasamy's name should be written FIRST by his birth language which was Tamil. There are no sources that claim he spoke Telugu so his name will be written third. Sinhalese will used second after Tamil because he adopted Sinhala as a language and became a great iconic figure amongst Sinhalese people at the time.
3. The name Kannasamy is of Dravidian and Indic origin, not SInhalese and it is also a Hindu name, a religion that sinhalese do not follow. Kanna=Eyes, Samy=Swami(Sanskrit). Therefore, this name was used by the Tamils, not the SInhalese, so it should be written in Tamil. What is the point of writing a King's name in all 3 languages, when the name was only used by Tamils?
4. Here's your problem. Why don't you get sources for everything you have said? The Kandyan kingdom may have been a Sinhalese kingdom prior to Vikrama Rajasinha, however, it had noticeable Tamil rulers during the end. This is a "Sri Lankan" kingdom. Both languages, Tamil and Sinhala were used here, not exclusively Tamil like the Jaffna Kingdom, and not exclusively Sinhala like the Kotte Kingdom. It does not matter if it was a "sinhala" kingdom, it is evident that it was mixed. Why mention Tamil as the court language?, because that is what the source says. Like I said before, get some sources then come and edit.
5. The edit I will change here is the alias, as it was his birthname, so I will add his birthname in the article which is very important.(Tamilan101 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC))

1. So you accept that you didn't have a source which said that he had an ALIAS, after edit warring for over a week, and reverting my edits over and over again, even after I have explained in detail numerous times, that the king didn't have an alias??!!! It was the same with your claim that Tamil was the ONLY court language in Kandy. The behaviour you show breaks several of Wikipedia policies and is defined as disruptive behaviour, and is preventing articles getting developed. If you stick to quoting from sources, rather than trying to construct history and theories, then you can't write such idiotic things, like your claim about the king having an alias and the ONLY court language in the Sinhalese kingdom being Tamil. In addition to all this you resort to personal attacks !!!!
2. Please specify what claims I have made without sources and I will give you the sources.
3. Please find a source which specifically says that the Kandyan kingdom was not a Sinhalese kingdom, but Sri Lankan kingdom. A thin source just refering to it as a Sri Lankan kingdom is not enough, given the context of the discussion here, but the source must explicity say that the Kandyan kingdom was not a Sinhalese kingdom. The state called Sri Lanka didn't even exist at that time, unless ofcourse one equates Sri Lanka to Sinhalese, as many Tamil nationalist/separatists do. Moreover Sri Lankan identity is not only Sinhalese and Tamil, but includes the Muslims and Burghers. The people who were most after the Sinhalese in Kandy were Muslims, prior to the British occupation, and not Tamils. The Sri lankan identity does not include Telugus, Kannadians, Malayalees in India or Tamils in India. This king was a Sinhalese king, with Telugu ancestry. He was not a Tamil. If anything his ethnic identity was Telugu.
4. This king was born and bred in Kandy, and tutored in Sinhala, so he definitely spoke Sinhalese and as a member of the Nayakas who had lived in Kandy for generations he had adopted Sinhala and Sinhala culture and customs and gotten Sinhalized (eg. he had wanted Kandyan traditions for his funeral than Hindu traditions). He was definitely not a Sri Lankan/Eelam Tamil. Do you have any Sri Lankan Tamil literature or narratives of that time which even mention Sri Lankan Tamil's interactions with this king? Also did he speak Jaffna Tamil? Was he a Jaffna Tamil or Sri Lankan Tamil for this kingdom and the king to be considered also being Sri Lankan Tamil or Sri Lankan and not a Sinhalese kingdom? Just because some Tamils lived under the Kandyan kingdom the kingdom doesn't become Tamil. In that case it must become Muslim too. Applying your logic: the Jaffna kingdom was not a Tamil kingdom but a Sinhalese kingdom too, since the inhabitants in Jaffna were Sinhalese too, until Sankili's ethnic cleansing of the Sinhalese in late 16 th century (you want sources for this too, just mention it in the list of sources you want).
5. The Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, right upto the time it fell. Even if the kings spoke Telugu or Tamil or Hindi or Somali or Japanese, and even if it happened that the kingdom was invaded by Tamils or any other nation and occupied, it would still be a Sinhalese kingdom, and not a Tamil kingdom. If a Tamil king promoting what you are promoting, namely Tamil nationalism sat in the throne, it would be a Tamil occupation of the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy, it won't make Kandy into a Tamil kingdom. Kandyan is a specific identity, and it refers to the upcountry Sinhalese, and not "Sri Lankans" and not even the lowcountry Sinhalese, and definitely not to any Tamils or Muslims. The term Kandyan is synonymous with Sinhalese. Kandyan territory in the mountain areas are refered to as the "Sinhalese heartland". So, you must stop your false claims and fake theories. You can't claim that because Tamil was also spoken in the Kandyan territory the Kandyan kingdom was (also) Tamil. When this king fell, the English king was the king of Ceylon, and there were many English people living in Kandy, and even in the king's palace. Does it make Kandy an English kingdom?
6. Each and every claim you have made here, to justify writing this king's name in Tamil first, is either directly false, or one of your claims contradict another claim. The importance of this king to the Sri Lankan Tamils is as citizens of Sri Lanka not as a separate Tamil nation. This king fought for the sovereignity of the Sinhalese and the Sinhalese nation. If the Kandyan kingdom and its legacy and heritage and the Kandy Nayak kings are important to the Tamils, Tamils won't be acting the way they do. This behaviour and the claims put forward to justify the Tamil separatist claims, is tesitmony enough that king Sri Vikrama Rajasingha is not an important figure for the Tamils. What do you think he would have done if you presented him this?
7. The Nayakas of Kandy didn't have a Sri Lankan Tamil identity, neither did they speak Sri Lankan Tamil dialects. If they had any connection to the Tamil language, it was to the Tamil in the mainland.
8. Sri Vikrama Rajasingha is a Sinhala name. The Tamil form of this name is Sri Vikrama Rajasinkan, as you have written using the Tamil script in the article itself.
9. Answer to your point 4: According to the logic in your argument the Chola and the Pandyan kingdoms were not Tamil kingdoms, but Indian kingdoms. You must be really joking. The Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, as much as the Chola kingdom and Pandyan kingdom were Tamil.
10. Out of the many contradictory statements you have posted here to justify your many claims I am posting one here. Let the readers be the judges of how you twist and turn your own statements to push your POVs:-

You:"Language has nothing to do with ethnicity. If a Tamil from Jaffna moves to Colombo and is raised to communicate by the Sinhalese language as well, that does not mean he is Sinhalese. That individual will still be a Tamil, therefore, Prince Kannasamy's name should be written FIRST by his birth language which was Tamil ".

Here you are arguing against your first statement in your second statement and then in the third you come to your conclusion that his name should be written in Tamil first by introducing a new concept called "birth language" :)

• From your first statement it follows that since this king's ethnicity was Telugu his name should be written in Telugu
• From your second statement it follows that since a Tamil person from Jaffna who moves to Colombo and adopts Sinhalese, still remains a Tamil, a Telugu person who moves to Madhurai and adopts Tamil, still remains Telugu.
• But in the third statement you conclude that Tamil is the "birth language" of this person, therefore Tamil should go first.

So what exactly is your logic?do you see how you contradict your own statesments to push your POVs. If language has nothing to with ethnicity, why demand that Tamil be placed first? Also, when you yourself say that a Tamil from Jaffna who adopts Sinhalese is still is Tamil, won't a Telugu who adopts Sinhala or Tamil still be Telugu, and not Tamil. In several of your edit summaries and answers you have said that the Kandy Nayaks are Telugu ethnically, but have have adopted Tamil, which makes Telugu their original language (your own term), not Tamil.

This example is only one of many. I just posted it to illustrate how you are trying to do your POV pushing and in this case demanding something quite ridiculous and unreasonable as to writing this Sinhalese king's name in Tamil first. This is something the Tamils have absolutely no right to even think of, it is like if the British should ask the Russian Empress Catherine the Great's name tobe written first using English alphabet or for example in a Japanese article the British should demand that her name be written in the English alphabet first.
11. In your reverts you have deleted some information and added wrong information:-

• a. The children's name are wrong and the king is 20+ years younger to the people mentioned as his childres. Can you be the father of your grandmother?
• b.You have also deleted the the date of the Kandyan convention/treaty which is of the greatest significance.
• You have also taken out the referenced information that he grew up in Kandy, which you have previously rejected.

In other words you have deleted important information, and you are concerntrating only in writing in the Tamil script and talking about the Tamil language and other Tamil influence. It just shows just how important this king is to you. By the way what exactly is "Tamil speaking Hindu Telugu originated" supposed to mean? Its such disrespectful way to write about a king, and it is wrong English too.

The above explaination (with 11 points) refers to my revert of your (Tamilan101's) revert, which is a revert of the stable version Blackknight12 chose, asking us to resolve the issues, and your last answers. I have chosen a more neutral stable version than Blackknight12 , which does not have any Sinhala or Tamil scripts, as his had only Tamil script. You have reverted all my edits including significant information (see point 11 above), and not only the ones regarding the scripts and the king's socalled "alias" in your revert. You have also reverted the user MediaJet's edit. You must realize that there are some rules we must all adhere to. I have reverted your edit with what I think is a stable neutral version, if you want to revert that you can revert it and write in your Tamil scripts, but do your citations as specified in WP guidelines, instead of the link collection you have posted. WP:REF WP:CITEHOW WP:BOOKLINKS (I have posted this message in your userpage too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSuren (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC) --SriSuren (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, get yourself some sources that backup your claim. I don’t care what you have to say because it has no effect on me since it has no proof. So you could be fabricating these facts.
1. I did not claim the Kandy Kingdom was a Tamil kingdom, but at this point I don’t care what you say because I have proof that he was a king of Tamil origin by birth. Get your proof that he was “tutored” in Singhalese. Your claims at times are so radical and fabricated that they make me chuckle while reading them.
2.I haven’t claimed he was a ‘Sri Lankan Tamil”, are you hallucinating? He is CLEARLY a Nayakar from India and not a native Eelam Tamil with Naga origins. It doesn’t even matter if this king interacted with Tamils at all; the fact here is that he was a TAMIL speaker by origin and BY BIRTH.
3. I don’t care if whether he interacted with Eelam Tamils or even his own Indian Tamil origin at the time, the fact is that he is NOT of native Sinhalese origin from the Island.
4.Next I have already told you that race does not equate race or ethnicity. I’m not here claiming that he was a king who was following Tamil traditions; I have claimed that he spoke Tamil by Indian(Andhra) ancestry.
5. Listen, I don’t care if it was a Tamil kingdom, Sinhalese kingdom, or even a Portuguese kingdom, this article is not about the kingdom, and my edits have not claimed the Kandyan Dynasty was Tamil. Prince Kannusamy’s was from Madurai Nayak Dynasty, who gave rise to the Nayaks of Kandy who ruled the Kandy Kingdom as South Indian rulers. Also he did not fight for the “sovereignty of Sinhalese”; he fought for the KANDYAN dynasty that was comprised of mostly Sinhalese people in the region alongside with Tamils and Muslims.
6. Tamil Eelam has nothing to do with this subject, don’t try to add politics. Tamil Eelam was a state demanded by the Eelam Tamils for all Tamils and Muslims of the island for the discrimination being inflicted upon the Tamil and muslim community by the pro-sinhala government of Sri Lanka. That concept has nothing to do with Prince Kannusamy because at the time there was no conflict between inland Tamils and Sinhalese. The government created this problem by its own burden; Tamils didn’t demand a separate state until the 70s. Stop talking as if you are Kannusamy himself, I don’t think he would have supported the pro-sinhala government if he was alive today, who are FAR from noble sinhalese who follow the peaceful religion of Buddhism.
7. The Madurai nayaks were of Telugu origin, in this aspect they were from Andhra, however that doesn’t mean they can’t be Tamil. You have very little knowledge of India, I suggest you go to India and find out. There are MANY malayalis, kannadigas, telugus, and many other languages of India who are born speaking Tamil but genetically could be different. That still makes them Tamil speakers since they have not adopted the language, were born into a household already speaking the language but different by historical/genetic origin. Same applies to Rajasinghan, where he was BORN speaking Tamil not telugu, and later may have adopted Sinhalese but was still of Indian origins(Andhra). (Tamilan101 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Lastly please do not involve historical lies of “Sinhalese” in Jaffna, there was no Sinhalese in Jaffna, matter of fact the “Sinhala” language itself is an Indo-Aryan language spoken by people of the Sri Lanka who are PHYSICALLY Dravidian. Check Sinhalese genetics, two studies show that Sinhalese are either predominantly South Indian stock or predominantly of Bengali stock where both studies prove that the language “Sinhala” itself is an outsider. If Sinhalese are predominantly of South Indian stock, this proves that Naga and Yakshas of the island were extents of the TAMIL Pandyan Kingdom in Jaffna before the arrival of Vijaya. If the Bengali aspect is true, then this again proves the same thing, where Sinhalese are not native so how can there be “sinhalese” in Jaffna? Burning the Jaffna library doesn’t erase Tamil history because we Eelam Tamils are well educated of our past.(Tamilan101 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Title to be changed back to Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy, see comments at bottom Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy → Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy – I request that the title of this article be changed back to Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy for the following reasons: 1. The user Labattblueboy had changed the name of the article to Vikrama Rajasingha, citing "Sri" is an honorific title as his reason, without consulting anyone or any sources (see his edit of 16th November 2010). Sri is not a honorific title in the name of this king, but part of the name itself. So the reason is wrong. Also according to Wikipedia policy on naming conventions, honorific titles can be used in the article titles of Royalty and nobility. Quoting from Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title) .

2. This king is known to everybody in Sri Lanka as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. This list, is a chronological list of the names of the kings, they are all listed without honorific titles. Search results in Google books gives:

With Sri = 452 results ^{‡ Please see below} 4610 results = "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" (3550) + "Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe" (1060)

Without Sri = 8 results 3 results. Within this 8 results only 3 sources name the king without Sri the rest use Sri or an alternative spelling of Sri.

^‡ For some reason the combined search in Google books with OR excludes the results in the separate searches.
The most common name is with Sri, he is infact not known without Sri part in his name. Some authours use Srivikrama written as one name. I request, therefore that the title of the article be changed back to Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy. Please also see the proposed policy on naming for Indic names. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC) SriSuren (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I second the motion to change the name back to "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy"

Oppose:Sri is a honorific title .122.164.227.147 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my request and WP policy, before opposing. Honorific titles are acceptable. Naming Conventions for royalty and nobility. Policy is most common name, 452 vs 3 results in Google book search. Guess, you'll have to find another reason.--SriSuren (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This article should be changed back to "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy", the king's name appears as "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" in both British and Sri Lankan records. It may be an honorific but in this case, it forms part of his post-coronation name. This would follow the precedent set by the "Alfred the Great" article, while "the Great" is an honorific, it is also the most common name by which that Anglo-Saxon monarch was known.
• Support He is more commonly known by this name therefore it should be changed.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Wikrama Rajasinha and Vikrama Rajasinha?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the most common spelling is with V is not with W, although I have used W sometimes. Also, I noticed that some historians and scholars call this king "Sri Vikrama" without Rajasinha or just "Srivikrama" Sri and Vikrama written as one single name. So I did another search just to check - the search gave 2920 results.
(Srivikrama | "Sri vikrama" | Sriwikrama | "sri wickrama") + (kandy | ceylon | Lanka) = 2920 results This result does not exclude the occurances of Rajasinha, but it excludes the occurances of this king's name written without the Sri part of his name, which is actually just 3, as shown in my first post. --SriSuren (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• If anybody else doesn't have another reason than Sri being an honorific title for not to change the title of the article , then I will ask the assistance of an admistrator to do the move. Although the 7 days limit is already up, I'll wait another day, since the blackout yesterday might have prevented getting attention of some editors who might be interested in the topic.--SriSuren (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not use honorific titles for non western Rulers.We can use Sri if it was part of his at the time of birth. Naming Convention Differs for non Western rulers However it can mentioned inside the article.

None of these rulers outside the western world use any honorific title or by any title.We use the most common name but Sri is not seen as part of the name but more of a honorific title used before the name.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your own link says: "When there is no naming convention for a given set of names and titles, and no wide-spread problem of disambiguation, Wikipedia's general practice is to use the most common form in English as the article title". So what is the most common form? Is it with Sri or without Sri? 2920 results vs. 7 results. Within those 7 results too alternative spelling of Sri (Shri) is used in 4 (see the links in my request).
b) Please give the exact reference to "We do not use honorific titles for non western Rulers", in Wikipedia naming conventions, because the link u have given does not state it.
c)If you take the article Devanampiya Tissa, Devanampiya is the honorific title king Tissa took at his second coronation. Are we to change the title of that article too, since Devanampiya is in fact an honorific title? What about the article on Kirti Sri Rajasinha? Are we to take out Sri, and name this king as Kirti Rajasinha? In this kings name, Sri appears in the middle, and in Sri Vikrama Rajasinha's name it appears in the begining, in both cases Sri is part of the name itself, not honorific titles. It is quite evident that Sri is part of the name of the king, by the fact that many scholars write "Srivikrama" instead of "Sri Vikrama".
Ergo: Your opposition is not based on any real conventions specified in WP, as the link you yourself have given, proves. It says that the most common form used in English should be used in the article titles. Unless you can prove that the name without Sri is more common than with Sri, your opposition cannot be counted. As for your other argument about Sri in this name being an honourific title, and honorific titles are not used in non-western rulers - as far as I can see there's no such naming convention, and in addition Sri is not an honorific title. Please show that the name is more common without the Sri, if you are to have any valid opposition.--SriSuren (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Policy involved is WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC as per which user Labattblueboy reverted it .Please see the List of Kings of Thailand Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The first king in your list is Sri Indraditya. That should settle it I think. (LOL) :). You are mixing up concepts here. The honorific titles equivalent to Sir, Lady, Dame etc listed MOS:HONORIFIC amoung the Sinhalese nobility and royality is Raja, Maharaja etc. One of the titles this king had was Tri Sinhala Adhisvara. Most of these kings had elaborate titles. There are several studies done about Sinhalese royal titles in the Sinhalese kingship studies. From the Thai list of Monarchs I can see that many had "Pho Khun", which would be equivalent to the Maharaja etc. of Sinhalese kings. I think this settles the issue. Unless ofcourse you have another reason. --SriSuren (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing the title back to "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy" on the following grounds: as stated in MOS:HONORIFIC, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (presently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa" - as mentioned by other contributors, the name of the king most commonly appears as "Sri Vikrama..." in both British and Sri Lankan records. Hence the article's title should be changed back to the most common and recognisable form of the king's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.68.215 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The first king in user Pharaoh of the Wizards's list of Thai kings has Sri in the name (Sri Indraditya). They are just trying to find a reason to not write Sri. Can't really understand the reason why, because except for the three occurances mentioned in my previous posts, this king is known as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha or just Sri Vikrama. --SriSuren (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sri is most certainly an honorific, as it is a prefix not part of the proper name. I have never seen a source in the study of epigraphy argue that Sri is part of the proper name, in any instance. In terms of policy and convention, The naming convention is rather clear. There does not appear to be any issue with ensuring an unambiguous name and generally we do not include honorifics except as form of disambiguation. Including the honorific in this case results in no improvement in either understanding or search ability. Lastly, other stuff exists, just because other articles employ a certain title format does not mean it is any more, or less, correct. Simply because other articles employ the honorific does not mean that that is correct.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The point is not whether or not Sri is an honorific title, as the Wiki policies clearly state, it is allowed to have honorifics. Read my request again and read the wiki policies you are quoting. The problem is you have stated a couple of policies and renamed an article without checking available sources or doing a Google book search test. The Wiki policies you have stated as reasons, clearly do not allow the name change you have done. That's the point and the problem. So, Please don't bring in irrelavant issues about epigrahical studies and compare the situation to "other stuff exists". There's no need for any epigraphical studies to understand the usage of the word Sri. Let me give u an example - In Sri Lanka we have a mountain we call Sri Pada, if you take away the Sri part from that name, the remaining part of the name, which is Pada will just mean Foot. It is something like that you have done when you deleted the Sri part in this king's name.
Whatever the arguments you present to make Sri an equivalent title to Lord, King, Dame, Lady etc is not going to work, since even if Sri is an honourific it is not that kind of an honourific and it is not even a noun at all. You can have a King, a Lord, a Lady but you can't have a Sri. Also ambiguity is definitely not an issue here, and totally irrelevant, so do not try to explain away your mistake, by draging in yet another irrelevant issue about ensuring an unambiguous name, if anything you have created ambiguity or rather a confusion by changing this king's name. You can't delete parts of known people's names in order to achieve disambiguation in any case. Wikipedia naming policies have been decided upon, precisely to avoid ambiguity and preseve recognizabilty and consistency not only across Wikipedia articles but also across different sources and reference material, and you change a King's name and then talk of ease of understanding, search capabilities and "other stuff". "Other stuff" issues do not exist when there are such clear policies, namely common usage overides the other situations. This king is refered to as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in virtually all English language literature (2920 vs 3 in Google book search results) and you think that an ambiguous situation or "other stuff" can exist? I do not think so, so please don't make your own "other stuff" or an ambiguous situation, with your extremely wrong interpretation of the policies. The name change you have done in this article is not allowed by the very Wiki policies you have stated as reason, to do your changes. So, yes the policies given in both the WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC are very clear - you can't change the name of this King by taking out the Sri part of his name.
Since it is evident that we are not going to agree on this, as you clearly do not want to read the wiki policies, I am going to request for Administrator assistance. Let them decide.--SriSuren (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC states that the inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is controversial and that in general, styles and honorifics should not be included. The exception provided is bases upon WP:COMMONNAME. I don't believe there is any name ambiguity in this case given there isn't an article that even approaches to containing a similar name. I feel rather confident that this move discussion (which ever way it goes) will have absolutely no effect on the understanding or identification of the topic. In terms of my arguments, the move request contained the argument that "Sri is not a honorific title in the name of this king", I was refuting that point. So I would hardly call epigraphical studies irrelevant given it appears to keep coming up, in one form or another, during this discussion. In my view, the search results are only relevant in so far as ensuring disambiguation. You would for instance find that searches for most royals would produce majority resulted for names with prefixes but that has not resulted in seeing them widely implemented in Wikipedia articles titles, with the noted exception of cases where it ensures disambiguation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not present poor arguments to defend your mistake. You have done this name change based on a misconception and misinterpretation of the naming policies, and without even bothering to do a Google Book search. Just admit it and finish the discussion, without draging it endlessly, by bringing in totally irrelevant arguments. There's nothing to argue about - the exceptions to the sections on the use of honourifics in the policies you quote have been clearly defined in both naming policies (WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC) themselves. You are bring up totally irrelevant and poor arguments about ambiguity, epigraphical studies etc to defend your mistake. I am not going to waste my time about what you believe, since you seem to be under the impression that you can take out parts of people's names if the term is also used as an honorific, even though the person is almost never mentioned without that part of his name. I have explained how Sri is part of this king's name, with my example on Sri Pada and moreover he was not awarded a title called Sri separately, as in other cases like (Sri) Rajiv Ghandi. Anyway, whether or not Sri is an honourific is absolutely not relevant here, since there's virtually no references to this king without it. That's what counts in choosing the the article title, not all the other stuff you are saying. Also, did you even bother to do a Google book search test, prior to moving the article?
=>If u had bothered to, then these are the results using only two of the commonest spelling alternatives (others being negligible):

• Sri Vikrama Rajasinha (3550) + Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe (1060) = 3550 + 1060= 4610

If you want to defend the move you did any further, please show which results you compared the above to? The other arguments are irrelevant.
Please also note that you yourself have told the following : "For the common name exception to apply it needs to be an overwhelming case. My google book search produced.....". I would definitely call Sri Vikrama Rajasinha an overwhelming case (4610 vs 3), unless ofcourse you can show references to show otherwise. --SriSuren (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support You seem to be under the misconception that "Sri" must be part of a proper name. "Mother" as in "Mother Teresa" is NOT a proper name, yet it still appears. The reason for this is because it is the most common appellation by which she was known. "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included" - MOS:HONORIFIC. This debate is getting absurd, an administrator should cross check guidelines I have cited and revert the article to the original title of "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.143.123 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Actually there was no need to place this request to change the article title back to Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, since Labattblueboy had changed it without a discussion, but I wanted to have a proper discussion to prevent reverts and edit warring because as you see there are many other issues too that must be resolved. I have read the naming policies over and over again, but can't find any of what Labattblueboy and Pharaoh of the Wizards are refering to. Even if Sri is regarded as an honorific title, the exceptions given in the Wiki policies, which you too have refered to, clearly shows that our Sri Vikrama is such an exception, since virtually all the literature and books available in English refer to this king as Sri Vikrama, moreover this is a country specific issue, and it was only a matter of time before someone reacted. So, as you say, the discussion is absurd and there's actually nothing much to discuss any more in this case, Labattblueboy had done a name change which is not allowed. None of the arguments he has presented are valid ones - let's just let the administrators handle this issue, and clear the mess, since it is clearly an issue of applying existing policies.--SriSuren (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Status as pr. 26 th January 2012, 11:00 UTC
As the above comments show the discussion about this move has side tracked into a discussion about whether or not Sri is an honourific title since the opponents are arguing that it is the deciding factor, while the proponents of the move mean that the most common name is the deciding factor and that whether nor not Sri is an honourific has no relevance to choosing the article title. The opponents have not commented at all on the fact that this King is virtually not refered to without the Sri part in his name, as documented by the Google book search results presented (4610 vs. 3 occurances), but have chosen to completely ignore this fact and the search results.

Votes: 3 oppose the move. 3 support the move.

Argumets from Opponents of the move :

• IP user(122.XX..) - Stated that Sri being an honorific as reason for opposing, on 13 January 2012. Thereafter no comments.
• Labattblueboy - States that honourifics are not allowed in article titles no matter what (except for disambiguation), and refering to WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC, but in this discussion he has acknowledged that WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC are secondary to WP:COMMONNAME, even presenting Google book search results of his own. He has been totally silent about the search results presented in the present discussion (this is the user who changed the original title from Sri Vikrama Rajasinha to Vikrama Rajasinha, without a discussion).
• Pharaoh of the Wizards - States that "We do not use honorific titles for non western Rulers", but no naming convention in Wikipedia states that. He has also refered to the same two policies as Labattblueboy and this policy . He posted this list of Kings of Thailand to prove his point, but the very first king in the list has Sri in his name.

Arguments from Proponents of the move:

• Me (SriSuren) - I state that Sri is not meant an honourific in this king's name and that this king is virtually not refered to without the Sri part in his name.
• Blackknight12 - States that most common name is with Sri. He has not taken a stand as to whether Sri is an honourific title or not.
• IP user(124.YY..) - States that Sri is an honourific but that this king is virtually not refered to without Sri.
• Vivecius - "Sri Vikrama..." is the most common name by which the king was known and should be included in accordance with "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included" from MOS:HONORIFIC. In addition, the usage of "Sri" is far more expansive than an honorific and in many cases was part of an individuals name in many parts of South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivecius (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope an administrator will drop by soon and go through the arguments and settle this issue.--SriSuren (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone beats me to it, I will be doing this tomorrow. Sorry, no time now. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no danger of anybody beating you to it.... :) Just take your time. --SriSuren (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing statement by uninvolved administrator

Let me start by saying that I've been known to have removed honorifics in the past, including 'siri', hopefully always according to our guidelines. I'll also point out that MOS:HONORIFIC is not a policy but a guideline, while WP:NCIN isn't even a guideline, it is a proposed guideline. On the other hand, WP:ARTICLE titles is a policy although WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is a guideline and as it says on that page, guidelines are " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Having said that, it's clear that there is no consensus here and there are seven people involved, which is a reasonable number for an article such as this one (although one IP hasn't edited anything else and the other also only has a handful of edits, but they cancel each other out in any case).

Based on that, my finding would be that it should be restored to its original title. But my role is also to examine applicable policies and guidelines to make sure that they aren't being egregiously violated by such a decision. It's clear that we can in some exceptions use honorifics. Search results should always be taken with a very large bucketful of sand, but they haven't been challenged and my own search turns up the same findings.

For these reasons my finding is that the article should be returned to its original name Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy.

I also must note that I find some of the language used by SriSuren unconstructive and unfortunate. So far as I can see everyone here has acted in good faith and comments on other editors could have just inflamed the discussion. I'm very pleased that didn't happen, I now have to go take our dogs to the vets for their injections, and when I return (after walking them, etc) I'll hat this and do the move. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this. Thanks, FINALLY. About my language: Sorry if I had used "strong" formulations at times to stress my point. But the frustration of being bombarded with irrelevant arguments and editors presenting fake policies (I am refering to "We do not use honourifics for non-western rulers", by Pharaoh of the Wizards ), make people react the way I have done. Also the use of "WE" is quite unnecessary when we are all just editors and not owners of Wikipedia or some kind of special policy makers at Wikipedia. I think you should also clearly give a word of caution to editors who present their own views as Wikipedia policies, eg. Pharaoh of the Wizards's invention of a Wikipedia policy, that is not acting in good faith at all. I hardly ever use sophicated language when discussing, so all the editors who have participated here, please excuse me, if my language is "strong". By the way, hope your pups/dogs are doing fine, and thanks again for ending this discussion. I do not expect any more comments on my post, I am just happy to be heard, finally. --SriSuren (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller for closing for it with a clear explanation . Just to clarify We I meant here was the entire English Wikipedia community if the expression was wrong I apologize.I have no edits in this article and I only put my view for a requested move like I did for this [1]. My statement was based only after quoting this section Names and titles outside the West which is part of WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) in addition what User:Labattblueboy said regarding non use of honorifics for non Western rulers .I am surprised by your comment that I invented it .I leave it there as this not WP:NOTAFORUM .I further WP:AGF to you and sincerely apologize to you if I lacked clarity in my comments . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Edits to Article: Request for an Administrator to Mediate

I am writing to express my concern over the persistent POV edits by some users (Tamilan101, in particular). These edits, as seen in the current version of the article, promote a politically motivated brand of historical revisionism. In particular, the assertion that the king was a Tamil and that Tamil was a court language during the king's reign; seem to be given an inexplicable level of significance in the article at the expense of more significant information. The assertion that Tamil was spoken in court is hardly the most significant thing to occur during the king’s reign and does not need to be in the first paragraph of the article. Let’s not forget that during this period, the Kandyan monarch was deposed and Sri Lanka became a British colony. This information has greater implications for Sri Lanka and should feature more prominently rather than speculative quibbling about languages used in the court.

Furthermore, given the recent civil war in Sri Lanka, I think that it is prudent to tread carefully when it comes to issues divided along ethnic or sectarian lines. For this reason, I am in favour of omitting references to Tamil and Sinhalese unless absolutely necessary, particularly because it is the primary source of contention in the recent spate of edits and reversions. Most historical sources state that the king belonged to the Nayak dynasty from Madurai in South India (he is not referred to as Tamil or Sinhalese). The mother tongue of the Nayaks was Telegu. While Madurai is located in what is now Tamil Nadu, it does not follow that the Kandyan kingdom was somehow Tamilian. For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, I hope we can all come to an understanding that during the king’s reign, Sri Lanka was not so deeply divided along ethnic lines. This is arguably why there was no recorded public outcry over the Nayaks succeeding their Sinhalese (Dinajara dynasty) predecessors to the throne. Let’s put politics aside to help make the article more accessible and accurate, it is after all, addressing one of the most interesting periods of the nation’s history.

I find it absurd that ungrammatical and uninformative sentences like “from the Tamil speaking Telugu originating kings” should continually make it back into the article. The original formulation was much more clear and informative. Likewise, the constant reference to the king by his pre-coronation and more junior title, “Prince Kannusamy” while reporting aspects of his reign is inaccurate and unconstructive. To politically motivated individuals, “Prince Kannusamy” may sound more Tamil than “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha” and helps advance certain agendas. This however, is not a valid reason to use pre-coronation titles to refer to the king during his reign, where his regnal name (Sri Vikrama Rajasinha) is more appropriate.

The title of “Prince Kannusamy” was the previous dynastic title of the king and should not take precedence of over the regnal title of “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha”. By all means, his pre-coronation name should be mentioned in the article, but it should not precede his regnal title in the caption above the image. I uploaded the image, entitled “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha”, in good faith several years ago and do not appreciate it being mislabelled in this manner. It is unfortunate that this article is being used as a vehicle for conveying politically motivated agendas, given its importance to Sri Lankan history. I am disappointed by the current state of the article and hope an administrator can mediate, so we can put an end to the constant edit/reversion cycle we have been seeing over the past few weeks.

Warm Regards, Vivecius (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am only writing what is needed for this article that lacks many historical facts and contains many incited claims. This article is about Sri Vikrama Rajasinha and it should contain information about his origins. How are my statements about the king’s true origin politically motivated? Users on this page such as SriSuren have claimed he was Sinhalese prior to all these edits. I have gotten reliable sources that claim he was not. Explain how the court language is not significant? This article is about a king of South Indian origin who had ruled the Kingdom of Kandy which was historically of Sinhalese foundation. This would mean that the languages of the kings and queens and the people apart of this kingdom prior to the Nayak rule would have spoken Sinhalese, so it is important to add the change in languages, because this change particularly occurred only during Vikrama Rajasinha’s reign.

I understand that in Rajasinha’s time there wasn’t deep ethnic tensions between ethnicities of the island, however why should this interfere with the King’s origins? ethnic tension in Sri Lanka whether it was back then or now has nothing to do with this article. I did not claim Rajasinha was Tamil in ANY of my edits. I have found many reliable sources that claim Rajasinha was from the Nayak Dynasty of Madurai with Indian(Andhra) origins. The Nayak spoke Telugu however the Madurai Nayaks could have spoken Tamil as many sources indicate. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was not born speaking Telugu and my edits have been sourced to the claim that the language he formerly spoke before his reign was Tamil. Why is this edit a problem? There are many articles about Sri Lankan monarchs on Wikipedia that claim Tamil or Sinhalese origins. Such as this article here. From what I have read, you want to delete some referenced material here due to the civil war in Sri Lanka, which has absolutely nothing to do with this article because it is historical, as shown above there are numerous articles about “Sinhalese” kings, so there is nothing wrong with writing Rajasinha was a Nayakar(Telugu origin) that spoke Tamil prior to his rule. Explain why the edit about the king’s pre-coronation name “Prince Kannusamy also known as his birth name is unconstructive? How is it creating ethnic tension? So you are saying that all kings of Sri Lanka who were of Tamil descent or South Indian descent should not be written by their Tamil names because it will create problems? I find that very unreasonable. For God’s sake understand that this article is about a historical figure in Sri Lankan history, so his birth name should be added because it is significant to Tamils on the island.

I have discussed these edits with SriSuren above and I have addressed the same issue many times. I have stressed the point time and time again that we can bring this issue to a neutral point of view between all editors if he can bring his sources to back up his claims. The neutral version that Blackknight12 keeps reverting back to ignores all or most Tamil/South Indian origins of the king and establishes only the Sinhalese aspect of the king. My edits are not POV and are referenced for proof.(Tamilan101 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply, Tamilan101. The issue I have raised is not that you have not provided references for your edits, rather that they pander to a certain agenda in that most of them seem to address two points in particular. 1. Stressing the importance of the Tamil language. 2. Adding "Prince Kannusamy" to the caption in the image. In your recent edit you deleted this statement: "which in turn meant the last monarch of the Sinhalese throne. This ended over 2300 years of Sinhalese monarchy on the island. He was eventually deposed by the British under the terms of the Kandyan Convention, in 1815, where the island was incorporated into the British Empire, and was succeeded by George III, as monarch of British Ceylon…”, which you replaced with “He was eventually deposed by the British under the terms of the Kandyan Convention. During Rajasinha's reign, Tamil was one of the court languages spoken in Kandy”. Here you have not only deleted reference to “Sinhalese” but you have replaced it with statement stressing that Tamil was a court language during the king’s reign. Here you made no effort to mention that Sinhalese was also one of the court languages, which suggests bias (POV). Furthermore, your edit is highly ungrammatical “from the Tamil speaking Telugu originating kings” (poor syntax coupled with incorrect use of the present participle). As I stated before, this is not an article on linguistics, mentioning that the king was a member of the Madurai Nayak Dynasty should give readers enough information without contriving to add that he could speak Tamil relying on rather dubious sources (e.g. you cited "The continuum complete international encyclopedia of sexuality”, which is by no means an authoritative or widely cited text on the ethnicity or linguistic background of the Nayak kings).

For the record, I do not want to delete references to Sinhalese and Tamil, but given the intractable edit war that has ensued (in which you have been very active), it is clear that if something is not done (removal of the terms unless absolutely necessary), then this article will never see any substantial improvement. You asked me why the court language is not significant. The court language is not discussed in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles concerning monarchs. For instance, French in addition to Russian was a court language during Tsar Nicholas II’s reign. This is not mentioned in the first paragraph in his entry (or in the article at all), because the most significant events to occur during Nicholas II’s reign were the end of the monarchy, the execution of his family and his subsequent canonization. Likewise, court languages should not feature in the first paragraph of this article at the expense of more significant facts of the king’s reign (details of his deposition, exile and British colonialism). The most notable aspects of the king’s reign should appear in the first paragraph. The court languages, be they Tamil or Sinhalese, are not the most significant thing to occur during his reign. The fact that the king was deposed and that Sri Lanka became a British colony however was the most significant event concerning the king’s life and Sri Lanka’s history. This is not an article on court languages, but if you wish, you could consider adding them towards the end of the article, where other less significant information is included (notes about Kandy Lake and the king’s descendants).

The fact that the king was known as Prince Kannusamy prior to his coronation has been in the article for a long time, even prior to your edits. The issue I take is with you using the title incorrectly. This should clarify the issues once and for all: From 1780-1798 he was known as Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, but after his coronation in 1798 he was known as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. It is simply not true that Tamil subjects would have addressed or referred to their king (during his reign, post 1798) by the lower title of prince, as this would have been highly disrespectful. Even the reference you added states “Being the most powerful Chieftain at court Pilimatalavuva Maha Adikaram was instrumental in raising Prince Kannasamy to the throne under the title of Sri Vickrama Rajasimha” – so even your source states that the appropriate name/title post-coronation is Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. So please use the names/titles accordingly.

You have added “Prince Kannusamy” to the caption above the image of the king that I uploaded. This is inaccurate because I photographed the original portrait, in the possession of the king’s descendants, myself and the placard reads “Sri Vikrama Raja Singha”. The fact that the king is pictured wearing the Kandyan crown clearly shows that he was king at the time of the painting and not a prince (which is a more junior title). If you can find a portrait of the king painted prior to his coronation in 1798, when he was still a prince, then by all means label it “Prince Kannusamy”. My research on this topic has taken me all over South India (including the king’s mausoleum in Vellore) and abroad, in the past I have added information about the privy purse given to descendants and released a photograph (the image in the article) of an original portrait in the possession of relatives. My interest in this article is only to raise awareness of the king, who I have been researching for many years. I hope you will seriously consider my suggestions in an effort to improve the quality of the article.

Best Wishes Vivecius (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Vivecius is right, Tamilan101 you are focusing too much and giving undue weight to the wrong things in the article. In any biographical article of course the person's birth name should be mentioned, and it is here. Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was only known as Prince Kannusamy for a short period of time before he became king and as Vivecius said it would be wrong to write about a king with a lesser title such as prince. Furthermore he was widely known as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, hence the title change. So why are you placing "Prince Kannusamy" in the infobox when it should only be one name there and only his regal title?

Considering Tamil as the court language, I do not no why you are so determined to keep that there. It is a hardly necessary piece of information considering what Vivecius quoted: "which in turn meant the last monarch of the Sinhalese throne. This ended over 2300 years of Sinhalese monarchy on the island. He was eventually deposed by the British under the terms of the Kandyan Convention, in 1815, where the island was incorporated into the British Empire, and was succeeded by George III, as monarch of British Ceylon”, which you reverted. The quoted information is probably the three most important facts of Rajasinha's reign, and Sri Lankan history at that time...yet you have dismissed and reverted it without question or discussion!

Also other small things include you reverting the article so that it say that he was the "last King of Ceylon", Ceylon did not exist back then and you yourself know he was king of the Kingdom of Kandy. I will fix some things up, the non controversial things, as well as restore the aforementioned quote, but make sure the next time you edit this page that you do not revert but contribute to the discussion first.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I haven’t made an effort to mention that Sinhalese was also one of the court languages is because I feel that it was insignificant. I feel that it is insignificant because it is an obvious and widely known fact that the Kandyan Kingdom that these Indian Nayaks had ruled was a historical Sinhalese kingdom. The reason why I have added Tamil as one of the court languages is because of the unique shift of languages which I have explained before. However I do agree that adding this fact in the introduction is not appropriate so I will add it towards the end of the article and change the Nayak dynasty to the Madurai Nayak Dynasty. In my new edits to the article I have added both South Indian/Tamil aspects of the king and Sinhalese aspects by deleting some references. I am only here to contribute to the growth of articles in a positive way. My edits are not politically motivated in any way, if there is anything wrong with any of the edits I have made please respond to me. Thank You.(Tamilan101 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Recent Edits and edit war created by SriSuren and disruption on article by Blackknight12

Recent edits by SriSuren are not explained on this talk page. The article was already agreed upon and stable before these edits. Blackknight12 (talk · contribs) and his behaviour of disrupting the article by asking for protection logs when proof is asked for some claims is very inappropriate. You have not contributed to this article in any way whatsoever, but you have the nerve to ask for protections logs as if you have done editing? My reasons for reverting to the stable version is because it was perfectly fine where the introduction has given the reader considerable insight to the king's background, language and as well what kind of kingdom he conquered.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

I understand everyone here have the right to edit the article, however the edits being done here are not constructive whatsoever, creates imbalance and ethnic tension. How could the king be the last king of the native power on the island when he himself had Indian origins? Please explain your edits here so we can move towards an agreement.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

Tamilan101, you are edit-warring against at least three other editors, and if you continue you will be blocked. If you believe they are wrong and you are right, then discuss *the content* here, rather than discussing the behaviour of other people, and try to get a consensus to support you. And if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that, follow the steps described at WP:DR. Endlessly reverting to your preferred version against a number of other editors is guaranteed not to get you what you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pandukabhaya of Anuradhapura which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)