Talk:Sinhala Only Act

Untitled

The law was gradually watered down until 1988 - this is unclear. What happened in 1988? Was the law abolished then, or has it just been left alone since 1988? 86.132.139.233 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the NPOV

Why is this article tagged POV? Someone please provide a justification here or I will remove the tag. Tyronen 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Few Reliable sources cited, most stuff have no sources, most of the article is Original research, etc. etc. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case the References or OR tags should be used, not POV. In any case, I see four references on the page, and I do not see anything that is not fairly well-known from Sri Lankan history. Can you point out any actual inaccuracies or non-neutral statements on the page? Tyronen 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. Actually it should be tagged WP:OR for stuff like

The passage of the law is seen by most Tamils as a watershed event where the power of the state was used to disadvantage their community, thus leading to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting move to Official Language Act (Sri Lanka)

I suggest that this article should be moved to Official Language Act (Sri Lanka), since it is more formal and so that it follows the pattern established on the Official Languages Act page. Currently Official Language Act (Sri Lanka) redirects to this article, it should be the opposite. - Brianpeiris (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. This is not the current official language act of Sri Lanka. According to this and this ,the current official language act of Sri Lanka was enacted in 1987.--Navod Ediriweera (User talk:NavodEranda talk) 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we have two sections in this article as "The official language act of 1956" and "The official language act of 1987" provided there's enough to write about the latter.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Move as the official title of the legal act the article should be in the same name.Cossde (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

word usage

Supporters of the law saw it as an attempt by a community that had just gained independence to distance themselves from their colonial masters what these words mean in the article. these words sounds racial tone, if the community got independent from british , do they try to say Tamils are not got independent or Tamils wants to live with the British. can any one explain or please change the lines accordingly. thank you--BlueLankan 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Independence

Does anyone know, why Sri Lanka didn't become part of India? Was there at any time the consideration to be incorporated or was that never ever even thought of? --- Chartinael (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka was never part of the British Raj, this due to the reason that initially the coastal areas of Ceylon were transfered to the British East India Company from the dutch, however direct rule of the coastal regions were taken over by the British Government 6-8 years later, since then till 1948 Ceylon was crown colony of the British Empire with its own government that later became the basis for self rule in 1948.Cossde (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sri Lankan Tamil history

SriSuren, in the same you picked a fight on Template:Sri Lankan Tamil history without knowing a difference between a navigation box and an infobox, you have started an edit-war on Sinhala Only Act without knowing the purpose/significance of a navigation box. A navigation box is a template which allows readers to navigate between related topics. It does not confer ownership of the article to a particular group. Indeed an article can have more than one navigation box:

• History of the Jews in China has Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar and Template:History of China;
• Baptists in the United States has Template:Baptist and Template:History of the United States;
• Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) has Template:History of China and Template:History of Manchuria; and
• Reconquista has Template:History of Spain and Template:History of Portugal.

Do you see a pattern? If navigation boxes are created for other ethnic groups, particularly other Tamil speaking groups who were made second class citizens by this act, they can be added to this article as well. If you can't understand something so basic, perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinhala Only Act. 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/20111113175023/http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-10.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-10.pdf

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) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)