Talk:Jaffna Kingdom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Er...
2 Reliability of sources
3 Hoax tag
- 3.1 Further comments on the article
4 Article is much better now.BUT.....
5 Complete rewrite

[edit] Er...

What on earth is going on here? A total revision on known history it seems.Pubuman 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of sources

Hi friends

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which presents trustworthy information from neutral sources.

This article relies heavily on websites which support an organisation known as the LTTE which is conducting an insurgency in Sri Lanka.

According to following sources tamilnation and tamilnet are clearly pro-LTTE sites

[1] - reuters refers to tamilnet as a pro LTTE site [2] - tamilnet itself refers to tamilnation as a pro LTTE site [3] - A Phd thesis which clearly names sangam.org as part of the LTTE media network

Therefore Wikipedia should not present a version of history which has probably been concocted by pro-LTTE nationalists to support their argument for an independent state.

Facts about history need to be sourced from independent reliable sources. otherwise we will have situations like where people have denied the existence of the holocaust appearing as the official version of history . Similarly the Serbian and Croation websites have vastly different accounts of the Balkan war but we should not present either side as the absolute correct version of history in wikipedia because both versions necessarily contain lies Dutugemunu 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agrred Wikipedia should not be link farm should be based on WP:RS books and references RaveenS 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax tag

Please state why this qualifies as a hoax or is this an attempt to hoax the wikipedia community ? RaveenS 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some references if people want to improve this article

Modern references

De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [2] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912., [3] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912., [4] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. Ancient Jaffna. New Delhi 1926, [5] Senaratne S P F. Prehistoric Archaeology in Ceylon. Colombo 1969., [6] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [7] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979., [8] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.. [9] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979., [10] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [11] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. History of Jaffna. New Delhi 1933., [12] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979., [13] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [14] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., See Rasanayaga Mudaliar History of Ancient Jaffna, Chap. VII; Paranavitharana, article on the Ariya Chakravarti Kingdom in North Ceylon, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch (New Series), Vol. VII (1961), p. 119; Natesan, “Early Kingdoms in Jaffna", Parameswara College Magazine; Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, 3rd ed., p. 216.,

Medieval references

17.Segarajasingham (Astrological work) Sirappurayam, verse 11., 18. Arasakesary of Nallur, Raguvamsa Padalam (ed. Ponnambalampiliai), v. 223., 19.Segarajasingham (Astrological work), v. 5; p. 40., 20. Segarajasegaramalai, Satasatram No.8; Bell’s Kegalle Inscription No. 6; “lbn Battuta’s Travels “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882). See also Dr S. C. Paul, “The Overlordship of Ceylon during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Ceylon Branch, Vol. XXVIII, p. 83.21. Segarajasegara Malai p. 40, v. 5., 22.He honoured Tamil poets and gave them gold; see Tamizh naavalar carithai, v. 243., 23. Dakshina Sirrappurayam; Kailasa Puranam by Pandita Rajah (ed. P.P. Vaitilingam Desigar). 24.Dakshina Kailasa Puranam, 25. “Ibn Battuta’s Travels “, J. R. A. S., Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882); Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans. Samuel Lee, pp. 183f.

[edit] Further comments on the article

I'm going to have to agree, after doing some quick research, that the Jaffna Kingdom did not exist. Undoubtedly there were individuals who seized power for periods of time in regional areas of the island after the Tamil Pandyan Kingdom retreated, some of whom were likely Tamils remaining from the Pandyan Kingdom. However, as for an independent Tamil kingdom based on the island being in existence either before or after the rule of the Pandyans, that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians.

The only reason the idea remains is that it serves as propaganda to further the idea that Tamils "deserve" a separate state because they "used to have one". As a neutral individual (I am neither Sinhala nor Tamil—I'm a white-as-they-come Canadian), I find the question of whether or not a former independent Tamil nation existed on the island completely irrelevant to that question—the state of affairs today is all that should properly be considered.

This article, while not a "hoax" in that the existence of the kingdom is likely genuinely believed by its main contributors, and is in fact postulated to exist by several Tamil scholars, is also likely not a proper subject for Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting perspective, may I add the first time I have heard this. You make very interesting comments

as for an independent Tamil kingdom based on the island being in existence either before or after the rule of the Pandyans, that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians

Who are these historians and what is the references for that, are they mainstream historians or nationalist but Sinhalese historians ? I want to see a single non Singalaese or non Tamil accredited historian say that Jaffna kingdom and the Arya Chakaravarthi dynasty did not exist at all.

and is in fact postulated to exist by several Tamil scholars, is also likely not a proper subject for Wikipedia

I would say that your conclusion is too hasty, there are independant corraboration of the existance of this kingdom throughout the historical period by the chronicle of the country called the Mahavamsa, the existance of the 16 century manuscript called Yalpana Vaipava Malai which talks about the history of Jaffna Kings history (Tamil translation)

Anyway I am not a historian nor am I in the possession of all these documentation to contribute to this article becoming a truly encyclopedic article. I like my documentation work on Human Rights issues. Also I want to point out the current political situation today should have no bearing on whether such a kingdom existed or not. RaveenS 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is the source of your comments that that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians. It is hardly neutral but even reading that shows the level to which he argues that there was not an independant kingdom concedes that at least for 150 years there was one. It had a dynasty and concluded agrrement with others in Sri Lanka and abroad. It even minted coins. It cant be all made up RaveenS 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "Jaffna Kingdom", "Kingdom of Jaffna" or variations thereon come up exactly three times in searches of scholarly articles through a multitude of scholarly article search engines that I have access to through my school (and all three seem to be written by the same person, debunking the idea). If such a kingdom existed, there would be multitudes of scholarly articles on the subject. I will try to look into the situation myself after I have finished my exams and essays for this term, but I do not believe that reliable sources supporting the idea of a Sri Lanka-based Tamil kingdom are to be found anywhere in accepted academia. Lexicon (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point but you also have to remember that not all issues third world gets the attention of a reseracher from the western world. I found that out when I wrote about TamilNet. Hardly 3 people wrote scholalrly journal articles about it. But about Al Jazeera I am sure you will find a lot more people. Also like I said I am not a historian and I dont have acess to these volumes. They are

De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981

Geiger W The Mahavamsa. 1912

Mudaliyar C RasanayagamAncient Jaffna. New Delhi 1926

Paranavitharana, article on the Ariya Chakravarti Kingdom in North Ceylon, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch (New Series), Vol. VII (1961)

Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, 3rd ed., p. 216.,

“lbn Battuta’s Travels “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882)

Dr S. C. Paul, “The Overlordship of Ceylon during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Ceylon Branch, Vol. XXVIII, p. 83.21.

Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans. Samuel Lee, pp. 183f.

A wikipedian with a history minset will be able to locate the right kind of books in the right kind of chronology and write an encyplopediac article about the subject matter including a section on the refutation of the so called Jaffna kingdom as a section. It needs to be a balanced article. Current version is not neutral.RaveenS 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon as a fellow Yorkie I know exactly what "search" you are talking about. It does not contain ALL the articles and books ever written. Let alone about a kingdom on a lonley Island off the toe of India. Not trying to say that it existed or not but my point was that to base an argunment from a search from york is allmost like saying that "no result was found on google". Watchdogb 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is much better now.BUT.....

Actually this is not the same article which i disputed a couple of weeks ago..The earlier article we had here was hilarious and a complete twist of the history..The Jaffna Kingdom came to existence in the 13 th century ,after the rule of kalinga maga and its wrong to attribute the demala kings who ruled northern part of SL as Jaffna kings.While historians still do not universally agree with this term, to my knowledge its not 100% false to call this as Jaffna Kingdom..BUT we should definitely state the duration of this kingdom,which is 13th to 16 th century..Having said so, we definitely know Prince sapumal acting as commander of the king Parakramabahu's army invaded and ruled Jaffna in the 16 th century and from what I read in the books written by Portugese and Dutch writers tamil Kingdom was heavily depended On foreign rulers since early 16 th century..So we are not sure how independent was it in the 15 th century.So i believe it is better to say that there was an independent tamil kingdom from 13 th to 15 century.This MUST be mentioned in the article otherwise we are giving a wrong picture to the readers. I still haven't gone through the whole article, But this looks much better than the previous edition..BUT, the very first sentence is completely false and though i prefer to have citations ,I doubt whether editor can provide anything at all. thanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

>Iwazaki. Pararajaseekaran prosperously ruled from 1478-1519. (16th century) And After Pararajaseekaran, Sangkili ruled and fought against the Portugese. The Kingdom officially gave up sovereignty to the Portugese in 1621.

1621 indicates 17th century. The Arya Chakravarthi dynasty ruled from the 13th to 17th century. --> FACT 13th to 15th century gives the wrong picture to wikipedia readers.

THe article should mention the wars fought with the Portugese. The article should mention the Kingdom of Kotte's brief rule over Jaffna. The article must state the facts correctly --> 13th to 17th century. (Arya Chakrawarthi rule) Sapient26 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

:On a lighter note, if not for this kingdom, I will be speaking in Sinhalese and praying to lord Buddha (or Jesus) and going to Pathini devale and Kataragama devio on the side like most southerners do. Also Velapilli Arachilage Prabhakara will be furiously recreating the Govigama supremacy myth article in wikipedia rather than to send suicide bombers south:)RaveenS 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On even lighter note, thanks for accepting what we all knew from the right beginning..The ghost of Govigama supremacy myth was non other than the person who is responsible for the creations of lot of other hoaxes and blatantly POV template(s) in Wikipedia..many thanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Sri Lankan articles must be so special that even ghosts are editing them. I sometimes wonder what happens to all those raped and killed, assassinated and shelled and plastered people’s souls. The country must be full of them in every nook and corner of tortured souls from the more than 200,000 people killed since 1971 alone. But anyway Wikipedians are smarter than silly Sri Lankan ghosts. They have a ghost catching device called request for check user in ghost language it is called WP:RFCU. No need to have loose sleep over ghosts or go to sorcery temples to pay a shaman some dead chickens to resolve this matter as we do in Sri Lanka. [4] Just go to a human Administrator and say boo we have ghost in Wikipedia and they will nail it to banyan tree. Otherwise the ghost is going to get you banished for WP:ATTACK ing him. Sleep well:)RaveenS 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be the first time ever in the GHOST history that a ghost has accepted the use of Sock Puppets to manipulate human beings..While some says ghost can be what ever they want, it was here,for the first time in the GHOST history where a ghost changed it appearance, by being a tamil and sinhalese at the same time!!While admitting the fact as a human being I was astonished with that, may be ghost has its own reasons for changing colours and even races..And the ghost, once again for the first time in the ghost history, trying to be funny(thought it failed miserably)toooo..Its even copying human way of expressing sarcasm with limited success..Well, I am glad that we humans, at least ahead of ghosts in this thing call "sense of humour".Any way I am happy that even ghost taking interest at my country,good or bad they are contributing and keeping our motivations high.who would have ever thought that !!?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::You must be still confused with the ghost of Russel Pushpakumaran Arnold. Now is he a Tamil or Sinhalese. I know it is so easy to get confused in Sri Lanka. Anyway coming to the point, are you now confused that User:Wikramadithya who created the Govigama supremacy theory is me. Well come out and say so instead of hiding behind humor. We can all have a belly laugh about your deductive ability to connect dots between a Sri Lankan IP and Canadian IP. Seriously, ROFLOL! RaveenS 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghost must have been a very afraid person for not even coming to vote to save the article it seems to love a lot..Afraid of getting caught for sock-puppeting ?? If ghost can be Sinhalese and tamil at the same time, why can't it pretend to be In Canada and SL at the same time ?? (See the word pretend is bolded here) ..Ghost can do wonders,including belly laughs,how wonderful is that.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::You must now confuse me with Sai Baba who can be at two places at the same time. Enough confusion between Pushpakumaran for Sinhalese, Fonseka for a Tamil today, may be it is too many sakes. RaveenS 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite

Those who find reputable sources please post them here. A good example fo follow would be Gangas. Well done by Dinesh RaveenS 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old manuscrits and their translations

Yalpana vaipava malai

well the reliability of this source is some what disputed by historians..This may be good to quote era after 15 th century,esp after the arrival of western colonial powers to SL..But the history before that is very specious and sounds like more myth than real