Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Any merger can be discussed seperately on the talk page.  Sandstein  18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete, Lacks enough content or notability to stand on its own as an article; Merge into Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War. HumanFrailty (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources One of the current sources is the US Library of Congress Country Study on Sri Lanka, a fine source. Building local capacities for peace: rethinking conflict and development in Sri Lanka may have been used for the article, but not credited until I added it to further reading.  The other two citations come from University Teachers for Human Rights.John Z (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UTHR is biased against the Sinhalese and the Muslims. They seem to desire a homogenous community in the North with only Tamils (excluding Muslims and Sinhalese). Human rights should include freedom to move anywhere a person desires and settle anywhere they desire. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress only mentions an incident that was planned but never occured (which the article uses word for word infringing on copyright issues). HumanFrailty (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable subject matter, just as Chinese settlements in Tibet and Israeli settlement are. This seems like a partisan nomination. Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I make a separate article for the Tamil "colonization" of the Sinhala homeland? They constitute a major part of Kandy which is traditionally Sinhala homeland. Also, there's a significant number of Tamils who have settled in Colombo and other areas of the Western and Southern provinces. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You state that “Human rights should include freedom to move anywhere a person desires and settle anywhere they desire.” I feel that this is the case of the migration of Tamils into Sinhalese areas. Therefore, unless the Tamil migration is extraordinary in nature, it does not merit a page. Conversely, there is evidence that movement of the majority Sinhalese into Tamil areas is a government backed settlement scheme in order to alter the ethnic makeup of the island thereby gaining Sinhalese homogeneity and control over the whole island. Chesdovi (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The test is whether this movement of people is a phenomenon, a thing that has attracted sufficient attentions from reliable sources. It could be entirely voluntary, unorganized and independent of any government - we have 3 articles on internal migrations of African Americans in the USA Great Migration (African American), Second Great Migration (African American) and New Great Migration.  My guess is there may be enough sources to support this article. There may not be enough for movement of Tamils into Sinhalese areas, but if there are sources on it, there's no reason not to have an article on it.John Z (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, there is nothing to indicate a motive of demographic change. Settlements were encouraged under the development of the Mahaweli River for members of all the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka: Sinhalese, Muslims and Tamils. The Sinhalese constituted the majority for the simple fact that there are more of them in the country! These settlers migrated for the economic benefits that dawned with development.


 * It's funny that the Sinhalese are accused of racism when they've historically allowed other ethnicities like the Tamils to settle within there territory while the Tamils have constantly blocked other groups from settlement in their regions and claim discrimination when government facilitates migration.HumanFrailty (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are no sources that currently correspond to the title "Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes". A few documents allude to this using less argumentive terms. This should be incoporated into the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war article as there is not enough valid material to constitute a lone article. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war. This is good content but it feels too much like NPOV. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This a valid article that needs expansion not deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to expand on..the article is already straining for evidence of "colonisation schemes". Trincomalee's Sinhalese population still only constitutes 3/10 of the population.. 7/10 is Tamil. HumanFrailty (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli settlers only constitute 1/10 of the West Bank.... Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator has used the excuse "there's isn't an article on X so why should there be an article on Y" on a number of times. If he/she believes there should be articles on Tamils living in Colombo/Kandy or on any instances where Tamils have blocked others from settling, then let him/her start them, not delete this article. But please remember that the Tamils in Colombo/Kandy bought their homes from their rightful owners at market/above market prices using their own resources. The colonists in Trincomalee/Vanni were simply handed over the land that had been confiscated by the Government from their rightful owners without any compensation. FYI the Sinhalese population of Trincomalee district rose from 5% to 30% in the space of 50 years. The Tamil population of Colombo district increased from 10% to 11% between 1981 and 2001, whilst the Tamil population of Kandy district fell from 5% to 4% during the same period. If the article is too short, expand it. If the article isn't NPOV, change it. Don't delete it - the subject is worthy of an article.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more interesting are the demographic changes in the North. The Muslim population in Mannar went from 30% to 0% in the span of 10 years while the 10% or so in the rest of the Northern Province also declined to about 0%. Were they compensated besides the restrictions on how much money they can take when they were forced out? HumanFrailty (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's an article on this: Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE. Would you care to nominate this for deletion because "Wikipedia is not the Muslims grieveances encyclopedia"?-- obi2canibe talk contr 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not particularly because I don't see where else it can go. It's also supported by reliable sources and indicates undeniably notable acts. Creating settlements where there are no settlements (uncleared jungle) and small-scale migration (in relation to the whole island) doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. HumanFrailty (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources you used to improve the article are heavily biased.. Tamil Sangam, UTHR, an article by the LTTE secretary, etc.. |||||| While, Relief International, The Hindu (in the Muslim article) - not so much. HumanFrailty (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep May not be the best title. Other search terms like "sinhalese settlement" give some more hits that look relevant, e.g.  or, which says the settlement policy is well documented, along with many false positives.  But under any title, it seems to be a notable and sufficiently studied phenomenon.John Z (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.