![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
With the hope of resolving the various disputes that led to the most recent page protection and of expediting the removal of said protection, and on the assumption that this diff includes all of the issues at dispute, I propose that we consider each point individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
Should the FSI rank of Sri Lanka be given in the article? If so, should it be included in the infobox?
I think that the FSI rank should be included in the article, but not in the infobox. The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section). However, it is not part of the standard Infobox Country or territory template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:03, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>And? -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: Following discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank, the FSI parameters have been removed from the main infobox. I am tenatively tagging this section as "resolved" (with a description); if there are any outstanding issue, please remove the notice and provide clarification. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The quote by Churchill exists as a footnote to support the claim that "Sri Lanka served as an important base for Allied forces in the fight against the Japanese Empire". As far as proofs for claims of importance (a subjective concept) go, it's rather good, considering the identity of the quoted person. I'm not entirely sure why it is disputed, especially since the sentence itself doesn't seem to be disputed ... is this something that simply got caught up in the cycle of reverts? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". If so, the claim that Sri Lanka is a "stable democracy" cannot be classified as a fact. Since there is real-world dispute regarding the matter (the US Department of State classifies Sri Lanka as a "stable democracy" [2], but the World Bank and Asian Development Bank classify it as "one of the world's most politically unstable countries", [3] and The Economist labels it a "flawed democracy". [4]), I think the best course of action is to present both major views.
With regard to the part about "continuous economic progress"; an initial glance at the sources suggests that Sri Lanka has had relatively steady economic progress, despite the civil war, despite "the reemergence of the civil war resulting in increased lawlessness in the country" [5] and despite the "sharp decline in tourism". [6] [7] (Note: the quotes are taken from the article, not the sources.) I'll comment more after I've had a chance to read through the sources in greater detail. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The text under dispute reads as follows:
Buddhism, the state religion is given the foremost place in the constitution of the country [8]. Hence unlike a liberal democracy, there exists no separation between religion and the state.
Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of the religion as a responsibility of the state. [9]
There are three reasons behind my proposed change. First, given that the text is contentious, it may be best to fall back on quoting directly from the Constitution. Second, according to this source, Buddhism is not the official state religion (a specific term with specific connotations). Third, the sentence that begins with "Hence unlike ..." seems to constitute an original synthesis. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am ok with the version you suggested with this change to emphasize the role of Buddhism Sinhala freedom 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC):
Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. [10]
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. Enshrined in the constitution is the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have, adopt and manifest ones religion. [12]
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state, [13] but also guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", including to adopt a religion and to practice it. [14]
This section has received no comments in the past 10 days. Can we consider the issue resolved, with an agreement to exclude the information from this article and with preference for inclusion in the article Constitution of Sri Lanka (although I can't identify a suitable location at this time)? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't determine what exactly is disputed and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
Comments, please? For reference, the disputed text reads as follows:
But this policy of subsidizing imported commodities like fuel, fertiliser and wheat soon unravelled the fiscal sector. In 2004 alone Sri Lanka spent approximately US$ 180 million on a fuel subsidy, as fixing fuel prices had been an election promise. To finance the expanded budget deficit arising from a range of subsidies and a public sector recruitment drive, the government eventually had to print Rs 65 billion (US$ 650 million) or around 3% of GDP. The expansionary fiscal policy, coupled with loose monetary policy eventually drove inflation up to 18% by January 2005, as measured by the Sri Lanka Consumer Price Index. Following the resumption of the civil war in 2005, which gave rise to increased lawlessness in the country, various foreign governments reduced assistance to Sri Lanka [15] [16].
– Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The disputed text reads:
Nearly all of the island's Indian plantation workers were stripped of their citizenship due to Ceylon Citizenship act of 1948. [18] Under various agreements, nearly 50 % of plantation workers were expelled to India and the remaining were granted citizenship by 2003. [19]
The main problem I can identify is with the sources. The first source (a BBC timeline) doesn't mention the Ceylon Citizenship Act. The second source leads to a book's index, but doesn't provide page numbers. Unfortunately, Google Books does not provide a preview for the book.
Another problem may be with regard to the location of the sentences. They seem, to me, to be better suited for inclusion in the "History" section of the article, the History of Sri Lanka article, or the Demographics of Sri Lanka article. As a rule, the "Demographics" section on the main country page should provide only general information. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were expelled back following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.
;)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.
All of them were forcefully repatriated against their will. the above wording makes it sound like they all went away happily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.234.126 ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What proportion of the Sri Lankan population adheres to Buddhism? Is it 65% or 76.7%? The CIA World Factbook gives a figure of 69.1%, based on "2001 census provisional data" ( link). The GOSL provides a figure of 69% as well ( link). Where did the other two figures come from? In any case, I propose that we use the value of 69%, as given the by GOSL (and repeated by the CIA). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The disputed paragraph reads as follow:
After the resumption of the civil war in 2005, Sri Lanka has steadily clamped down on its once free media. Verbal attack against media personnel by government authorities is common and has resulted in an atmosphere of self-censorship [20]. By 2007, it is considered one of the worst places in the world for media personnel [21]. According to Reporters with Borders (RSF) Pro-government militias have been actively targeting and attacking media organization with opposing points of view [22]. In addition the LTTE has also been accused of threatening those who oppose their political position. RSF also maintains the killers of media personnel orchestrated by pro-government militias live with total impunity [23].
I suggest rewriting the paragraph to include explicit attribution to RSF (per WP:NPOV), which is directly responsible for three of the four sources:
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel by non-governmental organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute and Reporters sans frontières (RSF); in 2006, five media workers were killed on the island. [24] According to RSF, various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. [25] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [26]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [27] According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. [28] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [29]
Following the war, popular pressure for independence intensified. On February 4, 1948 the country won its independence as the Commonwealth of Ceylon. Don Stephen Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. In 1972, the country became a republic within the Commonwealth, and the name was changed to Sri Lanka. On July 21, 1960 Sirimavo Bandaranaike took office as prime minister, and became the first female head of government in post-colonial Asia and the first female prime minister in the world. The island enjoyed good relations with the United Kingdom and had the British Royal Navy stationed at Trincomalee.
Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, predominantly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers), a separatist militant organization who fight to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island.
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [30] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [31]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media [32] and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [33] [34] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [35]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media [36] and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel. [37] [38] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [39]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. [45] [46] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [47]
Pro-government militia ... and occasionally the army have attacked the press which they accuse of supporting Tamil nationalism. On the other side, the Tiger Tamils threatened those who oppose their political position. (emphasis added)
The Committee to Protect Journalists however noted only one journalist was deliberately killed while at work in Sri Lanka. Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, a reporter for Sudar Oli, which had previously come under attack by both LTTE and anti-LTTE forces, was killed by unidentified gunman in January 2006.
:)
I've just been busy with various non-SL related articles and off-wiki commitments. I will try to formulate an appropriate response/suggestion in the next 2-3 days. Cheers,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)I SUGEST THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE ASOKA HADAGAMA AND VIMUKTHI FROM THE FILM SECTION, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THEIR WORK HAS GIVEN A WRONG IDEA. THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE DISGRACED SRI LANKAN FORCES WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINST TERRORISM.THEY DO THIS FOR NGO MONEY. WE HAVE EVIDANCE TO PROVE THAT. AND ASOKA HADAGAMA IS SUCH A MANIAC, HIS LATEST FILM WHICH IS BANNED IN SRI LANKA IS ALL ABOUT MOTHER AND SON SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE DO NOT PROMOTE SUCH PEOPLE IN THIS GREAT SITE, WITHOUT KNOWING CORRECT FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaya77 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to post this on the Flag stub, but I think here it will get noticed and hopefully remedied quicker.
Why has the flag been replaced with a strange stylized version? This version of the flag essentially has come from the OpenClipart library which in turn may have come from this site (the original artist is Željko Heimer) and not from an official government source. Not only have the lines on the lion been redrawn, I don't even think the colors are accurate. Originally the flag was from the CIA world fact book as per the WebArchive (it seems this image has been deleted from the Commons). This is the most accurate representation. I know, I'm from Sri Lanka.
I'm not going to change the image back as that won't fix the original problem that lead to the image being changed (not in SVG format). But, I hope someone can change the real version of the flag to SVG, so it can be accurately represented.
67.189.211.114 ( talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sri Lanka is a wonderful place with lot of historic, religious places and kind people. I suggest she is a must place to visit!
Kasunbg ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I see a lot of propaganda and weasel wording in the INTRO!! While all the good things about SL has been thoroughly neglected, some peoples willingness to add things like flawed nation, which are not even internationally recognised is amazing. And their ignorance about other countries who are in the list, such as South Africa, just confirm who politically motivated these SL bashing are!! Actually a careful looker would noticed, in fact SL has been raked 58 th out of 160+Countries!!These kind od weasel wording,twisted info and un-recognised criteria should not be included in the article, though I think standard criteria such as GNP per capita, GDP per capita, population growth, mortality rate etc should be in, though i am not sure whether we should have it in the intro.Thank you. Iwazaki 会話。討論 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Went through the list, there are only 27 countries with full democracy status. And the rest 100+ including India,South Africa,Italy,Israel etc are in the flawed or lesser categories!!! So, the insistence to add this only to SL, is un-encyclopaedic , Or I would prefer to call it COMICAL. Plus, removed weasel wording like, SL lag behind Maldives in GNP per capita. I mean, does it make any sense adding these to the intro ??!! Do we add America still lags behind Qatar in GNP per capita ?? Do we add, India is lagging behind SL and maldives in the India article intro ?? Do we add every country lags behind Luxembourg in each and every article??!!If people are insisting adding these, there should be consistency. Add these to every country article ,instead of bullying a small country like Sri Lanka. Thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Iwazaki is correct in that the details recently added to the intro are out of place. However they were discussed on the SLR talk page and consensus reached. They are not propaganda as they have highly regarded references. Hence it is not POV pushing. As for similar materials being in other articles, we are not concerned with that in this Sri Lanka peace effort. If any want to go add similar documented material to the articles of other nations, have at it. As strong community consensus was reached, and proper dispute resolution process was used and was informed thereof at the beginning and during the process, and these SR articles were duly tagged, he and all others not formally accepting the terms are still subject to them. That he chose to not participate is his choice. There is also not sufficient evidence at this point to fairly call the users socks as he did. This is a little different from my block of Snowolfdr, who was intentionally disruptive. Here Iwazaki did have some good intent. While he violate the 1RR, he hints to me he wasn't fully aware, though he should have read the restrictions. There is precedent for non-agreeing users being subject to edit restrictions, Arbcom allows admins to add users to said restrictions. I almost full protected this article, but decided not to. I also almost blocked Iwazaki too, but what I'm going to do here is give him one final warning (I know all won't agree with that, but that's what I'm doing here and remember you all begged me to stay with the peace effort). ALL USERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EDIT RESTRICTIONS. Iwazaki, this includes you and Snowolfd4. For all users, past edit history is an factor in determining block length. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse, thanks a lot for your input.Article looks much better/neutral now than it was before.though I have my reservation regarding flawed nation thing, which to my knowledge can be taken as a positive(regarding we were ranked 50+ out of 160+),I agree with your other edits. About the rules implemented by the reconciliation team, I was not aware of them.Since you have clearly explained it here,I will do my best not to break those in the future. But having said that, I would appreciate it a lot if you also take some action regarding tag-team editing in SL related articles.Also, I would also appreciate it,if anyone put a link in the relative talk pages about the on going debates at the reconciliation page, cause people who prefer not to be involved might not aware of those.Once again thanks for your comments and involvement. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering about what the real capital city is. The CIA World Factbook (who I think are very reliable) say it is Colombo. Lonely Planet say it is Colombo. I have checked over 15 different maps just by using Google Images and they all say Colombo. I have about 4 mini atlases and they all say Colombo. I've thought it was Colombo since I was born! Wikipedia seems to be the only site to list it as Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte or whatever it is. If there was some sort of change (which I thought I would have at lease known), when did happen and why is Colombo no longer the capital? Or was it the capital in the first place? If someone has answers, either post again here or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gibbsyspin ( talk) 05:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. The commercial capital is Colombo. This means the administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple colleagues who just purchased their new home. From Wikipedia's write-up, it seems the Sr89i Lankan people are well diversed. Are there traditional gifts we could offer for their new home? Thank you all for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.150.30 ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You could buy them clay carvings of the sun and moon (the moon should be a crescent with a rabbit). If you live in Colombo, you can get them at Lakpahana or Laksala. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I will ad about fair trade tea after the article is un locked.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.54.36 ( talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Should both instances of Sinhalese text in this article be images? I think it looks messy (as an image, it is blurry and aliased) and it looks out of place when the normal text is viewed in larger or smaller sizes. Also, one should expect Sinhalese at the Sri Lanka article, as much as you should expect Georgian at Georgia. They are both relatively rare fonts, but I think if a person cares enough about the language to see the foreign text, he or she should get the font. ALTON .ıl 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wrong entry in the Districts page. There is No such thing as Alambil in Sri Lanka. Where did that come from????
Please someone, modify it. The Districts for the northern province should be 1. Jaffna 2. Kilinochchi 3. Mannar 4. Mulativu 5. Vavuniya
09:45, 10 March 2008 (+0530) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.133.225 ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Both the government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are accused of violating human rights. In its 2007 report, however, they...
"It" and "they" could refer to either the Sri Lankan government or the LTTE. Anyone care to clarify?
Verbalcontract ( talk) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
IT SAYS THAT HINDUISM WAS BROUGHT TO SRI LANKA BY HINDU MERCHANTS FROM SOUTH INDIA.. HOWEVER IT NOT THE FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.58.79 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
im not disagreeing with you... but prove it. 165.21.155.76 ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hinduism was brought to Sri Lanka by the Aryans from North India, whom, I mentioned in the section Ethnic history, wiped out the native Yaksha and Naga tribes, making Hinduism the mainstream religion until Mahinda Thera brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka, centuries later. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From Article: The *fall* of the kingdom of Kandy in 1815 unified the island under British rule.
- This statement is partially correct..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a photo that says: Hoppers, a Sri Lankan delicacy.
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Sri_Lanka you will see "Hoppers (appa) are another food native to Sri Lanka, served mainly for breakfast or lunch and often accompanied by "lunumiris," a fiery hot mix of red onions and spices"
And finally, on the entry for delicacies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicacy it states "A delicacy is a food that is particularly prized within a given culture. Delicacies are often rare foods that are difficult to obtain or prepare, and as a result may only be served for special occasions. Often the rarity or difficulty to prepare a dish causes it to be comparatively expensive to other local foods."
So my question is this: If a delicacy is rare and hoppers served for breakfast or lunch, are they really a delicacy? It might be prized in Sri Lankan culture, no doubt, but does that, independent of rarity, make it a delicacy?
Just curious.
66.108.217.8 ( talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Appa used to be eaten for breakfast and lunch and is only eaten by people in rurual Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is not common to find to find hoppers in urban Sri Lanka, making it a delicacy. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the failed state business? I do not see it included in any of the other countries articles (the failed state ones). Further it seems almost arbitary because the basis of the judgement seems vague. Regardless I do not think its notable enough, and if it is it should be added to all the other articles as well (i am putting in an appropriate tag please reply here before removing it). Pubuman ( talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The History section is misleading. Actually most history sections in the southern parts seem to have conflicting points of views. The true history of most of India and Sri lanka is that they were occupied by the "Cola" empire. They were the first sailors in the region and occupied most parts of India, Sri lanka, Malasia and Singapore. They were and always will be the original settlers of Sri lanka. So please make the correction at least for History sake.
Concerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.201.107 ( talk)
I know it's nothing compared to the other disputes going on over here, but I noticed that while the article mentions "The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list).", there are actually only 31 countries on that list... Again, I know it's just a detail, but it IS wrong, so I think it should be corrected... 201.223.140.170 ( talk) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me, I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. R a k h t æ l 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a few spelling mistakes in the article. I can not edit to correct them because it's restricted. Karlstar ( talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
FTA "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."
The difference between the day and night temperature sounds correct in Celsius (centigrade). But not in Fahrenheit. Someone mindlessly applied the formula to give the equivalent Fahrenheit temperature which is not the same as the difference range. A difference range between day and night of 4-7 C converts to 7.2-12.6 degrees Fahrenheit. So instead the sentence should read "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7.2 °F) to 7 °C (12.6 °F)" and if rounding is desired just say from 7 to 13 degrees F difference between day and night temperatures.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised in today's innumerate society that this was presented incorrectly and has gone uncorrected. 75.65.12.80 ( talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Almost everyone know that the civil war has been going on and this section must be the main interest about Sri Lanka for a foreseeable future. The section should include concise information of the civil war, one of which must be the origin and the background of the civil war. One of the guideline state that content forking for a partisan purpose should be discouraged. And someone who openly support the government troop in his page may not be the appropriate person to delete unfavourable reference to the past Sri Lankan Policy. Vapour ( talk) 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The 13th ammendment of the Sri Lankan constitution has expired. (Making Tamil an official languge). Therefore Tamil is not an official Language anymore. http://www.colombopage.com/archive_091/Jul1246811709RA.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshana48 ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Question. Why in the infobox, under independence from the UK, does it say Foundation 543BC? Independence from the UK wasn't in 543BC. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
removed again. No date of 543 BC for any sort of historical unification of Sri Lanka is cited. Looking into the history article, I find that the earliest date for which we can say the island has been under a single admninistration would be the Chola invasion of 1018. I am not sure how that qualifies as "foundation" of the current state though. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
fwiiw, I figured out what the 543 date was. It's the traditional year of accession of a legendary ruler or culture hero, Vijaya of Sri Lanka. The source for this is the Mahavamsa, although nobody seems to be able to quote who came up with the absolute date of 543 BC. If somebody is able to actually cite a reference for the 543 date, we could state that it is a traditional date for the legendary foundation of the first Sinhala kingdom on the island. -- dab (𒁳) 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
there appears to be an edit warrior reverting to this unreferenced legendary date, in spite of the giant "special restrictions" template. I strongly suggest that whoever wants to see this date in the infobox
otherwise, their behaviour will fall under WP:DISRUPT as plain revert-warring. -- dab (𒁳) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
this may come as a shock, but Wikipedia does not accept random urls as "references". Please read WP:RS. It strikes me as rather questionable to treat an unattributed date for a legendary first Sinhala king as the "foundation of Sri Lanka". This needs a quotable reference putting it in context or it needs to go. Note that we do not just need a source dating Vijaya to 543 BC. We need a source explicitly stating that Vijaya is traditionally dated to 543 BC and that this date is "frequently" or "popularly" taken as the first foundation of the Sri Lankan state. -- dab (𒁳) 10:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
googling around, I find this interesting source stating "The Vijaya story was certainly not the only colonization myth about Sri Lanka". Here is another interesting reference for more context. It turns out that the Vijaya story is a Sinhalese colonization myth. The 543 BC date is deep in Sri Lankan prehistory and cannot be taken literally, although it is plausible that Sinhalese colonization took place roughly around that date. I think it would be fitting to refer to Vijaya story as a notable national myth of Sinhalese Sri Lanka in the article body, but I do not think it is fit to be listed as the date of the "foundation of Sri Lanka" without qualification. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There is another, very prominent name for Ancient Sri Lanka: "Heladiva" (meaning 'land of the Hela'). This name is not given in the article and it SHOULD be. "Heladiva" is what the ancient people of Sri Lanka called the island in the era of King Ravana.
Not done
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
With the hope of resolving the various disputes that led to the most recent page protection and of expediting the removal of said protection, and on the assumption that this diff includes all of the issues at dispute, I propose that we consider each point individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
Should the FSI rank of Sri Lanka be given in the article? If so, should it be included in the infobox?
I think that the FSI rank should be included in the article, but not in the infobox. The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section). However, it is not part of the standard Infobox Country or territory template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:03, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>And? -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: Following discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank, the FSI parameters have been removed from the main infobox. I am tenatively tagging this section as "resolved" (with a description); if there are any outstanding issue, please remove the notice and provide clarification. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The quote by Churchill exists as a footnote to support the claim that "Sri Lanka served as an important base for Allied forces in the fight against the Japanese Empire". As far as proofs for claims of importance (a subjective concept) go, it's rather good, considering the identity of the quoted person. I'm not entirely sure why it is disputed, especially since the sentence itself doesn't seem to be disputed ... is this something that simply got caught up in the cycle of reverts? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". If so, the claim that Sri Lanka is a "stable democracy" cannot be classified as a fact. Since there is real-world dispute regarding the matter (the US Department of State classifies Sri Lanka as a "stable democracy" [2], but the World Bank and Asian Development Bank classify it as "one of the world's most politically unstable countries", [3] and The Economist labels it a "flawed democracy". [4]), I think the best course of action is to present both major views.
With regard to the part about "continuous economic progress"; an initial glance at the sources suggests that Sri Lanka has had relatively steady economic progress, despite the civil war, despite "the reemergence of the civil war resulting in increased lawlessness in the country" [5] and despite the "sharp decline in tourism". [6] [7] (Note: the quotes are taken from the article, not the sources.) I'll comment more after I've had a chance to read through the sources in greater detail. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The text under dispute reads as follows:
Buddhism, the state religion is given the foremost place in the constitution of the country [8]. Hence unlike a liberal democracy, there exists no separation between religion and the state.
Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of the religion as a responsibility of the state. [9]
There are three reasons behind my proposed change. First, given that the text is contentious, it may be best to fall back on quoting directly from the Constitution. Second, according to this source, Buddhism is not the official state religion (a specific term with specific connotations). Third, the sentence that begins with "Hence unlike ..." seems to constitute an original synthesis. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am ok with the version you suggested with this change to emphasize the role of Buddhism Sinhala freedom 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC):
Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. [10]
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. Enshrined in the constitution is the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have, adopt and manifest ones religion. [12]
The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state, [13] but also guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", including to adopt a religion and to practice it. [14]
This section has received no comments in the past 10 days. Can we consider the issue resolved, with an agreement to exclude the information from this article and with preference for inclusion in the article Constitution of Sri Lanka (although I can't identify a suitable location at this time)? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't determine what exactly is disputed and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
Comments, please? For reference, the disputed text reads as follows:
But this policy of subsidizing imported commodities like fuel, fertiliser and wheat soon unravelled the fiscal sector. In 2004 alone Sri Lanka spent approximately US$ 180 million on a fuel subsidy, as fixing fuel prices had been an election promise. To finance the expanded budget deficit arising from a range of subsidies and a public sector recruitment drive, the government eventually had to print Rs 65 billion (US$ 650 million) or around 3% of GDP. The expansionary fiscal policy, coupled with loose monetary policy eventually drove inflation up to 18% by January 2005, as measured by the Sri Lanka Consumer Price Index. Following the resumption of the civil war in 2005, which gave rise to increased lawlessness in the country, various foreign governments reduced assistance to Sri Lanka [15] [16].
– Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The disputed text reads:
Nearly all of the island's Indian plantation workers were stripped of their citizenship due to Ceylon Citizenship act of 1948. [18] Under various agreements, nearly 50 % of plantation workers were expelled to India and the remaining were granted citizenship by 2003. [19]
The main problem I can identify is with the sources. The first source (a BBC timeline) doesn't mention the Ceylon Citizenship Act. The second source leads to a book's index, but doesn't provide page numbers. Unfortunately, Google Books does not provide a preview for the book.
Another problem may be with regard to the location of the sentences. They seem, to me, to be better suited for inclusion in the "History" section of the article, the History of Sri Lanka article, or the Demographics of Sri Lanka article. As a rule, the "Demographics" section on the main country page should provide only general information. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were expelled back following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.
;)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.
All of them were forcefully repatriated against their will. the above wording makes it sound like they all went away happily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.234.126 ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What proportion of the Sri Lankan population adheres to Buddhism? Is it 65% or 76.7%? The CIA World Factbook gives a figure of 69.1%, based on "2001 census provisional data" ( link). The GOSL provides a figure of 69% as well ( link). Where did the other two figures come from? In any case, I propose that we use the value of 69%, as given the by GOSL (and repeated by the CIA). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The disputed paragraph reads as follow:
After the resumption of the civil war in 2005, Sri Lanka has steadily clamped down on its once free media. Verbal attack against media personnel by government authorities is common and has resulted in an atmosphere of self-censorship [20]. By 2007, it is considered one of the worst places in the world for media personnel [21]. According to Reporters with Borders (RSF) Pro-government militias have been actively targeting and attacking media organization with opposing points of view [22]. In addition the LTTE has also been accused of threatening those who oppose their political position. RSF also maintains the killers of media personnel orchestrated by pro-government militias live with total impunity [23].
I suggest rewriting the paragraph to include explicit attribution to RSF (per WP:NPOV), which is directly responsible for three of the four sources:
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel by non-governmental organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute and Reporters sans frontières (RSF); in 2006, five media workers were killed on the island. [24] According to RSF, various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. [25] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [26]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon ( talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [27] According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. [28] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [29]
Following the war, popular pressure for independence intensified. On February 4, 1948 the country won its independence as the Commonwealth of Ceylon. Don Stephen Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. In 1972, the country became a republic within the Commonwealth, and the name was changed to Sri Lanka. On July 21, 1960 Sirimavo Bandaranaike took office as prime minister, and became the first female head of government in post-colonial Asia and the first female prime minister in the world. The island enjoyed good relations with the United Kingdom and had the British Royal Navy stationed at Trincomalee.
Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, predominantly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers), a separatist militant organization who fight to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island.
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [30] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [31]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media [32] and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. [33] [34] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [35]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media [36] and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel. [37] [38] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [39]
The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. [45] [46] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [47]
Pro-government militia ... and occasionally the army have attacked the press which they accuse of supporting Tamil nationalism. On the other side, the Tiger Tamils threatened those who oppose their political position. (emphasis added)
The Committee to Protect Journalists however noted only one journalist was deliberately killed while at work in Sri Lanka. Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, a reporter for Sudar Oli, which had previously come under attack by both LTTE and anti-LTTE forces, was killed by unidentified gunman in January 2006.
:)
I've just been busy with various non-SL related articles and off-wiki commitments. I will try to formulate an appropriate response/suggestion in the next 2-3 days. Cheers,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)I SUGEST THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE ASOKA HADAGAMA AND VIMUKTHI FROM THE FILM SECTION, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THEIR WORK HAS GIVEN A WRONG IDEA. THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE DISGRACED SRI LANKAN FORCES WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINST TERRORISM.THEY DO THIS FOR NGO MONEY. WE HAVE EVIDANCE TO PROVE THAT. AND ASOKA HADAGAMA IS SUCH A MANIAC, HIS LATEST FILM WHICH IS BANNED IN SRI LANKA IS ALL ABOUT MOTHER AND SON SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE DO NOT PROMOTE SUCH PEOPLE IN THIS GREAT SITE, WITHOUT KNOWING CORRECT FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaya77 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to post this on the Flag stub, but I think here it will get noticed and hopefully remedied quicker.
Why has the flag been replaced with a strange stylized version? This version of the flag essentially has come from the OpenClipart library which in turn may have come from this site (the original artist is Željko Heimer) and not from an official government source. Not only have the lines on the lion been redrawn, I don't even think the colors are accurate. Originally the flag was from the CIA world fact book as per the WebArchive (it seems this image has been deleted from the Commons). This is the most accurate representation. I know, I'm from Sri Lanka.
I'm not going to change the image back as that won't fix the original problem that lead to the image being changed (not in SVG format). But, I hope someone can change the real version of the flag to SVG, so it can be accurately represented.
67.189.211.114 ( talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sri Lanka is a wonderful place with lot of historic, religious places and kind people. I suggest she is a must place to visit!
Kasunbg ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I see a lot of propaganda and weasel wording in the INTRO!! While all the good things about SL has been thoroughly neglected, some peoples willingness to add things like flawed nation, which are not even internationally recognised is amazing. And their ignorance about other countries who are in the list, such as South Africa, just confirm who politically motivated these SL bashing are!! Actually a careful looker would noticed, in fact SL has been raked 58 th out of 160+Countries!!These kind od weasel wording,twisted info and un-recognised criteria should not be included in the article, though I think standard criteria such as GNP per capita, GDP per capita, population growth, mortality rate etc should be in, though i am not sure whether we should have it in the intro.Thank you. Iwazaki 会話。討論 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Went through the list, there are only 27 countries with full democracy status. And the rest 100+ including India,South Africa,Italy,Israel etc are in the flawed or lesser categories!!! So, the insistence to add this only to SL, is un-encyclopaedic , Or I would prefer to call it COMICAL. Plus, removed weasel wording like, SL lag behind Maldives in GNP per capita. I mean, does it make any sense adding these to the intro ??!! Do we add America still lags behind Qatar in GNP per capita ?? Do we add, India is lagging behind SL and maldives in the India article intro ?? Do we add every country lags behind Luxembourg in each and every article??!!If people are insisting adding these, there should be consistency. Add these to every country article ,instead of bullying a small country like Sri Lanka. Thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Iwazaki is correct in that the details recently added to the intro are out of place. However they were discussed on the SLR talk page and consensus reached. They are not propaganda as they have highly regarded references. Hence it is not POV pushing. As for similar materials being in other articles, we are not concerned with that in this Sri Lanka peace effort. If any want to go add similar documented material to the articles of other nations, have at it. As strong community consensus was reached, and proper dispute resolution process was used and was informed thereof at the beginning and during the process, and these SR articles were duly tagged, he and all others not formally accepting the terms are still subject to them. That he chose to not participate is his choice. There is also not sufficient evidence at this point to fairly call the users socks as he did. This is a little different from my block of Snowolfdr, who was intentionally disruptive. Here Iwazaki did have some good intent. While he violate the 1RR, he hints to me he wasn't fully aware, though he should have read the restrictions. There is precedent for non-agreeing users being subject to edit restrictions, Arbcom allows admins to add users to said restrictions. I almost full protected this article, but decided not to. I also almost blocked Iwazaki too, but what I'm going to do here is give him one final warning (I know all won't agree with that, but that's what I'm doing here and remember you all begged me to stay with the peace effort). ALL USERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EDIT RESTRICTIONS. Iwazaki, this includes you and Snowolfd4. For all users, past edit history is an factor in determining block length. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse, thanks a lot for your input.Article looks much better/neutral now than it was before.though I have my reservation regarding flawed nation thing, which to my knowledge can be taken as a positive(regarding we were ranked 50+ out of 160+),I agree with your other edits. About the rules implemented by the reconciliation team, I was not aware of them.Since you have clearly explained it here,I will do my best not to break those in the future. But having said that, I would appreciate it a lot if you also take some action regarding tag-team editing in SL related articles.Also, I would also appreciate it,if anyone put a link in the relative talk pages about the on going debates at the reconciliation page, cause people who prefer not to be involved might not aware of those.Once again thanks for your comments and involvement. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering about what the real capital city is. The CIA World Factbook (who I think are very reliable) say it is Colombo. Lonely Planet say it is Colombo. I have checked over 15 different maps just by using Google Images and they all say Colombo. I have about 4 mini atlases and they all say Colombo. I've thought it was Colombo since I was born! Wikipedia seems to be the only site to list it as Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte or whatever it is. If there was some sort of change (which I thought I would have at lease known), when did happen and why is Colombo no longer the capital? Or was it the capital in the first place? If someone has answers, either post again here or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gibbsyspin ( talk) 05:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. The commercial capital is Colombo. This means the administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple colleagues who just purchased their new home. From Wikipedia's write-up, it seems the Sr89i Lankan people are well diversed. Are there traditional gifts we could offer for their new home? Thank you all for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.150.30 ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You could buy them clay carvings of the sun and moon (the moon should be a crescent with a rabbit). If you live in Colombo, you can get them at Lakpahana or Laksala. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I will ad about fair trade tea after the article is un locked.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.54.36 ( talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Should both instances of Sinhalese text in this article be images? I think it looks messy (as an image, it is blurry and aliased) and it looks out of place when the normal text is viewed in larger or smaller sizes. Also, one should expect Sinhalese at the Sri Lanka article, as much as you should expect Georgian at Georgia. They are both relatively rare fonts, but I think if a person cares enough about the language to see the foreign text, he or she should get the font. ALTON .ıl 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wrong entry in the Districts page. There is No such thing as Alambil in Sri Lanka. Where did that come from????
Please someone, modify it. The Districts for the northern province should be 1. Jaffna 2. Kilinochchi 3. Mannar 4. Mulativu 5. Vavuniya
09:45, 10 March 2008 (+0530) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.133.225 ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Both the government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are accused of violating human rights. In its 2007 report, however, they...
"It" and "they" could refer to either the Sri Lankan government or the LTTE. Anyone care to clarify?
Verbalcontract ( talk) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
IT SAYS THAT HINDUISM WAS BROUGHT TO SRI LANKA BY HINDU MERCHANTS FROM SOUTH INDIA.. HOWEVER IT NOT THE FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.58.79 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
im not disagreeing with you... but prove it. 165.21.155.76 ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hinduism was brought to Sri Lanka by the Aryans from North India, whom, I mentioned in the section Ethnic history, wiped out the native Yaksha and Naga tribes, making Hinduism the mainstream religion until Mahinda Thera brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka, centuries later. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From Article: The *fall* of the kingdom of Kandy in 1815 unified the island under British rule.
- This statement is partially correct..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a photo that says: Hoppers, a Sri Lankan delicacy.
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Sri_Lanka you will see "Hoppers (appa) are another food native to Sri Lanka, served mainly for breakfast or lunch and often accompanied by "lunumiris," a fiery hot mix of red onions and spices"
And finally, on the entry for delicacies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicacy it states "A delicacy is a food that is particularly prized within a given culture. Delicacies are often rare foods that are difficult to obtain or prepare, and as a result may only be served for special occasions. Often the rarity or difficulty to prepare a dish causes it to be comparatively expensive to other local foods."
So my question is this: If a delicacy is rare and hoppers served for breakfast or lunch, are they really a delicacy? It might be prized in Sri Lankan culture, no doubt, but does that, independent of rarity, make it a delicacy?
Just curious.
66.108.217.8 ( talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Appa used to be eaten for breakfast and lunch and is only eaten by people in rurual Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is not common to find to find hoppers in urban Sri Lanka, making it a delicacy. Srilankan1948 ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the failed state business? I do not see it included in any of the other countries articles (the failed state ones). Further it seems almost arbitary because the basis of the judgement seems vague. Regardless I do not think its notable enough, and if it is it should be added to all the other articles as well (i am putting in an appropriate tag please reply here before removing it). Pubuman ( talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The History section is misleading. Actually most history sections in the southern parts seem to have conflicting points of views. The true history of most of India and Sri lanka is that they were occupied by the "Cola" empire. They were the first sailors in the region and occupied most parts of India, Sri lanka, Malasia and Singapore. They were and always will be the original settlers of Sri lanka. So please make the correction at least for History sake.
Concerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.201.107 ( talk)
I know it's nothing compared to the other disputes going on over here, but I noticed that while the article mentions "The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list).", there are actually only 31 countries on that list... Again, I know it's just a detail, but it IS wrong, so I think it should be corrected... 201.223.140.170 ( talk) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me, I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. R a k h t æ l 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a few spelling mistakes in the article. I can not edit to correct them because it's restricted. Karlstar ( talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
FTA "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."
The difference between the day and night temperature sounds correct in Celsius (centigrade). But not in Fahrenheit. Someone mindlessly applied the formula to give the equivalent Fahrenheit temperature which is not the same as the difference range. A difference range between day and night of 4-7 C converts to 7.2-12.6 degrees Fahrenheit. So instead the sentence should read "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7.2 °F) to 7 °C (12.6 °F)" and if rounding is desired just say from 7 to 13 degrees F difference between day and night temperatures.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised in today's innumerate society that this was presented incorrectly and has gone uncorrected. 75.65.12.80 ( talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Almost everyone know that the civil war has been going on and this section must be the main interest about Sri Lanka for a foreseeable future. The section should include concise information of the civil war, one of which must be the origin and the background of the civil war. One of the guideline state that content forking for a partisan purpose should be discouraged. And someone who openly support the government troop in his page may not be the appropriate person to delete unfavourable reference to the past Sri Lankan Policy. Vapour ( talk) 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The 13th ammendment of the Sri Lankan constitution has expired. (Making Tamil an official languge). Therefore Tamil is not an official Language anymore. http://www.colombopage.com/archive_091/Jul1246811709RA.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshana48 ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Question. Why in the infobox, under independence from the UK, does it say Foundation 543BC? Independence from the UK wasn't in 543BC. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
removed again. No date of 543 BC for any sort of historical unification of Sri Lanka is cited. Looking into the history article, I find that the earliest date for which we can say the island has been under a single admninistration would be the Chola invasion of 1018. I am not sure how that qualifies as "foundation" of the current state though. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
fwiiw, I figured out what the 543 date was. It's the traditional year of accession of a legendary ruler or culture hero, Vijaya of Sri Lanka. The source for this is the Mahavamsa, although nobody seems to be able to quote who came up with the absolute date of 543 BC. If somebody is able to actually cite a reference for the 543 date, we could state that it is a traditional date for the legendary foundation of the first Sinhala kingdom on the island. -- dab (𒁳) 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
there appears to be an edit warrior reverting to this unreferenced legendary date, in spite of the giant "special restrictions" template. I strongly suggest that whoever wants to see this date in the infobox
otherwise, their behaviour will fall under WP:DISRUPT as plain revert-warring. -- dab (𒁳) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
this may come as a shock, but Wikipedia does not accept random urls as "references". Please read WP:RS. It strikes me as rather questionable to treat an unattributed date for a legendary first Sinhala king as the "foundation of Sri Lanka". This needs a quotable reference putting it in context or it needs to go. Note that we do not just need a source dating Vijaya to 543 BC. We need a source explicitly stating that Vijaya is traditionally dated to 543 BC and that this date is "frequently" or "popularly" taken as the first foundation of the Sri Lankan state. -- dab (𒁳) 10:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
googling around, I find this interesting source stating "The Vijaya story was certainly not the only colonization myth about Sri Lanka". Here is another interesting reference for more context. It turns out that the Vijaya story is a Sinhalese colonization myth. The 543 BC date is deep in Sri Lankan prehistory and cannot be taken literally, although it is plausible that Sinhalese colonization took place roughly around that date. I think it would be fitting to refer to Vijaya story as a notable national myth of Sinhalese Sri Lanka in the article body, but I do not think it is fit to be listed as the date of the "foundation of Sri Lanka" without qualification. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There is another, very prominent name for Ancient Sri Lanka: "Heladiva" (meaning 'land of the Hela'). This name is not given in the article and it SHOULD be. "Heladiva" is what the ancient people of Sri Lanka called the island in the era of King Ravana.
Not done