Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism

Fact tag
I think we should cite that information Taprobanus (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do Watchdogb (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ponnampalam voted in favour ...

 * Ponnampalam voted in favour of the Ceylon citizenship act which lead the Tamil public to believe that Ponnampalam had no interest in protecting the Indian Tamil population. These feelings lead to the formation of a new Tamil party called the ‘Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi’ (Federal Party) by the people who broke away from ACTC and was lead by Chelvanayakam


 * This is not entirely true. A sizable number of Sri Lankan Tamil leaders supported the move to disenfranchise Indian Tamils. And it certainly wasn't a key issue in splitting the party in two. That happened, as explained in the previous sentence, because of the reluctance of some members to join the government. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Reworded and expanded to show the ACTC later development. Watchdogb (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, not correct again. Come on, basic history, Ponnambalam and the ACTC voted against the Ceylon Citizenship Act, along with the rest of the ACTC which had not yet split in two. The act was passed in late 1948, and Ponnambalam joined the government the next year, in 1949. The only significant Tamil members who voted for the act were the two ministers. If your citations claim Ponnambalam voted for the act, they would be blatantly incorrect, and should be blacklisted from being used as a citation of any sort.


 * Also the rest of the sentence implies that because Ponnambalam joined the government he immediately lost the support of the people, and Chelvanayakam effectively became the new leader of the Tamils. While the ACTC would eventually lose prominence to the FP, in the 1952 election the ACTC won a much larger share of the vote, and Chelva was actually defeated in his own seat and knocked out of parliament. The ITAK's strong performance in 1956 had as much to do with the general unpopularity of the UNP, which the ACTC was associated with, rather than simply Ponnambalam's decision to join the government in 1949, and certainly not a non-existent vote for the CCA in '48. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not correct ! He did not vote against the bill. He voted in favour of one of the bills. Thought I overlooked that he did not vote for any offending bills. I am going to reword to reflect this.


 * It does not imply anything really. In fact, the article states what actually happened. The ACTC won 4 out of 7 seats in 1952 as opposed to it holding 6 out of 7. This is what actually happened and if you want to read it as ACTC loosing support, then that is just what you feel. My claim is backed by sources. If you want you can reword but that is up to you (and need to reword to reflect the source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs)


 * Not correct? lol. Do you know you're just digging yourself into a bigger hole by not accepting the facts. "He did not vote against the bill." I just don't know what to say to that. There was no "one of several bills that later became know as the Ceylon citizenship act". There was one (1) act of parliament that disenfranchised Indians living in Sri Lanka (Tamil, Muslims and all), the "Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948" that was passed on Nov 15, 1948. G. G. Ponnambalam, MP voted against the act. That's it. There's nothing else to read into that. The article, and it appears the book that was used to cite it, is just wrong, plain and simple. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not digging anything. You can keep on challenging the factuality of the book cited but the fact still remains that I have clearly proved the reliability of the book. All there remains is a verification by someone that these claims indeed come from the book. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * JOINING IN LATE: When the citizenship act 1949 was challanged in the supreme court by Chelvanayagam, the unanimous verdict was that there was no "dienfranchizement" as the order in council (1935, Governor Stanley) had constrained the franchize of Indian workers that would have happened under the Donoughmore constitution. P Ramanathan, Periya Sundar and others opposed the franchize for Indian tamils, mainly on caste grounds, while the Kandyan Sinhalese opposed them claiming that the Kandyan Peasents' rights need to be looked at. Chelvanayakam appealed to the Privy council when the supreme court rejected the ITAK plea. The Privy Council in London issued a long, learned judgement where it concluded that the government had NOT discriminated the rights of the Indian workers before the act, by the act, or after the act. The 1949 act established the rules for enfranchizement, i.e., 7 years residence is needed to obtain citizenship. This was considered to be very liberal for its day. K. Vythilingam and the civil servants under him, and possibly Ivor Jennings  were responsible for drawing up the citizenship act.Bodhi dhana (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Federal Party ask for a separate state?

 * However, Federal Party never asked for a separate state or even for self-determination.


 * Not correct. The resolution to form the party read


 * "This gathering of active workers in the cause of freedom for the Tamil-speaking people in Ceylon, here met in conference at the General Clerical Service Union Hall (GCSU), Maradana, on December 18, 1949, deeply conscious of the inferiority status of which Tamil-speaking people...and fully alive to the implications of dangers inherent in the legislative and administrative policy of the Government ... clearly realizing that the only fair and democratic solution to these fundamental problems (consistent with the island's unity) is the establishment of an 'Autonomous State' for the Tamil-speaking people of Ceylon, hereby resolve to constitute itself as Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) and become the framework of the National Organization of the Tamil-speaking people of Ceylon, pledged to strive increasingly for the attainment of their goal of self-government based on the principle of self-determination for the Tamil-speaking nation of the island.''-- snowolf D4 (  talk  /  @   ) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * Where is this quote coming from ? Can you please point to where this quote is take out of. According to the given citation it clearly claims that the FP never asked for an separate state or self determination. They wanted a united country but wanted a fair resolution for the Tamils. Please see citation that backs up this claim Wilson, A.J. Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism: Its Origins and Development in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, p.82-90. See page 83 for the specific place I got this content from. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I used K T Rajasingham's SRI LANKA: THE UNTOLD STORY as a reference, and if you want further citesGoogle a few words of, just the resolution. Among the hits that come up, one from Tamilnation nonetheless. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you did not read my comment. It's directly attributed to a source. You are welcome to add to this without WP:UNDUE weight to one reference rather than other and not violation WP:SYNTH. I am sure you have been here long enough to do that. Watchdogb (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding the sentence in this section. The FP never made it's policy to ask for session or self determination. See on the same reference you gave it says their 4 core policies. They may have made the speech but that does not mean that their policy was such. Again my claim is sourced and clearly backs my claim. Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This source is looking more and more like it's totally unreliable. "... pledged to strive increasingly for the attainment of their goal of 'self-government based on the principle of self-determination for the Tamil-speaking nation of the island." That was a party resolution. Not some "speech". How the author of the book can ignore that and say "the FP never asked for a separate state or even for self-determination" is beyond me. Any book that is so incorrect should be blacklisted and debarred from being used as a source on Wikipedia.


 * I knew this argument would come up. Care to read the claim under "Tags" ? Clearly, a book written on Political science by a Political Scientist from a respected University, published by a reliable publishing company is reliable. What is clearly the problem here is that this there is two different interpretation. What is claimed on the article is that FP never asked for self determination or partition of the island. This refers to the actual policy and not the speech a member makes. A policy is what a political party strives to achieve, but a speech is made for support. None of their policy wanted self determination or partition and this is what is portrait in the book and likewise on the article. Watchdogb (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And taking the above text I mentioned and using it as a citation to say the ITAK called for some form of self-determination is not a violation of WP:SYN, because fortunately, most Wikipedians don't need some apparently bs book to incorrectly tell them what the resolution (doesn't) say. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First the government introduced...

 * First the government introduced two system of standardisation of marks for admission which favoured the Sinhalese students. This system required the Tamil students to achieve more marks than the Sinhalese students to get into university.


 * As detailed in the article Policy of standardization, the university admission rules did not "favor Sinhalese students". It balanced out admissions based on what district university applicants were from. From the article


 * The two source given by the Policy of standardization are based on 2 source. One is a sri lankan government source and other is a book that I cannot find in circulation. Thought these sources may be RS it lacks other side of the story and the article itself is not entirely RS. So please stop pointing to this unbalanced wiki article as if thought it is a RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "In 1969, the Northern Province, which was largely populated by Tamils and compromised 7%[2] of the population of the country, provided 27.5 percent of the entrants to science based courses in Sri Lankan universities. By 1974, this was reduced to 7%.[1] However, the hardest hit population group were the urban Sinhalese in the Western Province, which contained 26%[2] of the islands population. In 1969, the Western Province provided 67.5 percent of admissions to science based courses. This reduced to 27% in 1974, after the law came into effect.[1]-- snowolf D4 (  talk  /  @   ) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * I only say what WP:RS says. Please see the citation for this claim. It is backed by two well know academic authors. The reference clearly says that these were discriminatory policies and then later K.M de Silva claims that Tamil students did have to achieve more marks to get into University than the sinhalese students. This is exactly what is written here (thought not word for word as that is not allowed). Watchdogb (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly the opinions of two Tamil nationalist authors are not automatically "WP:RS", but I'd rather not go into the "omg they are WP:RS!", "Oh no they aren't" argument, cos we all know the real facts. Tamils allege that these policies were "discriminatory", Sinhalese say they were acts of affirmative action. Most modern accounts reflect that, and use words along the lines of "Tamils allege they were discriminated against...". So how about we change the sentence to something like


 * The new Government in power adopted two new policies that Tamils allege were discriminatory against them.[25] First the government introduced  a policy of standardization of marks for admission to Universities which reduced the number of Tamil Students in universities in accordance to the population of Tamils in the country,[26] and a similar policy was adapted for employment in the public sector in which less than 10 percent of Tamil speakers were employed as public servants.[27][28]


 * The last part isn't entirely clear though, was it that 10% of Tamil speakers were public servants (and if so, opposed to what percentage of Sinhala speakers that were public servants) or were 10% of public servants Tamil (and what would be wrong with that given 12% of the population speak Tamil). -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this addition. The need to compromise means that you give some and take some. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Nonetheless I can agree to a compromise in that we have the first sentence instead of what is there now and then have the other parts as it is. We can add what the government claims too and this way all views can be presented. Watchdogb (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So even if it's wrong, for the sake of "compromise" you want the last bit of the sentence to stay? That is not how things work. For the record, the Policy of standardization did not require "Tamil students to achieve more marks than the Sinhalese students". Admission criteria was based upon the district students were from, not their race, religion, language or any other criteria (like the current z-score cut off marks system). -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not wrong. I have two sources to prove the sentence. Again see below discussion under "tags". Thanks very muchWatchdogb (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What did the elected leaders think that they were doing
It is not just what the Tamils though these mesaures were but what the political leaders (who happen to be Sinhalese) think also should be included. They felt these measures were

''The popularly elected leaders of the country saw it as an outcome of a strategy by the British to control the majority Sinhalese that needed to be redressed. These measures deteriorated the already frail political relationship between the communities and many experts believe it as one of the main caused of the Sri Lankan Civil War.(ref) name=BP(ref)(ref)Ambihaipahar, Scientific Tamil Pioneer, p.29(ref)''Infact I have the direct quote from leader that was published in an RS source that I will post later. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What's with this section? The sentence "They felt these measures were" is incomplete, and I don't see how this section refers to something that should or shouldn't be changed in the article. Sebastian (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article
Once we overcome these few issues, we should nominate it for WP:peer review and then on to Good article. Good job overall WatchdogTaprobanus (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Snowolfd4, care to explain what you want to be changed for the tags to go ? Your claim is that some of these content are not factually correct. At the same time you are overlooking that these citations are backed by sources. So in general are you questioning the factuality of the sources that are being used (thus claiming that the source is not WP:RS) or are you claiming that my interpretation of the source is wrong. Please clearly point this out so that we can find ways to move forward! Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is there a tag questioning the accuracy of the article? How about you read some of the discussion above? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done ! So if I can prove that my claims are covered by source word by word, then this tag's has to go. I mean while the above discussion is taking place it seems that there is only two possibilities. 1) IS that I am faking and making up claims or 2) The book is not WP:RS. The second option cannot be used as this article is cited by 13 scholar papers (including online peer reviewed journals and books) and further scholar articles that cite the book arehere which includes another 18 works that use this book. You can see here also. The author of the book A. J Wilson's profile can be see here. He was a political scientist and was a four times chairperson of his department (political science). Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism: It's origin in the 19th and 20th century was released in University of British Colombia press and by University of Washington press. The Author was clearly writing in his field of expertise and in addition his work was published by respected publishing company. So it is clear here that only option 1 remains open. I will bring a thrid neutral party to see that every single claim in this article is backed by WP:RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what he means is neutrality not factuality, if he claims that the article is factually wrong then he must be either you are lying or the authors are lying. I dont know which ?Taprobanus (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can this section be closed as resolved? There is one tag remaining, in section Federal Party, but I don't see an unrefuted argument for which this tag would have to remain. Sebastian (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding section "before independece"
I think the section "before independece" is very sketchy and needs improvement; it fails to mention key events and key references. I will try to do this.Bodhi dhana (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * again, unfortunately, your claim and feelings. There is no such thing as "key reference" in wikipedia and this is because it is not logical to ask for every reference on a subject matter be presented in an article. No one person can whip up something like that even for PHD thesis let alone for wikipedia. Anyways, if you feel that the article needs improvement, then you are free to do the job. I can tell you that no one, except yourself, can take care of all your concerns and this applies to everyone and anyone. Watchdogb (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us restate what I wanted to say. Important events have been left out. So I have edited it. As you say, each editor has to evaluate the events and facts as he sees them and bring them into view. I DONT SEE YOUR CRITCISM or analysis OF MY EDIT, insted I see a revert. That is not constructive. ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC) The shift from caste consciesness to race consciousness is a very important step in the crystallization of nationalism and this has to be alllued to briefly (as I have done), in the article. Bodhi dhana (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please relax. I have not reverted anything you had written. My edit that was done on 19 may 2008 was only done to remove POV words and peacock terms like "liberal minded" and "politically naive". The content remained fairly the same but was only reworded. Watchdogb (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The cast content under communal representation was removed because it deviates from the Tamil Nationalism part of this article. It goes into detail about how sinhalese people elected a Tamil over a Sinhalese. If we start to note small incidents like this, then the article will have to be 10 times as big and will deviate heavily from the topic. I do agree with you that caste consciesness to race consciousness is a very important step in the crystallization of nationalism and I did like they way you had represented it but the sentence that claimed

"In fact, until the early 1920s, politics of community or 'race' was far less important than caste. The upper-crust Tamils, Kandyans and Sinhalese, often linked by conservative socio-religious norms and class previlage, attached more importance to caste distinctions than to commuinty and 'race'."


 * is not referenced. So it is hard to integrate into the article since I really don't know where it came from.Watchdogb (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I currently do not have the book "A history of Sri Lanka" by de Silva but I probably get in on Monday. Once I have the book I can fully integrate the cast part into this article. Please give me some time for this. Watchdogb (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read throught the given citation of "A history of Sri Lanka" by de Silva but I could not find any factor that directly covers the transformation from "cast" division to "ethnic" devision. I did find on page 483 where the author says that:

"But two other problems manifested themselves. The first was a fresh point of division between the Sinhalese, with competition with Kandians and low country Sinhalese revealed as a noteworthy ingredients in politics. Even more important, ethnicity became a decisive factory in elite competition in the form of rivalry and competition between Sinhalese and Tamils."


 * And in the following parts of the book there is no mention that "cast" division changed to "ethnic" division. Instead, the book covers both Cast devision and ethnic devision as parallel. As a result of this I have again integrated more sections and reworded Watchdogb (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ITAK
Does ITAK (found in the lead section) refer to the All Ceylon Tamil Congress? I wanted to be sure about this. -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think there has been some mistake induced in the LEAD as a result of various edits. I think the LEAD needs to be re-written. I can get this done by tomorrow. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Part of the series..." navbox
This box, being just to the right of an image, has really created a nasty "text sandwich" in the Early beginning section. I'm not sure what is planned for a lead-section graphic, but could this navbox go somewhere (anywhere) else? -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the text box. Is this a better place ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's great. Although now that I think about it, I seem to remember something in the MoS about where to put navboxes. (I assume that this box is an example of a "navbox".) I'll check on that soon and see if there is some requirement. But this looks a lot better now. -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sivite?
In the first paragraph of the Early beginning section, there is: "Hindu(sivite) Tamil ... reformist movement" and later "Hindu sivite principles". Even though I don't understand the term, there appears to be a usage error here. What does "sivite" mean? How does it change/modify the term "Hindu"? I couldn't find "sivite" in the Hindu article. -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Saivite is a section of Hinduism, practiced mostly in south India and by Sri Lankan Tamils, which bases Siva as the main god. Currently, however, wikipedia lists saivite as Shaiva. I will inter-wiki link it appropriately. Watchdogb (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains why I couldn't find it--different spelling. OK, so now I'm not so happy with the "Hindu(Shaiva)" construction. I assume we can make that simply "Hindu Shaiva Tamil revivalist and reformist movement"? -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It makes more sense to say "Hindu Shaiva Tamil revivalist and reformist movement". Please make the change :) Watchdogb (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Legislative council
I need a clarification: In the Communal consciousness section, 3nd sentence, there is a "legislative council called the Ceylon National Congress". Is this the same legislative council that was referred to in the 1st sentence? Or perhaps a later version of it? -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that the particular sentence is a bit out of place. I don't think there is a need to mention the ethnicity of the leader. I feel that it would be better to delete the whole sentence altogether as it serves no purpose in advancing the topic. How do you feel ? Watchdogb (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. That sentence really doesn't add to the section's topic at all. -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been removed. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

TULF origin date
The Federal Party section says that TULF formed in 1975, citing reference #39, but the first sentence of the TULF section says 1976. It's not a big point, but it's noticeable when the two dates are so close together. It would be very easy to just remove the date from the 1st sentence of the TULF section. Should I do that? -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  13:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do. Watchdogb (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GA issues
Start. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)