Talk:History of Sri Lanka

Request of improvement in quality by YOUNG PATRIOTS

Sri lanka is a a country which has a very rich history and a high civilization.Some of the facts of SriLanka in this page is not completely acceptable or is incomplete.There is clear evidence to show the high technological skills in the field of irrigation by early Aryans who migrated from North and West India who started their migration around the 3rd century B.C. Sri lanka showed rapid development in agriculture and systems of administration which were much advanced than the European Nations of that time. Yoda Ela,Parakrama Samudraya are some excellent creation of ancient srilankan Kings.It is still an amazement to the present generation of the high technological skills used by ancient srilanka. But in this page nothing is mentioned about the early civilization of Sri Lanka which is considered more advanced when compared to the European history.Itis also evident that the European invasions became ahindrance to the development of the Srilankan Nation. I request this page to be edited by good Sri Lankan intellectuals who have experience in this field.

                                                            Request by Fahad Rismy

Good suggestion Rismy but we must be careful not to get into this compare and contrast chest beatings and loose track of the real objective facts, our credibility lies there.

If you can present your sources, we will include your information. Without a source to cite, this cannot be added. 207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doubts cleared

Dear jonasaurus,SriLanks was never a part of India.It always remained as a separate country.But there were cultural invasions and that takes places between any neighbors.But there were some wars fought between two countries.And finally India itself was never a one whole country before its Independence,and moreover South of Deccan the Kings were either Feudatories or Independent.And Sri Lanka's nearest Neighbors,the Ramnad Kingdom and the Madurai Kingdom were Independent sovereigns till the Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb. I Hope some of your doubts have been cleared. Qiki

wow i understood the srilankan history!seems like windows of srilankan history creator working hard to improve the older versions like mahawamsa 1960 the first edition now out more reliable version for who believe born to a lion,mahawamsa 7.even mahawamsa is not a sinhala word sanskrit!is our Sinhalese letters unique?every one answer NO! kanada Telugu mix like modern remix not have any uniqueness.our community dnt know the rest of the world dats the major problem,im to srilankan dnt misunderstand me i knew dis via dishtv z Canada,z Telugu channels watch it ,we dnt have any connection with north India stop developing the extremists we are 2600 light years back from the modern world!!i went India in there net transfer speed 2mps our country 0.2mps dats y dnt care about the Tamils there are goose they will go to hell by r=there self or make there life lose,we have to care about the our country develops within the next year our country should change more building also i want net trans speed 6mps.!!!!!!! dnt write like a fool {we build that this} now these day even road engineered by Chinese Eng,srilankas biggest idole building by the Tamils idol builder shame!!!daty forget those fake stories also there many logical holes therefore stop the mal JUST DEVELOP OUR LANKAN MADHA oops madha to nt our word man tamil language accepted as one the oldest language we cant say tamils got words from us still we using many words .im sl leftist nt support unp jvp even pa only respect the our national security forces who lost there life for dis ridiculous war god bless srilanka im a eng student frm moratuwa hopefully ill support to dis country by my talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.52.130 (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment is completely incomprehensible and extremely opinionated. There is a general lack of reliable sources for this topic. 207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qiki (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Requests for Improvement

this article and a number of other articles that focus on aspects of Sri Lankan/Ceylon history need to be cleaned up. There is a current dispute as to whether Sri Lanka has ever been part of India, as this article states. Somebody with an amount of experience on Sri Lankan history is needed to help with this article. Sorry I couldn't help. --jonasaurus 06:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please add major events in sri lankan history such 1971 JVP uprising and civil war 1987-89.

Thanks

1971 Uprising

The leftist Sinhalese Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna drew worldwide attention when it launched an insurrection against the Bandaranaike government in April 1971. Although the insurgents were young, poorly armed, and inadequately trained, they succeeded in seizing and holding major areas in Southern and Central provinces before they were defeated by the security forces. Their attempt to seize power created a major crisis for the government and forced a fundamental reassessment of the nation's security needs.

The paavak movement was started in the late 1960s by Rohana Wijeweera, the son of a businessman from the seaport of Tangalla, Hambantota District. An excellent student, Wijeweera had been forced to give up his studies for financial reasons. Through friends of his father, a member of the Ceylon Communist Party, Wijeweera successfully applied for a scholarship in the Soviet Union, and in 1960 at the age of seventeen, he went to Moscow to study medicine at Patrice Lumumba University. While in Moscow, he studied Marxist ideology but, because of his openly expressed sympathies for Maoist revolutionary theory, he was denied a visa to return to the Soviet Union after a brief trip home in 1964. Over the next several years, he participated in the pro-Beijing branch of the Ceylon Communist Party, but he was increasingly at odds with party leaders and impatient with its lack of revolutionary purpose. His success in working with youth groups and his popularity as a public speaker led him to organize his own movement in 1967. Initially identified simply as the New Left, this group drew on students and unemployed youths from rural areas, most of them in the sixteen-to-twenty-five-age- group. Many of these new recruits were members of lower castes (Karava and Durava) who felt that their economic interests had been neglected by the nation's leftist coalitions. The standard program of indoctrination, the so-called Five Lectures, included discussions of Indian imperialism, the growing economic crisis, the failure of the island's communist and socialist parties, and the need for a sudden, violent seizure of power.

Between 1967 and 1970, the group expanded rapidly, gaining control of the student socialist movement at a number of major university campuses and winning recruits and sympathizers within the armed forces. Some of these latter supporters actually provided sketches of police stations, airports, and military facilities that were important to the initial success of the revolt. In order to draw the newer members more tightly into the organization and to prepare them for a coming confrontation, Wijeweera opened "education camps" in several remote areas along the south and southwestern coasts. These camps provided training in Marxism-Leninism and in basic military skills.

While developing secret cells and regional commands, Wijeweera's group also began to take a more public role during the elections of 1970. His cadres campaigned openly for the United Front of Sirimavo R. D. Bandaranaike, but at the same time they distributed posters and pamphlets promising violent rebellion if Bandaranaike did not address the interests of the proletariat. In a manifesto issued during this period, the group used the name Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna for the first time. Because of the subversive tone of these publications, the United National Party government had Wijeweera detained during the elections, but the victorious Bandaranaike ordered his release in July 1970. In the politically tolerant atmosphere of the next few months, as the new government attempted to win over a wide variety of unorthodox leftist groups, the JVP intensified both the public campaign and the private preparations for a revolt. Although their group was relatively small, the members hoped to immobilize the government by selective kidnapping and sudden, simultaneous strikes against the security forces throughout the island. Some of the necessary weapons had been bought with funds supplied by the members. For the most part, however, they relied on raids against police stations and army camps to secure weapons, and they manufactured their own bombs.

The discovery of several JVP bomb factories gave the government its first evidence that the group's public threats were to be taken seriously. In March 1971, after an accidental explosion in one of these factories, the police found fifty-eight bombs in a hut in Nelundeniya, Kegalla District. Shortly afterward, Wijeweera was arrested and sent to Jaffna Prison, where he remained throughout the revolt. In response to his arrest and the growing pressure of police investigations, other JVP leaders decided to act immediately, and they agreed to begin the uprising at 11:00 P.M. on April 5.

The planning for the countrywide insurrection was hasty and poorly coordinated; some of the district leaders were not informed until the morning of the uprising. After one premature attack, security forces throughout the island were put on alert and a number of JVP leaders went into hiding without bothering to inform their subordinates of the changed circumstances. In spite of this confusion, rebel groups armed with shotguns, bombs, and Molotov cocktails launched simultaneous attacks against seventy- four police stations around the island and cut power to major urban areas. The attacks were most successful in the south. By April 10, the rebels had taken control of Matara District and the city of Ambalangoda in Galle District and came close to capturing the remaining areas of Southern Province.

The new government was ill prepared for the crisis that confronted it. Although there had been some warning that an attack was imminent, Bandaranaike was caught off guard by the scale of the uprising and was forced to call on India to provide basic security functions. Indian frigates patrolled the coast and Indian troops guarded Bandaranaike International Airport at Katunayaka while Indian Air Force helicopters assisted the counteroffensive. Sri Lanka's all-volunteer army had no combat experience since World War II and no training in counterinsurgency warfare. Although the police were able to defend some areas unassisted, in many places the government deployed personnel from all three services in a ground force capacity. Royal Ceylon Air Force helicopters delivered relief supplies to beleaguered police stations while combined service patrols drove the insurgents out of urban areas and into the countryside.

After two weeks of fighting, the government regained control of all but a few remote areas. In both human and political terms, the cost of the victory was high: an estimated 10,000 insurgents- -many of them in their teens--died in the conflict, and the army was widely perceived to have used excessive force. In order to win over an alienated population and to prevent a prolonged conflict, Bandaranaike offered amnesties in May and June 1971, and only the top leaders were actually imprisoned. Wijeweera, who was already in detention at the time of the uprising, was given a twenty-year sentence and the JVP was proscribed.

Under the six years of emergency rule that followed the uprising, the JVP remained dormant. After the victory of the United National Party in the 1977 elections, however, the new government attempted to broaden its mandate with a period of political tolerance. Wijeweera was freed, the ban was lifted, and the JVP entered the arena of legal political competition. As a candidate in the 1982 presidential elections, Wijeweera finished fourth, with more than 250,000 votes (as compared with Jayewardene's 3.2 million). During this period, and especially as the Tamil conflict to the north became more intense, there was a marked shift in the ideology and goals of the JVP. Initially Marxist in orientation, and claiming to represent the oppressed of both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities, the group emerged increasingly as a Sinhalese nationalist organization opposing any compromise with the Tamil insurgency. This new orientation became explicit in the anti-Tamil riots of July 1983. Because of its role in inciting violence, the JVP was once again banned and its leadership went underground.

The group's activities intensified in the second half of 1987 in the wake of the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord. The prospect of Tamil autonomy in the north together with the presence of Indian troops stirred up a wave of Sinhalese nationalism and a sudden growth of antigovernment violence. During 1987 a new group emerged that was an offshoot of the JVP--the Patriotic Liberation Organization (Deshapreni Janatha Viyaparaya--DJV). The DJV claimed responsibility for the August 1987 assassination attempts against the president and prime minister. In addition, the group launched a campaign of intimidation against the ruling party, killing more than seventy members of Parliament between July and November.

Along with the group's renewed violence came a renewed fear of infiltration of the armed forces. Following the successful raid of the Pallekelle army camp in May 1987, the government conducted an investigation that resulted in the discharge of thirty-seven soldiers suspected of having links with the JVP. In order to prevent a repetition of the 1971 uprising, the government considered lifting the ban on the JVP in early 1988 and permitting the group to participate again in the political arena. With Wijeweera still underground, however, the JVP had no clear leadership at the time, and it was uncertain whether it had the cohesion to mount any coordinated offensive, either military or political, against the government.

-- I do not see any reason to place this as required for grammar or spelling correction. The structure is sound. Sources are required though.207.35.67.130 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1978 Constitution

Sri Lanka has benefited from the traditions of the rule of law and constitutional government that emerged during 150 years of British colonial rule. At least until the early 1970s, these traditions fostered the development of a political system characterized by broad popular participation in the political process, generally strict observance of legal guarantees of human and civil rights, and an orderly succession of elected governments without the intervention, as has occurred in several neighboring states, of the military. By the early 1980s, however, many observers feared for the future of Sri Lanka's democratic institutions. Some observers contended that constitutional government, rather than curbing the arbitrary use of political power, seemed itself to be shaped by aggressively narrow sectarian interests whose manipulation of the constitutional amendment process excluded large numbers of persons from politics and contributed to ethnic polarization and violence.

Historical Perspective, 1802-1978

After the Dutch ceded the island's maritime provinces to the British in 1802, these areas became Britain's first crown colony. The conquest and subjugation of the inland Kingdom of Kandy in 1815-18 brought the entire island under British control. Crown colony status meant that the island's affairs were administered by the Colonial Office in London, rather than by the East India Company that governed India until 1857. Even after the Indian Empire--ruled by a viceroy appointed by the British monarch--was established following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was then called) was not included within its authority. The principal features of government and administration during the first century of British rule were a strong executive--the colonial governor--and a council of official and unofficial members who first served in a solely advisory capacity but were gradually granted legislative powers. An institution of central importance was the Ceylon Civil Service. In the early years, it was staffed primarily by British and other European personnel but then, increasingly and almost exclusively, by Sri Lankans.

A major turning point in the island's political development was implementation in 1931 of comprehensive reforms recommended by a royal commission headed by the Earl of Donoughmore. The most salient feature of the so-called Donoughmore Constitution, which attempted to reconcile British colonial control of the executive with Sri Lankan aspirations for self-government, was adoption of universal adult suffrage. This was, at that time, a bold experiment in representative government. Before 1931, only 4 percent of the male population, defined by property and educational qualifications, could vote. When elections to the legislature were held in 1932, the colony became the first polity in Asia to recognize women's suffrage. (Japan had adult male suffrage in 1925, but universal adult suffrage came only after World War II. The Philippines, an United States colony, achieved it in 1938.)

Toward the close of World War II, a second royal commission, headed by Lord Soul bury, was sent to Sri Lanka in order to consult with local leaders on the drafting of a new constitution. In its general contours, the Soul bury Constitution, approved in 1946, became the basic document of Ceylon's government when the country achieved independence on February 4, 1948. It established a parliamentary system modeled on that of Britain and quite similar to the constitution adopted by India in 1949. Like Britain, unlike India with its federal arrangement of states, independent Ceylon was, and in the later 1980s remained, a unitary state. The constitution established a parliament headed by the British monarch (represented by the governor general) and two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The latter, like the House of Commons in Britain, had the preponderant role in legislation. The majority party or party coalition in the popularly elected House of Representatives designated the prime minister. Executive power, formally vested in the monarch (in the person of his or her representative, the governor general), was in actuality exercised by the prime minister and his or her cabinet.

The second constitution, adopted in 1972, represented an attempt on the part of the SLFP-led United Front coalition, which had been elected in May 1970, to create new political institutions that allegedly reflected indigenous values more perfectly than the 1946 constitution. It abolished the Senate and established a unicameral National State Assembly. The assembly was defined as the embodiment of the power of the state, and provisions in the constitution denied the judiciary the authority to challenge its enactments. In addition, the constitution changed the formal name of the country from Dominion of Ceylon to Republic of Sri Lanka. In a controversial measure, the United Front-dominated assembly gave itself two additional years in power beyond its constitutionally defined five-year term (elections were originally scheduled for 1975). Judicial curbs on the executive were also greatly restricted. Through the exercise of a wide range of emergency and special powers, the government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike exercised strict control over the political system.

Aside from the issue of authoritarianism, two extremely controversial aspects of the 1972 constitution were the abandonment of the idea of a secular state, which had been incorporated into the 1946 constitution, and designation of Sinhala as the sole national language. Although the constitution did not make Sri Lanka a Buddhist state, it declared that "the Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the state to protect and foster Buddhism while assuring to all religions the rights secured by Section 18 (i)(d) [religious freedom]." Tamils, a predominately Hindu minority, resented the special status given to Buddhism and the nonrecognition of a role for their language in national life.

In the July 1977 general election, the UNP was swept into power. The new ruling party, led by Jayawardene, won 140 out of 168 seats in the assembly and thus was in a position to initiate substantial revisions of the 1972 constitution. This process it proceeded to undertake by passing the Second Amendment, which established the office of executive president in October 1977. Jayawardene assumed the presidency on February 4, 1978. In November 1977, the UNP and the major opposition parties, with the conspicuous absence of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), convened a select committee to draft further revisions. After conducting a survey on the opinions of various Sri Lankan citizens, it concluded that changes embodied in the Second Amendment were not sufficient to promote substantial reform and recommended that a new constitution be drafted. The new document was adopted by the National State Assembly in mid-August 1978, and went into effect on September 7, 1978. Under its provisions, the legislature chosen in the July 1977 general election was designated the country's new Parliament.

Constitution of 1978

After coming to power, Jayawardene directed the rewriting of the constitution. The document that was produced, the new Constitution of 1978, drastically altered the nature of governance in Sri Lanka. It replaced the previous Westminster style , parliamentary government with a new presidential system modeled after France, with a powerful chief executive. The president was to be elected by direct suffrage for a six-year term and was empowered to appoint, with parliamentary approval, the prime minister and to preside over cabinet meetings. Jayawardene became the first president under the new Constitution and assumed direct control of the government machinery and party.

The new regime ushered in an era that did not auger well for the SLFP. Jayawardene's UNP government accused former prime minister Bandaranaike of abusing her power while in office from 1970 to 1977. In October 1980, Bandaranaike's privilege to engage in politics was removed for a period of seven years, and the SLFP was forced to seek a new leader. After a long and divisive battle, the party chose her son, Anura. Anura Bandaranaike was soon thrust into the role of the keeper of his father's legacy, but he inherited a political party torn apart by factionalism and reduced to a minimal role in the Parliament.

The 1978 Constitution included substantial concessions to Tamil sensitivities. Although TULF did not participate in framing the Constitution, it continued to sit in Parliament in the hope of negotiating a settlement to the Tamil problem. TULF also agreed to Jayewardene's proposal of an all-party conference to resolve the island's ethnic problems. Jayewardene's UNP offered other concessions in a bid to secure peace. Sinhala remained the official language and the language of administration throughout Sri Lanka, but Tamil was given a new "national language" status. Tamil was to be used in a number of administrative and educational circumstances. Jayewardene also eliminated a major Tamil grievance by abrogating the "standardization" policy of the United Front government, which had made university admission criteria for Tamils more difficult. In addition, he offered many top-level positions, including that of minister of justice, to Tamil civil servants.

While TULF, in conjunction with the UNP, pressed for the all party conference, the Tamil Tigers escalated their terrorist attacks, which provoked Sinhalese backlash against Tamils and generally precluded any successful accommodation. In reaction to the assassination of a Jaffna police inspector, the Jayewardene government declared an emergency and dispatched troops, who were given an unrealistic six months to eradicate the terrorist threat.

The government passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1979. The act was enacted as a temporary measure, but it later became permanent legislation. The International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, and other human rights organizations condemned the act as being incompatible with democratic traditions. Despite the act, the number of terrorist acts increased. Guerrillas began to hit targets of high symbolic value such as post offices and police outposts, provoking government counterattacks. As an increasing number of civilians were caught in the fighting, Tamil support widened for the "boys," as the guerrillas began to be called. Other large, well-armed groups began to compete with LTTE. The better-known included the People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam, Tamil Eelam Liberation Army, and the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization. Each of these groups had forces measured in the hundreds if not thousands. The government claimed that many of the terrorists were operating from training camps in India's Tamil Nadu State. The Indian government repeatedly denied this claim. With the level of violence mounting, the possibility of negotiation became increasingly distant.

Reverted Copyvios

I have reverted edits that appear to violate the copyrights of this site [1] and this one [2]. If these are not copyright violations, please state this and revert. Will => talk 11:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The deleted text appears to be from the Library of Congress Country Studies, which is public domain [3]. It can be reincorporated into the text if proper attribution is made. Tyronen 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cololinail period to short, needs to be expanded

I have placed links about history of SRi Lanka in SRi Lanka page, for more expansion. The UPrising of JVP needs to added, the current ethnic conflict. Overall I think this page needs a good overhaul. CooldogCongo 1 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:2004Earthquake

Template:2004Earthquake has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:2004Earthquake. Thank you.

POV

This article is POV, For instance, "The British colonialists, following their usual practice, played off one ethnic group against the others." The whole tone is of the glorious rise of Ceylonese independence. Its as POV as as the opposite approach (white man's burden, bringing civilization to a dark continent &c).

History

The History of Sri Lanka is usually taken to begin in the 6th century BCE, when the Sinhalese people migrated into the island from India.

Sri Lankan history began along time before 6th century BCE.. i shall change it once i have sometime and paint a accurate picture.

Also, the first homo sapiens appear about 195000 years ago, the claim that "Sri Lanka was settled probably by 300,000 BP and possibly by 500,000 BP or earlier" looks bogus.

reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#moderns

RE:

It's a very pro-Sinhala, Aryanist POV. Archaeological excavations have proven human settlement in Sri Lanka long before the Aryans. I'm going to remove it from the top of the page. It's certainly not something we want to start of Sri Lanka History with. Morquendi 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"It could also be said that the Sinhalese language is a diluted form of Tamil and pali. "

and sanskrit also would have played a part!

white mans theory

its looks bogus because it did not found by British,American or European. i believe things only found by them ! Eeriyaka (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very opinionated statement. Reliable sources can be drawn from someplace not a western source, such as the country itself provided it is a verifiable source. 207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Early history

The early history looks very dodgy to me. It seems a bit "new age" and claims dates not really comparable with the rest of known human history. And isn't Lemuria a theosophist/mystical construction rather than a real place? I'm afraid I don't really know enough about early Sri Lanka to fix this, but if I can find a good book or two on the subject I may have a go at some point. Anyone else know better than me? Raygungothic 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The section is definitely in need of attention. It was hard enough just to get the mismatched ref syntax parsed correctly. 72.244.206.157 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Bodhi

Thanks for your helpful comments - indeed, I should have used the preview button! All references to websites are those maintained by Universities, university academics or those of a similar standing. The reason for using CAPITAL letters for names in the section "time line" was a last resort to save space, and satisfy the need to demarcate one king from another. So a reader doesn't have to go through the whole thing to find a specific name. If you try to use Lower case bold, or anything else the kilobytes add up and the article cuts off. That means this has to be made into two articles (e.g., Early History and History since European Invasions). I have attempted to shorten the text.
The Vijaya legend stuff was too long but I did not put it, and I have moved it to Vijaya. Sorry for the typos. I don't know how to activate a spell checker inside the editing process.
The issue of Dravidian settlements is a hot topic of great interest to many readers, and I have merely brought in the work of the foremost expert (Karthigesu Indrapala) who is a Tamil - so it is hardly a Sinhala POV. It is the snadrad position of the established academic community. Most current discussions about the Mahavamsa, the early history etc, and recent academic publications range on this issue (thus run a citation search in the academic journals- not google to avoid internet stuff - or even just confined to JSTOR and you will see what I mean; of course you can run a Google search separately). Anyway hte space given to Dravidian stuff is less than to kambodian stuff, so the criticism has no merit.
The historical names are given e.g, mahathitha (Mannar), Madhupathota (Illupaikadavi) etc., where the historical names, found in the chronicles, ancient inscriptions, are given together with a current name. This is a standard in historical writing, like giving Constantinopal(Alexandria). In the case of Madhupathota, the Elu name "Meepathota" is also used (even now), but we can't list every allonym.

Thanks again. Bodhi dhana 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Bodhi_DhanaBodhi dhana 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bodhi dhana (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Although Vijaya came to Sri Lanka in the 6th century the Chola empire ruled Sri Lanka from the 3rd. They were eventually defeated by the Pandyas. Sri Lanka and most of southern Asia were ruled by four Tamil Dynasty's namely Chola, Pandyas, Chera and Pallava. The earliest note able historic mentions of the Chola empire were left in inscriptions by Ashoka a northern ruler.

Edits by Bodhi dhana and state of this article

• His way of editing is very confusing. Someone should tell him about the "Preview" function.
• Some of the edits seem to be sensible shortenings of lengthy sections.
• Several edits seem to be Sinhala POV in that the whole point of certain sections now is to state again and again that the Tamils came later than the Sinhalese. While that may be true, the schoolmaster phrasing gives these sections a subjective, less credible touch.

As for a lot of the edits, I am not sure what purpose they serve. We really need some experts here, and I am not talking about self-declared experts ...

The whole article is a mess:

• too much mythology not clearly divided from facts
• erratic transcriptions of Sinhala and Tamil terms and proper names
• plenty of typing errors
• erratic formatting (what's with the capitalized names!?)
• a lot of conjectures stated as if they were facts
• external links to tendentious web pages.

I have no idea how this can be cleaned up. I think it might be a good idea to semi-protect this page, otherwise it won't do any good to edit it because people will keep coming in and make substantial changes without taking part in the discussions here.

What to do? Krankman 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, people, help! Look at the nonsense in the article, and they keep on adding and adding! Krankman 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try my best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a vast number of references, and reorganized much of the material so that we now have a proper article. BD

State of this article - an example

Pre and Proto History

I quote:

These first inhabitants, i.e, prior to 10th centure BC, may have been Sumarian, Phoenician and Etruscan sea-faring settleres, as attested by the presence of place names in Sri Lanka containing Elu words which may be related to such languages(see below).

Having a statement like that in our supposedly serious Wikpedia is very sad. The careless editing put aside, this section seems to be original research by some "scholars" of questionable expertise at best.

• Why prior to 10th century, when the presence of Aryans is attested from the 5th century only? What happened in between?

Reply: This is roughly the begining of the early iron age in this region. There are no "people" called "aryan", but certain linguistic families. But where did, say, Sanskrit come from? Bodhi dhana 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• No serious academic work has yet found any evidence for presence of Near Eastern peoples in Lanka before the Christian Era, except maybe as merchants who frequented the country but never resided there in significant numbers.

Reply from Bodhi: One may say that there is no strong evidence for the presenc of Tamils in Sri Lanka till the reference to the two horse traders given in the Mahavamsa. However, given the proximity of South India and the existence of trade, some Tamil settlements definitely existed from very ancient times, as discussed by Karthigesu Indrapala (2005). The evidence for sea links in the ancient world between the near-east and the eastern end of south asia is well established. The level of evidence we have for near-eastern and Kushan influence in "Kushmere", in the Hindukush, and in south India and Sri Lanka are comparable, and are topics that are being dealt with in current research conferences.Bodhi dhana 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Plenty of place names contain "Elu", or better (Old) Sinhala elements, because they are Sinhalese place names. The structure and lexicon of Old Sinhala ("Elu") is almost completely traceable to Northern Indian Middle Indic languages. There is not the faintest clue of an affinity to Near Eastern languages. Likewise, theories linking Tamil to Sumerian etc. (see the gal/kal/(sa)gkal example in the "Pali Chronicles" section) are unproven and are not accepted by the scientific community.

Reply from BodhiD:Krankman in his profile claims that he is begining to learn Sinhala and Tamil. Once he takes off his training wheels, he will learn that the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda has a vast number of words which have come from languages which stemmed from Sumarian, Kushan and othe ur-languages. Over a thousand early-tamil words have now been linked to Sumarian sources. When Krankman says that "("Elu") is almost completely traceable to Northern Indian Middle Indic languages", he has forgotton the work of Sugathapala de Silva (York University) and Hettiarachchi who point out that even simple words like "bella=neck", "Kalava=Thigh", have no clear origins in the "middle indic languages". I too do not have time to explain all these. He can follow up more of this by looking up recent conference proceedings on South-Asian lingusitics. Bodhi dhana 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to sell these claims as facts to a large readership who trust Wikipedia. The only hope I have is that the overall poorness and faultyness of this formerly satisfactory article (concerning its grammar, formatting and copy-editing, bad phrasing, and structure, to name just a few areas) will serve as a warning sign to every reader who is unsuspectingly looking for accurate information.

I don't have much time, but if a considerable number of sensible editors (willing to go to through official WP processes to resist those--sorry--incompetent editors) join me, we can have a try at completely redoing this presently catastrophic "article" from scrap. Please excuse my frank words, but I have been watching what's been happening here, and it really frustrates me. Krankman 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

da hast Du Dich aber anscheißen lassen!Bodhi dhana 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Krankman, if you find such obvious nonsense, you should either silently remove it, or if you don't have the time, slap a {{cleanup}} template on the article. This is just run-of-the-mill inferior material that tends to accrete on Wikipedia, nothing that sitting down for 20 minutes couldn't fix. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup. The article is in horrible shape. Are there no Sri Lankan editors prepared to invest some time in this? dab (𒁳) 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

War on terrorism

The use of the subtitle "war on terrorism" to describe the current conflict represents the Sinhalese POV. What is wrong with using the original, NPOV subtitle "Civil war"?

just fix it, there is a reason this article has a huge "please clean me up" boilerplate. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

←

"Buddhist scriptures note three visits by the Buddha to the island to see the Naga Kings". Lord Buddhas all three visits are not to see the Naga kings. Only twice he came for this purpose. I don't think they spoke tamil. Yakkas are not the people who worship yakka. They are the people who made equipment using metal. Naga are not the people who worship Naga. They are the people who travel on water. i.e. merchants, fisherman etc..

Hello,

Yes you are correct that the Naga wouldnt have spoken tamil, simply because the Naga are ancestors of todays Sinhala people. The anceint times the Sinhala were made up of four gothras. The Naga(Nadi-Gaman), were the sea farrers. Yaksa were the metal smiths. Raksha is agriculture and Deva are reliogus caste. Alot of people, mistake these groups as differents races, when they represent the structure of the socirty of Lanka.

(Rick2009 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Mahawamsa

Sri Lanka's history is written in Mahawansa by Sinhala Buddhist Monks. Many people who write here do not have much idea about Mahawansa itself. Mahawansa saya Elara is a Tamil King who was the founder of Anuradapura kingdom. He is not an invader as it is written here. Mahawansa says 700 people headed by Vijeya, who came to Sri Lanka from North India are the Sinhalese root. When Vijeya came to Sri Lanka he met Kuveni. There is enough and firm chances that Kuveni was from Tamil Dynasty. Iyakka and Naga were influenced by Tamils and Sinhalese. And mixed up by the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.60.154 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be having firm chances (whatever that means) but the Mahawanasa is mythical and if historical fact is considered Kuveni was most likely an Australoid. HumanFrailty (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to 'Mahawamsa'....

Your comments on this page, is very inaccurate and does seem to be racailly based statements.

• First of all the Mahawamsa is in fact a dynastic book written at first by Buddhist priests from the Soli(Chola) country based at Mahavihara in the 5th Century AD.
• Second, the fact you have stated that Elara founded Anuradhapura, clearly shows to me that you are seriously not even a simple historian! Elara invaded Anuradhapura city in the 3rd Century BC. Thats 400yrs after the cities founding!
• More and more archeology is showing that the Sinhala did not come from India in the 6th Century. Their are 9th Century burials in Mannar that show through DNA, thats its Sinhala in origin. Plus 40,000yr old Balangoda man, traits are found in the Sinhala population and the Veddha. Thus showing a common ancestry!
• Kuveni been Tamil is nothing short of a baseless untruth and you know it!

(Rick2009 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

In response to Rick2009, You also have no sources and are committing an ad hominem fallacy in your argument. I suggest you refrain from attacking his facts in such a baseless manner. 207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Elara

What is not a fact? Elara was obviously Tamil of South Indian origin, It says that on the Elara article:

"Elara is described in the Mahavamsa as being 'A Damila (means Tamil) of noble descent...from the Chola-country (South India)'; various other sources name him as the son of a Chola queen and brother of the king Ellagan. Little is known of his early life. Around 205 BCE Elara mounted an invasion of the kingdom of Rajarata based in Anuradhapura in northern Sri Lanka and defeated the forces of king Asela, establishing himself as sole ruler for the northern part of Sri Lanka."

He was a Tamil king of Sri Lanka but he was Indian Tamil not Sri Lankan Tamil so therefore has to be described as South Indian or would be misleading, and being Indian Tamil he is an invader to Sri Lanka who Killed the current king and took the throne.

In future start a discussion if you are not sure about something and don't accuse someone with vandalism and threaten them with being blocked.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Your source on the Mahavamsa is being disputed as to whether or not it is an accurate source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavamsa#Historical_accuracy. Editors, please take note of this until the dispute has been resolved. 207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Dear Sinhala Neighbor!

Why you think bad about your Neighbor the Tamils ? Why you ignore the History of the Tamils in Sri Lanka fully? Mostly your Theses are based on the arya Mahavamsa. What about the arya Ramayana Theory. Actually the Aryan says, that they are the deva (the saints) and their counterpart the dravidians was the Asuras (the daemon). Right? So the King of Lanka, Ravana from Ravanapura (now Ruhuna) was an Asura! He was an Dravidian! Ramayana was dated between 700 -500 BC and Mahavamsa 500-300 BC. So guys, for once switch your common sense on. Which Chronicle is elder? --Tamilstyle (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable Source. Provide it. If you have no source, you will not see a change.207.35.67.130 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Kingdom of Ruhuna

I'm deleting the double entry of the Kingdom of Ruhuna under Ancient Sri Lanka. It already appears in Middle Age Sri Lanka.207.35.67.130 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit May 2011

Hi

During the copyedit some things came to light which may need attention:

Prehistoric era of Sri Lanka

• "if not earlier (Possehl 1990; Deraniyagala 1992:734). The earliest manifestation of this in Sri Lanka is radiocarbon-dated to c. 1000-800 BC at Anuradhapura and Aligala shelter in Sigiriya (Deraniyagala 1992:709-29; Karunaratne and Adikari 1994:58; Mogren 1994:39; with the Anuradhapura dating corroborated by Coningham 1999)" - the bracketed details should really be turned into refs.
• "James Emerson Tennent identified Sri Lanka with Galle." - no significance is established as to what the importance is of this identification, does it relate to the biblical Tarshish for example?
• The refs, which are simple html link conversions such as <ref>http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/prehistory.htm</ref>, should be changed into proper refs (cite web, cite book etc.).

Pali Chronicles and the arrival of Vijaya

• "The Sinhalese recognize the Vijayan Indo-Aryan culture and Buddhism (already in existence prior to the arrival of Vijaya), as distinct from other groups in neighboring south India." - Buddhism is a religion not an ethnic group. This should lalso probably not be in this section as it is a modern reference and more about demographics.

Anuradhapura Kingdom

• "sapling via Jambukola (Sambiliturei)" - not clear what Jambukola or Sambiliturei are.
• "Dutugemunu is depicted as a Sinhala "Asoka"." - What are a Sinhala and an Asoka?
• "is a dagaba of pyramid-like" - what is a dagaba?

Medieval Sri Lanka

• Headers without text - the sections linked to the "main" articles (Kingdom of Dambadeniya ->Kingdom of Kandy) should have a short summary of the main articles (as the first two do -Kingdom of Ruhuna and Kingdom of Polonnaruwa)

British rule

• "live in line rooms, not very different from cattle sheds." - needs a little more explanation? Cattle sheds can be many different things and the relationship between the two is fairly vague.

Independence movement

• "Ceylon National Congress (CNC) was founded to agitate for greater autonomy" - when?

Independence

• "adroit political acumen of D. S. Senanayake" - Which one is this? Dudley or the one previously referred to as simply "Senanayke"?

Republic (1970 to 2009)

• "Under Bandaranaike the country became a republic," - when? "a republic on the (date)"

1971 Uprising

• This section is longer than its "main article" - the material should be moved to the linked article 1971 JVP Insurrection and a summary left here.
• This section also appears to be a direct copy of the page from [10] and so I have not copy-edited it.

New constitution of 1978

• This section also appears to be a direct copy of the page from [11] and so I have not copy-edited it.

General notes

• The text should really avoid sentences of only four or five words.
• There is a mix of British and American English, in particular the dates are all dd-mm-yy format vs some mixes of sections using mainly British English and others mainly American English - probably due to differnet editors who worked on the sections. One or the other should be chosen and, as the British ruled for a long time and are often referenced as well as being central in establishing Sri Lankan independance, I would suggest that British English is adopted.
• A large amount of html links - these should have been turned into refs.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Vankalaian and Cossde have now been revert warring over several days, I am getting tired of looking at that in my watchlist. I have now reverted back to a version before the dispute started, and protected the page. This does not mean that this version is endorsed, but it does mean that you all need to start discussing here on the talkpage how to include the sourced material. That was admin-talk, here comes my editorial opinion: I don't know much about this topic but I can see that the material is not neutrally worded and would need to be rewritten to be included. it is highly evaluative and editorializing in its style. It has sources though and they look so it seems likely that the material can be included when it is sufficiently neutrally worded, supposing that the principles of due weight and npov are considered. Those were my five editorial cents, feel free to listen to them or not. Admin-talk: When the editors involved in the dispute have come to a consensus I will happily unprotect the page so that you can insert the text that you have decided on. Happy editing·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Civil war section is SL is the content of every SL related page that leads to edit war.Cossde calls every sourced statement against as POV.He is disrupting the editing of SL related pages.In this article you can see that JVP's anti-sL state insurgency is termed as UPRISING and there are hardly any citations for that section.On the other hand I added many sourced information about Sl's civil war.But Cossde doesn't want any thing in wikipedia that shows the other side of Sri Lanka.We had had discussions about civil war section's content in Sri Lanka page and created a section there.But now that entire section is removed from that page.I am going to restore that section again there.If someone has any issues they can discuss or go to dispute resolution board(Arun1paladin (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

People who have problems in the style the civil war section was return can edit it instead of removing the entire content.I am not a frequent wiki user.I don't know how to take an issue to dispute resolution board.But if persistent POV in favour of SL state exists then I will have to go learn to raise issues there and take issues there(Arun1paladin (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Arrive

Who arrived first? sinhales or tamils? Sinhales arrived from Bengalia or Maharashtra?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://spur.asn.au/naga.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Colonial history

The sections "Portuguese Era" and "Dutch Era" are currently under "Colonial Sri Lanka (1815–1948)". This is an uncomfortable fit, as the Portuguese had their colonies on Sri Lanka from 1517 to 1658, and the Dutch from 1638 to 1796. My earlier edit that changed the heading to "Colonial Sri Lanka (1517–1948)", added years to the Portuguese and Dutch Era section headers, and removed the equally illogical "Main article: History of British Ceylon" from before these subsections (with the summary "Colonialism started three centuries earlier.") was reverted with "Wrong, no refs, unexplained edits." (The "no refs" is a bit much, as there are no references in this entire section until 1926). I assume that Blackknight12's issue is that an inland part of Sri Lanka remained locally ruled until 1815, but does this mean that there was no colonialism on the island before 1815? With this logic Taiwan was never colonized by Europeans, while India and Indonesia were not until well into the 20th century. I don't see much wrong with my edit, but an alternative would be a "Kandy Kingdom, Portuguese and Dutch Ceylon (1517-1815)" section. Afasmit (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Colonialism did exist in Sri Lanka from 1597, or earlier, in one form or another, but it was not until from 1815 to 1948, that you can really describe Sri Lanka as "colonial." The Portuguese arrival in Sri Lanka was largely accidently, seeking trade opportunities but instead entered an island in political crisis, this span known as the period of the Crisis of the Sixteenth Century. This period is much more impactful on Sri Lankan history at that time than colonialism was during that same duration. The Portuguese colony was only a small part of that larger period of Sri Lankan history. The same is with the Dutch in Sri Lanka where they made up a part to the larger Kandyan Period of Sri Lankan History. I am not saying colonialism did not exist during these periods but to say that Sri Lanka was colonial from 1597 all that way to 1948 would be inaccurate and would diminish the weight of the other historical periods existing from 1597 to 1815, which had a greater impact on the country during that same time. It is not until we get to British Ceylon where we see colonialism as the main impact towards the country during that period of Sri Lankan history. Hence the History of British Ceylon can also be described as the colonial period in Sri Lanka.

This article is nowhere near complete or even well written. What's there now is very much outdated and in need of expansion, and as you said yourself referencing is pretty bad. I am more than happy to work with you if you want to expand the topic.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/symposium/abstracts/Deraniyagala1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pact.lk/2008/03/23/24-july-1983/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007004838/http://www.hweb.org.uk/content/view/27/4/ to http://www.hweb.org.uk/content/view/27/4/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Forced conversion

in the colonial history section it says many lowland conversions were 'forced'to convert but I think this is inaccurate and an exaggeration. The portugueese tried vigourously to convert but they never forced people.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160607003937/http://www.ptsrilanka.org/images/documents/ppt_final_report_web_en.pdf to http://www.ptsrilanka.org/images/documents/ppt_final_report_web_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304122536/http://www.srilankamirror.com/news/item/5846-ranil-takes-oath-as-pm-mou-signed-for-national-govt to http://www.srilankamirror.com/news/item/5846-ranil-takes-oath-as-pm-mou-signed-for-national-govt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914134217/http://www.stichtingnederlandsrilanka.nl/Links.htm to http://www.stichtingnederlandsrilanka.nl/Links.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509145717/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainSriL.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainSriL.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)