Talk:Battle of Vijithapura

GA status revocation

 * Our article considers the Mahamvamsa chronicles as (largely) accurate reconstruction of certain events, that happened over half-a-millennia prior to their drafting. This goes against current consensus in Sri Lankan historiography.
 * Readers are advised to consult the following sources —by professional historians— about ways of interpreting the chronicles, and why they cannot be understood as objective history:
 * Walters, Jonathan S. “Buddhist History: The Sri Lankan Pāli Vaṃsas and Their Community.” In Querying the Medieval: Text and the History of Practices in South Asia. By Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali, 99–164. Oxford University Press, 2000
 * Kiribamune, Sirima. “The Mahāvaṁsa: A Study of the Ancient Historiography of Sri Lanka.” In Senarat Paranativana Commemoration Volume. Edited by Leelananda Prematilleke, Karthigesu Indrapala, and J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, 125–136. Studies in South Asian Culture 7. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978.
 * Bechert, Heinz. “The Beginnings of Buddhist Historiography: Mahavamsa and Political Thinking.” In Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka. Edited by Bardwell L. Smith, 1–12. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
 * Seneviratne, H. L. (1989). IDENTITY AND THE CONFLATION OF PAST AND PRESENT. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 25, 3–17.
 * Berkwitz, Stephen C. Buddhist History in the Vernacular: The Power of the Past in Late Medieval Sri Lanka. Brill’s Indological Library. Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004.
 * Gunawardhana, R. A. L. H. “The People of the Lion: The Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography.” In Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Edited by Jonathan Spencer, 45–85. London and New York: Routledge, 1990.
 * Kiribamune (1986) engages in a similar reading.
 * Die Gegenwart der Geschichte - Altsinghalesische Chroniken und ihr moderner Gebrauch. Vortrag am 29.1.1998 anläßlich des Kolloquiums "Sri Lanka: 50 Jahre Unabhängigkeit". Tilman Frasch
 * Die Gegenwart der Geschichte - Altsinghalesische Chroniken und ihr moderner Gebrauch. Vortrag am 29.1.1998 anläßlich des Kolloquiums "Sri Lanka: 50 Jahre Unabhängigkeit". Tilman Frasch


 * The myth-cycle continued (and continues) to remain in flux to reflect contemporary anxieties:
 * Extrapolating, Kapferer (1988) writes,
 * Extrapolating, Kapferer (1988) writes,


 * To use an analogy, the epic of Mahabharata is believed to build upon a historical war but that hardly renders Mahabharata a text of history, from where we can reconstruct all the grand maneuvers and intrigues — contrary to what Hindu nationalists (or here, Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalists) might have us believe. There are better "frames" to interrogate these "structures."
 * An analysis of used sources (excluding news-articles/opinion-editorials):
 * Two (non-critical) translations—by Wilhelm Geiger and S. Wijesooriya—of Mahavamsa. Treatable as primary sources esp. that Geigers's newer scholarship contradicts his previous analysis of the chronicles.
 * A (non-critical) translation—by H. M. Moratuwagama—of Thupavamsa. Treatable as a primary source, drafted around late 13th century.
 * A historical fiction by E. A. Abesekara.
 * A reader (ed. Arnold Wright) where the concerned chapter was originally published by a lawyer, about a hundred and twenty years ago.
 * A pop history, written about a hundred years ago, by one John M. Senaveratna, since described as a romantic Sinhalese nationalist.
 * None of the above sources satisfy the standards of historical scholarship. That leaves us with a single source — Siriweera. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ten Giant Warriors into Battle of Vijithapura
No independent notability. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO, if such merge happened, it would be detrimental to the notoriety of both articles; the merge could be less destructive if it was the other way around: adding the "Battle of Vijithapura" into "the Ten Giant Warriors" one. Reason: more readers are likely to search and find faster the words "10 warriors", or "giant warriors" in a search engine than the specific keyword "Vijithapura" next to "battle", to find the data. 187.162.96.85 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * so, i think it would be better to keep both articles separate, or worst case, only keep the one about the "Ten Giant Warrios". 187.162.96.85 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that you arguments are not based in policy. Searching for "Ten Giant Warriors" in Google Scholar leads to three hits, of which one is irrelevant (some study on geckos) and another, a college magazine. Searching for "Ten Great Giants" hardly improves the situation with Google Scholar throwing up three relevant hits. There is no hit for "දසමහා යෝධයෝ". TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, given that the scope of Ten Giant Warriors extends beyond the scope of the battle (so the merge direction proposed is questionable), and that the topics are sufficiently distinct that readers are best served by having the topics discussed separately. That is, WP:NOTMERGE point 3. Klbrain (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)