Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 6

missing ethnic history
Sinhalese compose the majority ethnic group in Sri Lanka, but, as the article briefly mentions, their language comes from Northern India. So, what happened? Did a small group from the North invade the island, and gradually impose their language on the majority? Or did a large influx of people from the North arrive and "take over"? If so, what were the conditions which impelled such a large number of people to migrate so far (and by boat?)? Is the complexion of most Sinhalese lighter than the Tamils (which would support the 2nd proposition)? Or not lighter? (thus supporting the first proposition). Something about this would be useful information for the earlier part of the "History" section.Jakob37 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sinhalese descended from Aryans from north India, who wiped out the native Yakshas and Nagas. The Tamils are descendants of tea plant workers who were brought to Sri Lanka from South India by the British. Comprendo?Srilankan1948 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the sinhalese were decendants of price vijaya and his followers who were exiled from Iraq/north india. The Tamils were long native to the island during this time. Later the sinhalese invaded the island, and both populations established their own kingdoms on parts of the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.241.78 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answers to SOME of my questions..."price vijaya and his followers" that doesn't sound like a very large group of people, certainly not enough to establish a new, large ethnic component; also, I see that there is a complete difference of opinion about when the Tamils started living there. Are there no genuine historic records which could resolve this? Logically speaking, since the Tamils were already living so nearby on the mainland thousands of years ago, it would not be surprising if some of them had settled on the island centuries, if not millenia ago Jakob37 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tamils that were bought down by the British to the Tea Plantations are of South Indian Origin. This happening is recent and they clearly have ties with family members in India and their tamil dialect and customs are also same as that of their counterparts in Tamil Nadu. The tamils of the north better known as Jaffna Tamils are descendents of Sri Lanka. They are the same lineage as the singhalese and due to their geographical proximity to South India the Jaffna Tamils have adopted tamil which is different to what is spoken by the tamils in Tamil Nadu (India) or the Tea Plantations in Sri Lanka. The Jaffna Tamils however are predominantly hindus. Krishnan 05.03.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.234.233 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Prince Vijaya was an Aryan who was exiled to Lanka with his followers. The natives of Lanka were Yaksha and Naga tribes, not Tamils. There were some South Indians, though not necessarily Tamils,they were Cholas, living there during the Anuradhapura Period. I'm not sure what happened to them, but the Tamils residing in Sri Lanka now definitely are descendants of the tea plantation workers the British brought in from South India.Srilankan1948 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Sinhalese descended from the Aryans forever (North India) and are clearly Caucasians, the Tamils descended from another race (South India)and are Negroids; this is why they have different complexions, they have different ancestries and the Sinhalese were on the island first.Srilankan1948 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Srikana1984 is very wrong, Tamils are decendants of Dravidians. They're are no ethnics negroids native to Srilanka. Both Dravidian and Aryans are caucasian races. Also, there is no real complexion difference if you note both races have great variety if complexions, as is seen throughtout many races in India. Furthermore, evidence suggests that Dravidian cultures existed far before the Aryan's invaded. --Icemansatriani (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Dravidian cultures existed before the Aryans?Srilankan1948 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you asking what evidence there is that dravidian cultures existed before the Aryans in the island of Sri Lanka specifically. Two major things, one, the tribes you noted above were Yaksha and Naga, both spoke Telugu, a dravidian language from which tamil branched out. The second is that considering the geographical location of sri lanka relative to Dravidian cultures in southern areas of India, it easy to see that Dravidians would've easy migrated to this island before any others.--Icemansatriani (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some proof of that?--- How do you know Yaksha and Naga spoke Telugu? HumanFrailty (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.teluguworld.org/Telugu/telugu_lang_history_2.html

"Different tribes used to speak different languages (dialects). The tribes of Andhra such as Dravida, Yaksha, and Naga spoke "Telugu" or "Tenugu". Andhras from North India used to speak another language called "Desi". " --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that site is an reliable source. Anyway it's talking about Nagas and Yakshas in Andhra. The historically accepted theory is that these two were native to Sri Lanka by the time Vijaya arrived. What you say is a fringe theory and that is how it should be included in the article. No matter what we discuss here and what our arguments are, we don't change the accepted mainstream theory. We are here to include facts in articles, not to do research of our own and add them.  C h a m a l  talk 03:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the mainstream history isn't based on RS at all. Very few have tried to actually find out Sri Lanka's anthropological history, so the biased pro-sinhala buddhist accounts have generaly been uncontested. Still there is ample evidence against that account. --Icemansatriani (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HumanFrailty (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ample evidence is a biased Tamil link? HumanFrailty (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Veddahs are the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka and they speak an Aryan language. So there. I'm sure there were tribes called Yakshas and Nagas in India but the only source that attributes to their presence in Sri Lanka is a mythical account which is unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedda_language <--- Aryan language..

I wonder whether talk about Prince Vijaya is distracting us. Was Vijaya an historical or legendary figure? The Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to him as 'legendary' while R.A.L.H Gunawardena in his contribution to 'Sri Lanka - History and the Roots of Conflict' refers to the 'Vijaya myth.' Could we just not settle for the fact that Sri Lanka in early times was settled by people from different parts of India? Aiyowk (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Story of prince Vijaya is a myth. Current genetic evidence support the fact that there was no prince Vijaya. You may want to check out some genetic studies on this (example: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110482916/abstract).

Secondly, Tamil Nadu must have been either Buddhist or Jains at one point for Sri Lanka to be Buddhist. This is evident by looking at the Sangam Tamil literature (300 BC-500 AD). All great Tamil works (Thirukkural, Cilapathikaram, Manimekkhalai, etc.) were either written by Jains or Buddhist and not Hindus. This suggests that Jainism and Buddhism must have been the pre-dominant religion at that time. The Bhakti cult originating in Tamil Nadu spread North and did not come into Sri Lanka. Also, there were no Islamic invasion of Sri Lanka as witnessed by Northern/Eastern India, hence Buddhism was preserved in Sri Lanka and disappeared in India.

Thirdly, Sinhala is a language that was derived from Pali, Sanskrit and Hela. We all know, Pali, a form of Prakrit was the official language of Buddhism. Over a long time, it became practical to adopt a language based on Pali for Buddhist purposes than use Tamil. In India many languages have evolved and died off. Most modern Norther Indian languages eveolved during the time of 10-th to 15-th century and Sinhala was no exception.74.12.0.224 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Name in Tamil
The name of the country in Tamil uses the word "Samathuva" instead of the correct word "Socalisa" as found in the constitution of Sri Lanka. I suggest that someone change this.

124.43.200.192 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

races
sinhalese and tamilians looks almost the same.may be a slight difference.both are dravidians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.22.239 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Utterly ignorant statement, Tamil are dravidians and Sinahlese are indo aryans. That is the acceped and scientific consensus. There may be considerable intermarriage and genetic mixing but stating that Sinahlaeses are dravidians is utterly uninformed lanka007 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Bengal
Please change " The island of Sri Lanka lies in the Indian Ocean, to the southwest of the Bay of Bengal and to the southeast of the Arabian Sea. " to " The island of Sri Lanka lies in the Indian Ocean, to the southwest of the Bay of Bengal and to the southeast of the Arabian Sea. " - contradicts Bay of Bengal article which states "...southern boundary extends as an imaginary line from Dondra Head at the southern end of Sri Lanka..." so a is needed. Thanks. 92.3.229.79 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The two articles are not contradictory; the description of the Bay of Bengal as being bordered on the west by India and Sri Lanka and having a southern brder defined by an imaginary line from Sri Lanka to Sumatra means Sri Lanka is outside and to the general southwest of the Bay of Bengal. I notice that you put fact tags on all of the references to Sri Lanka in the Bay of Bengal article (this comes across a little pointy, by the way). Are you trying got assert that Sri Lanka is in the Bay of Bengal? If so, just find some references to that effect and change it. Celestra (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to assert either. Is the correct interpretation of both articles that the Bay of Bengal occupies the entire east coast of Sri Lanka, and none of the west coast? 92.3.229.79 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about correct, but that is how I'd interpret it and it matches what the articles currently say. Are you aware of an authoritative interpretation that differs with the descriptions in the current articles? Celestra (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have done no research whatsoever (beyond eyeballing the various maps in the related WP articles), I was reverting an erroneous edit to the Bay of Bengal article and decided to check the inclusion of Sri Lanka on a whim.
 * Suggest this article could be much clearer - the current wording ("lies ... to the southwest", etc) gives the impression that Sri Lanka and the Bay of Bengal are not contiguous. How about "The island of Sri Lanka is in the Indian Ocean and separates the Bay of Bengal (which occupies the entire east coastline) from the Arabian Sea (which lies directly to the west)." - 92.3.229.79 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That description would suggest to me that if I were to draw a line north and south through Sri Lanka, everything to the west would be the Arabian Sea and everything to the east would be the Bay of Bengal. The reality, as I understand it, is that everything vaguely south of Sri Lanka is the Indian Ocean, with no other name. To the northeast is the Bay of Bengal. To the northwest is the Gulf of Mannar, beyond which is the Arabian Sea. (The description for the Arabian Sea claims that it is bordered on the south by a line from 'the Horn' in northeast Africa to Kanyakumari on the soutern tip of India and the western shore of Sri Lanka, which is clearly impossible. The article for Kanyakumari mentions that it is located at the point where three bodies of water meet, "the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Mannar and the Indian Ocean.") I think the current description here is correct in a large scale, but imprecise. Celestra (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "The island of Sri Lanka is in the Indian Ocean and separates the Bay of Bengal (which occupies the entire east coastline) from the Arabian Sea (which lies to the west of the southern portion of the island) and the Gulf of Mannar (which separates the northern portion of Sri Lanka from the south-eastern coastline of India)." 92.3.229.79 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Except, as I explained, the Arabian Sea does not reach Sri Lanka. And the resulting sentence is fairly long and complex, with those three parentheticals. It makes better copy to break that up into multiple simpler sentences. For example, it would be more readable and improve the accuracy to say "The island of Sri Lanka is in the Indian Ocean at the soutwest boundary of the Bay of Bengal, which occupies the island's entire eastern coastline." Dropping the less accurate current reference to the Arabian Sea improves things. If you want to discuss the Gulf of Mannar and the relative location of India, I'd recommend a short second sentence. Celestra (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who lives in the country, Sri Lanka is nowhere near the Arabian Sea. It's surrounded by the Indian Ocean only. It's not in or part of the Bay of Bengal either. I did not look for a ref now, but I remember what we learned in school was that the island lies surrounded by the Indian Ocean, south of India and southwest of the Bay of Bengal. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome and thanks for the unofficial confirmation. We aren't trying to suggest that the island is in the Bay of Bengal, just that the island defines the southwest boundary of the bay and a point on the southern end of the island is one end of the line which marks the sourthern boundary of the bay. Celestra (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wildlife sanctuary
I removed this sentence from the Flora and fauna section: "As the area covered by forests declined, thereby threatening various species of wildlife, Sri Lanka became the first country in the world to establish a wildlife sanctuary, Reference: Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society. The given reference gives no mention of anything related to the sentence. The sentence which preceeded this one in the article only mentioned a vague date of late 20th century, which if it is supposed to relate to the timing of the creation of the first wildlife sanctuary in the world mentioned in this sentence is far too late. Rmhermen (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add these
Dear editors, Can someone add text and links regarding Ceylon Electricity Board, Norocholai Coal Power Plant and Hambantota Wind Farm in this article. I believe those are very important aspects relating to the country, and i just dont have the time to add them here. Thanks and best regards. Rehman (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism in Sri Lanka
"It has been a center of Buddhist religion and culture from ancient times.[citation needed]"

Since I don't have the authority to make a citation for this I thought I might suggest one:

Oxtoby, Willard G. "Theravada in Sri Lanka." World Religions Eastern Traditions. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2001. 227-29. Print.

a couple quotes that might be relevant

"A monk named Mahinda (in Sanskrit, Mahendra), who was Asoka's son, took this version [Theravada] of Buddhism to Sri Lanka in the third century BCE. The story of his conversion of the Sri Lankan people to Theravada is told in the island's Great Chronicle (Mahavamsa)."

"These legends are presumably based on historical developments of the mid-third century BCE> King Asoka probably sent his son to the island kingdom to the south. In one of his inscriptions, ASoka claims to have sent missionaries in groups of five so that they could ordain converts far and wide, even in the Hellenistic kingdoms to the west."

"The adoption of Indian-style court rituals was accomplished when, after receiving the proper equipment from India, the Sri Lankan king submitted himself to a new enthronement ritual carried out according to Asoka's instructions. In this way the island of Sri Lanka became a cultural extension of Asoka's empire while maintaining its sovereignty. This uniting of Buddhist leadership and Indian forms of kingship set the pattern for subsequent Buddhist rulers in mainland Southeast Asia."

"Theravada Buddhism is still the main religion of Sri Lanka, although the samgha fell on such hard times in the eleventh century owing to famine that there was not enough ordained bhiksus to continue" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkdog (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

CYlon
Sri lanka used to be called cylon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.110.200 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? It used to be called "Ceylon", but I have never heard nor found any sources about it being called Cylon. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New articles and facts
Can someone add notes relating to energy in sri lanka to this article? This area is one of the major topics relating to the Sri Lankan economy, but nothing about it is mentioned here. From what i know, Sri Lanka has had a very unstable energy-sector until about 2008, when new power plants started to emerge. Do feel free to study sri lankan energy-related articles (Ceylon Electricity Board, Ministry of Power & Energy, Power plants in Sri Lanka, Norocholai Coal Power Plant, Hambantota Wind Farm, Victoria Dam, etc) and add them here. It is quite an important addition to a country-related article like this. Regards. Rehman (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Arabian sea is a border?
Sri Lanka has Arabian sea as border? I think it is bordered by the Indian Ocean, Palk Strait and the Bay of Bengal. Arabian sea is nowhere near the island, isn't it? Can someone review and edit appropriately (template on countries bordering Arabian sea)? VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The current description doesn't say that it borders the Arabian Sea, just that it lies to the southeast of that sea. This earlier discussion may be interesting. My opinion was that the current description is generally useful, but imprecise, and I would favor removing any mention of the Arabian Sea if it is adding to the confusion on other articles. In fact, I'll do that for now. Celestra (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the archives. I have also dropped the template from the page now. One other article that would have been in contradiction is Kanyakumari, which says that it is at the confluence of Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that article out. It has the description you mention in the "Recorded history" section and the Gulf of Mannar description in the "Geographical location" section. This government site agrees with the latter description, so I'll go correct the former. Celestra (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it wasn't an edit request.
Sorry about that. The cited content was added here by (a week after bringing it up at the reconciliation talk page) and I moved it to its current loaction here, since it seemed awkward in the middle of a paragraph which was discussing natural resources. Please do not remove this content without first reaching a consensus. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Image ALT text
I started to add ALT text for the images, but there are more images that need it and I'm not very experienced at writing good text for this. RJFJR (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Poverty Statistics
The poverty statistics in the introduction are neither surprizing nor noteworthy to be mentioned there. It should suffice if they are mentioned in the Economy section. If you dissent, please discuss here. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Poverty is a pervasive feature. Sarcelles (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, please notice that countries more renowned for their poverty, Ethiopia and India do not have Povert mentioned in their introduction. Further note that Sri Lanka is not well-known for its poverty for good reason. Thanks Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The comparison to other countries is a moot point; the question is simply whether that detail belongs in the lede of this article. The arguments you make for removing the poverty detail are equally valid for the majority of the third paragraph. If you would agree to remove those, I'd agree with leaving the poverty detail out of the lede. It does need work where you moved it, though; the sentence doesn't make sense without the initial phrase about 20 million people. Celestra (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me have a look at it and get back to you. Incidently, trust me when I say that I am disinterested in the matter (i.e. to say I am not connected to Sri Lanka). Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Celestra, you are right about the third paragraph. However, Sri Lanka is quiet well-known for its tea and/or coffee and perhaps spices. If it ranks amongst the top three, that might deserve a mention. Else, go ahead with the modifications. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
The first Sinhalese arrived in Sri Lanka late in the 6th century B.C. probably from northern India. Buddhism was introduced in about the mid-third century B.C., and a great civilization developed at the cities of Anuradhapura (kingdom from circa 200 B.C. to circa A.D. 1000) and Polonnaruwa (from about 1070 to 1200). In the 14th century, a south Indian dynasty established a Tamil kingdom in northern Sri Lanka. The coastal areas of the island were controlled by the Portuguese in the 16th century and by the Dutch in the 17th century. The island was ceded to the British in 1796, became a crown colony in 1802, and was united under British rule by 1815. As Ceylon, it became independent in 1948; its name was changed to Sri Lanka in 1972. Tensions between the Sinhalese majority and Tamil separatists erupted into war in 1983. Tens of thousands have died in the ethnic conflict that continues to fester. After two decades of fighting, the government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) formalized a cease-fire in February 2002 with Norway brokering peace negotiations. Violence between the LTTE and government forces intensified in 2006 and the government regained control of the Eastern Province in 2007. In May 2009, the government announced that its military had finally defeated the remnants of the LTTE and that its leader, Velupillai PRABHAKARAN, had been killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.59.34 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri_Lanka
I think there´s something wrong...--Askalan (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems this is taken from cia factbook. It says it sourced from 2001 census provisional data, which did not covered the N-E. % of Hindus should be greater. This is what i found in my Copy of Cambridge Factfinder. Full citation is
 * -- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of Sri Lanka in ancient times: "Heladiva"
Sri Lanka used to be called "Heladiva" in Ancient times. The name is a mix of the words "Hela" (the name of the people on the island in ancient times, which is also a part of the word "Sinhalese": "Sinha" and "Hela"), and the word "Diva", which means "Island". This is true but I do not know a direct source: type in "Heladiva" in Google and find a proper valid source. I'd appreciate it if this name could be added to the introduction of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.83.167 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is the pronunciation in the lead for English speakers? If so, it needs to be changed: is not a phoneme in English;  is. 79.67.154.166 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

sri lanka.travel webpage
I am from the Sri Lanka tourism and promotions bureau and i was very fascinated about your page on Sri Lanka. Is there any possibility for you to add our webpage link www.srilanka.travel in the section on the right hand side where you mention the languages and GDP of the country. It would be great if you could do this as people could get more information from our site on where to go and visit and what to do in Sri Lanka.

Thank you

Appreciate your prompt reply

(SLTPB (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))SLTPB - Sri Lanka Tourism and Promotions Bureau.


 * I cannot add the link within the body of the article, as this is against our external links policy; I can, however, add it in the 'External links' near the bottom of the article.

 Chzz  ►  13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLTPB (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the information on the buddhist attacks on christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.119 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"See also"-section
This section would possibly look better, formatted as follows:

See also
 * Outline of Sri Lanka
 * Colombo, the trade-capital of Sri Lanka
 * Kotte, the administrative capital of Sri Lanka


 * Prageeth Eknaligoda


 * --Cable-tv of our forefather&#39;s (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-arrangement of sections?
Presently the sections of the articles are in the order:

1 Name 2 Geography and climate 3 Flora and fauna 4 History 5 Government and politics (...)

It would be more appropriate if the 'History' and 'Government and politics' sections were moved up in the list, since these sections are more important, preferably after the 'Name' section. In addition, the 'Name' section could be renamed to 'Etymology' section in order to keep the article in line with similar articles. 87.72.122.147 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Errata: missing the 'E' in a date
Please change in the section on religion, "... was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka around 30 BC.[50]" to "... was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka around 30 BCE.[50]" for consistentcy in the use of BCE instead of BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.174.80.77 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction of Term
The following sentence at the end of introduction could be written in a more suitable way:

"A nationalist political movement arose in the country in the early 20th century with the aim of obtaining political independence, which was eventually granted by the British after peaceful negotiations in 1948."

Independence was not 'granted' as such by Britain but secured by the Sri Lankan people through their struggles.

Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.204.189 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Merdocx, 22 July 2010
I see in the cited link that the GDP and per capita income has been updated to 2010. please update the values
 * ✅ I've updated the relevant data fields. In the future could you please use the Template:Editsemiprotected for edit requests. Best-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rrh2010, 22 July 2010
Please delete the words "a nation with which it shares common culture, language and religion" in paragraph 1 because it is incorrect. Sri Lanka's culture is vastly different from that of India. It is distinctly and uniquely Sinhalese/Buddhist, not the Dravidian culture of Southern India or the Sikh culture of Northern India. Neither is it fashioned by the Hindu religion of India. The language is essentially Sinhala, not the languages of India. Further, the religion of Sri Lanka is predominantly Buddhist, which is far from being a predominant religion in India.

As one who was born in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and lived there for 26 years, this information was well known to all who lived there. Also: http://www.everyculture.com/Sa-Th/Sri-Lanka.html

Rrh2010 (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done That statement was added by a user a couple months ago without any explanation or cited source; I don't see a problem in removing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Sri Lanka really pronounced locally (especially while locals talk in English)?
Many sources say it's "Shree Lanka", yet many other say this is a myth and that it's pronounced "Sree Lanka" as it looks? So what's the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.255.27 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms based on communiques of one of the involved parties in the conflict
Please note that the following text was removed because it violates wiki rules WP:Peacock, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV :

"marking a rare occurrence in world military history. "

The source given is :http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090518_10 | w--History Sleuth (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)--History Sleuth (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)ork =Ministry of Defence | accessdate = 2009-05-18

On the face of it looks rather facile to argue as a "rare" achievement that a state funded and manned professional army would take over 25 years, with help from countries such as India, Pakistan and China and after taking over 100,000 casualties, to defeat a rag tag guerilla force manned largerly by non-state actors with no air power. But if some editors would still insist that it was such a "rare" achievement they need to come up with a better reference from reputable third party which was involved in the conflict and which directly states it as "rare" (thus not forcing the zealous editors to violate WP:SYN to push the POV). Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like you are very interested in working within Wikipedia policies. That is very good. (Your talk page suggests it too???)But unfortunately you have to discuss those things in the talk page before removing referenced data. Surprisingly  you have forgotten it. So the referenced data is restored.

For your personal information.......


 * Present Sri Lankan armed forces took only less than 3 years to finish the Eelam War IV and the number of casualties are much less than your total number.
 * LTTE at the height of their power possessed a well developed militia and had a 15,000 km2 area under their control.
 * The LTTE pioneered the use of suicide belts and used submarines and light air crafts in some of their attacks.
 * They were identified as the most dangerous unbeatable ruthless terrorist group on earth by many experts, until they were defeated by Sri Lankan forces.
 * LTTE had a sophisticated international support network to raise funds.While some of the funding obtained by the LTTE is from legitimate fund raising, a significant portion is obtained through criminal activities, extortion among Tamil diaspora, involving sea piracy, human smuggling, drug trafficking and gunrunning.

Can you come up with some other occasions, in which a state army or a group of state armies defeated a terrorist organization which owned Howitzers and SAM Missiles? Until you come up with your other incidents, nothing should be changed. --Shehanw (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are now engaged in WP:OR. The reference even if considered neutral for argument sake does not reach the conclusion you have reached with that statement. Some other editor will check the POV. I am moving on. Thanks.

-

Why no statistic data on mother tongue?
It's what Sinhalese politicians do: divide et impera, it's quite interesting that in statistics on Sri Lanka's provinces there is no info on mother tongue, only on ethnicity (with Tamils split into: Sri Lanka Tamils and Indian Tamils) and religion. Truth to be told, all Tamils in Sri Lanka have Tamil as their mother tongue which is identical in its written form to Tamil Nadu Tamil(as expected as this language is diglossic and all spoken variants are not considered prestigious), and also most Muslim and Catholic people in the hill region and on the North and East Coast have Tamil as their 1st language.

So, bring some linguistic statistics of Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammar clean up needed
Since I am unable to edit directly, my fixes are in bold.

"The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (commonly known as Sri Lanka ( /sriːˈlɑːŋkə/, /sriːˈlæŋkə/, or /ʃriːˈlɑːŋkə/);[8][9] Sinhala: ශ්‍රී ලංකා, Tamil: இலங்கை) is a country and a sovereign state off the southern coast of the Indian subcontinent. An island nation in South Asia, it was until 1972 known as Ceylon ( /sɪˈlɒn/, /seɪˈlɒn/, or /siːˈlɒn/). Sri Lanka is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait. Sri Lanka is a republic and a unitary state which is governed by a semi-presidential system with its official seat of government in Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte, the capital. As a result of its location in the path of major sea routes, Sri Lanka is a strategic naval link between West Asia and South East Asia.[10] It has also been a center of the Buddhist religion and culture from ancient times and is one of the few remaining abodes of Buddhism in South Asia along with Ladakh, Bhutan and the Chittagong hill tracts[11] The Sinhalese community forms the majority of the population; Tamils, who are concentrated in the north and east of the island, form the largest ethnic minority. Other communities include Moors, Burghers, Kaffirs, Malays and the aboriginal Vedda people. The country is famous for the production and export of tea, coffee, coconuts, rubber and cinnamon, the later which is native to the country.[12] The natural beauty of Sri Lanka has led to it being christened The Pearl of the Indian Ocean'''. The island is full of lush tropical forests, white beaches and rich biodiversity'''. The country lays claim to a long and colorful history of over three thousand years; one of the longest documented histories in the world. Sri Lanka's rich culture can be attributed to the many different communities in the island. Sri Lanka is a founding member state of SAARC and a member of the United Nations, Commonwealth of Nations, G77 and Non-Aligned Movement."

More could be done - but this is at least a start on the intro. Thanks! --DavidTheGood (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't the Burgher people spoken of in this article at all? I believe there is a higher % of Burgher people than Malay people in Sri Lanka, and the fact that they are never spoken of in this article is disgusting. They aren't spoken of under Religion nor Languages, so for the record Christianity is another religion practised in Sri Lanka by many people, including Burghers, and their mother tongue is English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.198.9 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Milindapck1, 26 January 2011
Please change economy details according to this http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/174-sri-lanka-gdp-country-report.html#axzz1C9mTtJnQ Thanks

Milindapck1 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: Since our current sources are the IMF an Sri Lanka's government, I'm inclined to keep those figures rather than the figures from a monthly magazine, which doesn't even report where the info came from. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mathurahan, 11 March 2011
Srilanka sinhalese population is around 74 - 75 %, Tamils 18%(Srilankan & Indian), Moors 8% But it shows as 81% sinhalese...

Mathurahan (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I changed what you were looking at.  Banaticus (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)