Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology/archive

Kularatnam's source

Hi Sebastian, you might want to look at Kularatnam (Geography Prof)'s article and send some comments after taking with the Toponymics people at your place. Some of it is probably OK but most of it seems speculative - Bodhi

Biased Article

This is a completely biased and ideologically motivated entry. It is intended to deny the Tamil historic presence in the North East and to indicate that the Sinhalese Buddhist presence is some how anterior to and in some sense more legitimate from a historical perspective. This is not a neutral encyclopedic entry. It should not even be included in Wikipedia. Much of the conclusions are dubious and far fetched. I dispute the neutrality of this highly speculative entry. It is out of material such as this that much of 20th century Sinhalese nationalism is derived.--Dipendra2007 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dipendra. The references provided in support of the alleged etymology are unproven and far fetched. This has more to do with a nationalist interpretation of the past and not with serious academia. I vehemently dispute the neutrality of this article.--MrinaliniB 20:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the references used for this article are mostly Geocities personal websites. One reference links to a pro sinhala movement site siting destruction of Sinhala shrines in the North. I am going to check out the other book references which also seem to be questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.145.229 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Under "Interaction between Sinhala and Tamil forms" The second paragraph references 2 sources [3 and 4]. Reference 4 is to a journal entry whose abstract clearly points out that the image which is being referenced had south indian sculpural traditions and hence proves otherwise the case for the Vellipuram Buddha Image. Reference 3 is a personal website. Not to mention that it is a hate based website. This paragraph will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujan Saundara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All items that source a personal page such as geocities will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujan Saundara (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed sources

Per WP:SLR agreement on sources, I have removed the personal website that was used to cite most of the facts in this article. If you disagree with it, take it to SLR, ANI or the RS sources notice board. I am sure, we dont write an encylopedia with personal websites. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This site is run by Peradeniya, Colombo University and Kerala/Tamil-nadu academics who use a geocities website because they do not want hidden funding. In fact Geocities websites have this advantage of being an independent study groups, and accepted if the authoirship is not hidden. There are some websites where etymological material is presented with hidden authorship.The authors of the placee-names webste are attached to University of Peradeniya, Colombo, Kerala-TamilNadu,Australia etc. Names of contributors to the website are clearly mentioned and not hidden. It is based on the work of Paul E Peires, Horsburgh, Medhananda, Suppiah, Devendran, Karthigesu Indrapala et al. These earlier authors (like Paul E Peries) and more recent authors have published in JRAS, international journals on linguistics, publications at the University of Sussex and other places. The research material here had been commissioned by the Mahaveli board in the 1970, in regard to the Mahaveli basin, long before the Vadukoddei (Batakotte) resolution with its home-land politics. If you read their write up, you see that they have included articles from a variety of sources including TamilNet, articles by Kularatnam etc. That it goes against the Tamil politically motivated. The Homelands concept is a political issue which cannot be settled here. If that is the basis of this revision THEN IT PROVES THAT it is politically motivated. For these reasons we are going to putting it back. If you disagree, BEFORE you delete it, pleasae take to the SLR, ANI or the RS sources notice board. ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. We are writing an encylopedia not some website here. Take it to WP:ANI, WP:SLR and specifically Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Also dont attribute reasons for my actions. IT is called WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Als see here. The source is clearly classified as a non reliable source. Good luck with your persnal website but in wikipedia we will insist on using realible sources. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Taprobanus .The source is questionable please take it Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is already decided in SLR see here. The only other option is to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Infact I will take it there myself. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is go for itTaprobanus (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I took off two reference. First on is from a blog , named tripod, and is not RS and clearly violates WP:RS. Second, a paper called "Sarandipity" is not RS either. Sarandip is a sinhala name to Sri Lanka. This article is POV, non-notable and is not RS. Furthermore, I have added various fact tags, please add citation to them or it could be removed Watchdogb (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion now moved to WT:SLR#Place names in North and East of Sri Lanka, but apparently nobody bothered to write a notice here. I am sorry, this was not a model case of how this should be handled. Anyway, please check out the discussion there. Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Language of Sri Lanka

Would "Languages of Sri Lanka" be a relevant "See also" link for this article? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so, I will do it Taprobanus (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncited section

Most of the article now is cited with WP:RS but this whole paragraph is uncited. Sinhalese place names are found throughout the island. As discussed by Sri Lankan historians such as Paul E Peiris, Karthigesu Indrapala and others, pre-Christian stone inscriptions of Sri Lanka point to the extensive use of the Sinhala language in local administration. Toponymists like Ven. Ellavala Medhananda have examined the origin of present day place names. Much of the information for tracing the old place names comes from etymology, written texts, many stone inscriptions which are in Sinhala and dating back to pre-Christian times, as well as the more recent colonial records. It should be cited or removed. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed uncitable rest is easily defendable factsTaprobanus (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Bodhi Dhana

I have been absent from the Wiki acitivity for a short while and vast changes have been made in that short time. I woke up to it when I was sent a message sent to the director of the project by by Prof. Michael Roberts, who had heard from Taprobanus. Prof. Roberts had communicated with Prof. Dharma-wardana who has been directing this project since the mid 1970s.

Please take note of the following points:

1. Tme main motivation given by Taprobanus and his associates is that the article contravenes their "Tamil Homelands Concept". In effect, THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF A POLITICAL AGENDA. That is, they are dismanteling articles because they are preceived to be contraray to their politics (POV), and not related to facts. However, they have expressed other concerns, delat with below.

2.Taprobanus and friends claim that the geocities website could not be cited because "it is a presonal website". I have infomed the Professors about it, and they have informed me that the website could be hosted by an academic department of a University eventually. They note that even the website of the Biritsh Toponymic association is a "private" website, and they cannot be driven by Wikpedia's needs. However, we hae no problem in giving original sources to defend our write ups instead of usaing the website. The website was a convenient entry into the reference material. If you wish to deny the readers of Wikipedia this advanatage, we will correct it.

3. Prof. Kularatnama (an old geographerer) whose ONLY contribution to toponymics is this article at a meeting sponsored by a political group in Kuala Lampur. In the article he admits that he is "not an expert", in the subject, and I know personally thast he was coxed into making this contribution. It is many years ago, but I might be able to get some Peradeniya academics to confirm this. So the Kularatnam artcile is dubious, not peer reviewed, and should not cited. Surprisingly, The discussions on Tamil place names by K. Indrapala, K. Suppiah, Fr. Gnanapraksar, Horsburg, Lewis etc. have NOT been mentioned in the new article because the new article is strongly BIASED. Thus the contents of the article are dubious. The article does not discuss any Tamil palce names or Sinhala place names and give any clear well sourced illustrations. This makes the article relatively USELEE to readers.

4. Taprobanus objects to Gerald Peries who is a geographer, but accepts Kularatnam who is a geographer!

5. Taprobanus and others claim that I myslef (Bodhi Dhanapala) is involed in the geocites website and hence I have no right to cite the website. This is nonesense., since the the website says clearly that my job is merely dealing with Wikipidia and publicity issues. Unlike Taprobanus and his friends, we work openly, with our names up front and visible, and not under pseudonyms.

6. What are Prof. Gerald Peiris's, or Robert's contributions? The toponymics groups e-newsletter has carried many updates giving Prof. Peiris's suggestions, as well as suggestions from others like Prof. Meegaskumbura, etc. The website itself lists speciofic comments from Roberts regarding material from the Indrapala Thesis. Similarly, prof. J. B. Dissnayake is a leading Linguist (Professor of Lingusitics at COlombo University till recently), and he has certainly been consulted, mainly by correspondance. Late Prof. J. K. P. Ariyaratne provided maps etc. However, once the website is moved to an University academic department, these isssues can be sorted out. Prof Iyakutti is an expert on Kannada and Drividian languages, but being an older person, does not use computers and not accessible on e-mail. Prof. Dissanayake is in the same league.

7. Finally, the origin of a placenamec CANNOT be determined purely from etymology. It requires a review of Stone Inscriptions, Literary sources, So the whole approach is outdated and incorrect. That is why you need a TOPONYMIC approach. It would be very transparently wrong to call this a "good article" !!!!Bodhi dhana (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was this discussion where this website was ripped to shreds at WT:SLR. There were a lot of points against this geocities website. So, if you want to comment you know where to comment as there was a message in your talk page. Please do not try to divert attention from the actual discussion about this blog/website. Watchdogb (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you added tags to this article. What are you disputing ? What is dubious ? Which section is in violation of WP:NPOV and what is the exact thing that violates WP:NPOV ? These questions needs be answered if you want them fixed - the reason for adding the tags in the first place. If not, then any addition is considered vandalism and reverted as such. Thank you Watchdogb (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding points 2 to 7, most of the concerns regarding why a personal website cannot be used to create an encylopedia has been archived at here. Please carry on your onversation there. Regarding point 1, please read WP:NPA and concentrate on the subject matter on hand not the people. As a person who has signed the Sri Lankan reconciliation agreement, we should avaoid the common pitfalls while discussing matters. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The article does not meet the Good article criteria at this time. It's prose needs a good copyedit, preferably by a native English speaker. There's several run-on sentences, missing punctuation marks, and it's just generally hard to read this article and get a grasp of what the main purpose is. The lead section just doesn't do a very good job of summarizing the article and capturing my interest. Why should I keep reading this article? This is what the lead needs to accomplish. Please see WP:LEAD for more tips on improving this section.

The other main issue with the article is lack of a neutral point-of-view, based on the comments by Bodhi dhana (above). These issues must be addressed before GA status can be granted. The 'controversy' section as it is doesn't make a whole lot of sense to a non-native, and doesn't seem to be adequately talking about the subject completely.

The citations provided as references should follow a consistent format. For example, one issue is that some authors are listed as lastname, firstname, and others are listed in firstname lastname format. Please make sure a consistent format is used for all citations included.

Hope this helps improve the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, will work on them when time permits. Taprobanus (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers in the "References" section

Do the page numbers given in the "References" section (not the "Notes" section) for the Gnanaprakasar (2003) and Spencer (1990) sources reflect a specific citation or the total number of pages in the books? If they reflect actual citations, it would be ideal if they could be formatted as in-text citations using <ref> tags. If they reflect total page numbers, they aren't really necessary and should be removed (see Template:Cite book#Description). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is total number of pages in the book where as the notes section has the exact page number Taprobanus (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Total number of pages in the book in the references section isn't as important to include (at all), but the specific pages cited in the book should be included in the notes section. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We currently have a big problem in one editor is refusing to cite the page numbers saying the entire book is a citattion Taprobanus (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese and Dutch placenames

Given the substantial differences between the Portuguese and Dutch languages, it may be worth considering splitting the section into two... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneTaprobanus (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Map of provinces

One of the images currently contained in the article is a map of the provinces of Sri Lanka; would Image:Sri Lanka Sinhalese.svg, Image:Sri Lanka Native Tamil.svg, Image:Sri Lanka Indian Tamil.svg, and the like be (more) useful for inclusion (either as additions or replacements)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind... I noticed that the provinces are directly mentioned in the "Hybrid placenames" section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete citations

Three of the sources used in the article lack a complete citation. They are:

^ Tambimuttu, Ceylon Observer, October 14, 1948
^ Horsburg, B., 1916, The Ceylon Antiquary, Vol ii, Part I
^ Paranavithana, Senarath, 1956, Sigiri Graffiti, Vol I, II, London

Could more complete citations be provided? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Not done Taprobanus (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Placename" or "place name"?

The article currently uses both "placename" and "place name", whereas it probably should use only one. I have inquired about the correct form of the word at the Reference desk (see here). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneTaprobanus (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

5-May-Edit by Bodhi Dhana

This edit attempts to correct the injustice done by the previous version where the scholarly works of Indrapala, Horsburg, Gnapragasar, Velupillai et al., had been overshadowed by the article by Kularatnam which was a mere conference paper at a meeting organized by a politically motivated ethnic group. The material in Kularatnam's pre-amble is also highly contested and hence creates difficulties for an article of the encyclopedia where only well established material should be positioned. That is, no peer reviewed publication had occurred with respect to Kularatnam's article. Instead of giving undue credit to Kularatnam, proper credit should be given to the early writers, and Indraratne and others, who had done the etymology, painstaking work, and are recognized scholars in the field. Kularatnam is not an etymologist, and this is the only paper that he has written on the subject. However, I have retained some of his material where it is admissible. Thus the new write up gives due credit in historical order, by taking account of the academic weight of the contribution (e.g., Ph. D thesis or article in peer reviewed journal, as opposed to a mere conference proceedings).

The section on place names in politics has also been written to bring it more closer to reality. References to the personal page of a university professor in a Scottish university have been deleted as they are not an acceptable source, but are mere opinions of an individual. Instead, the historical development (in the context of Tamil and Sinhala nationalist politics and place names) has been traced.Bodhi dhana (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The section on place names in politics has also been written to bring it more closer to reality. References to the personal page of a university professor in a Scottish university have been deleted as they are not an acceptable source, but are mere opinions of an individual Well just because you dont like what he says does not mean it is not an acceptable source, for your information the information is not from his personal page, it is from an RS source book that is still in the reference section. He is no Iyakutti from thin year, a real accredited true anthropology professor. I will restore it for now. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreement here for you to merge Sinhala, tamil or hybrid sections further your additions to the Place name in politics is full WP:OR aand I have indicated sentences that I dispute as well as where references are incomplete and original research sentences. Please for an acadamic by now you should know how Wikipedia works with respect to WP:CITE. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SLDR extended to Sri Lankan place name etymology

I have extended the SLDR to Sri Lankan place name etymology as this topic is also politically charged. I did not follow the standard procedures (asking for objection on article talk page) because I feel that the original SLDR agreement's scope is extended to this article. In general Place name etymology is usually not controversial, however, in the Sri Lankan case even this is a politically charged topic (Almost as politically charged as the Civil War). If someone has any objections to this addition please discuss at WT:SLR#SLDR extended to Sri Lankan place name etymology or Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reason to deviate from standard procedure is strong enough, so I will remove it for now. If there are no objections after two days, the template can be added. Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

People should figure out a way to deal with issues without always needing a helping hand. Let's try to solve it here untill we prove that we cannot solve it before we extend the SLR agreement to this. Just my opinion Taprobanus (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion by Bodhi Dhana

Watchdog's judgment was entirely correct. So I have put back the Tag put in by watchdog as this article is clearly subject to edit wars, as taprobanus has reverted my edit without proper discussion of the very serious weaknesses of the prevous version. These are: (1)The consenus among acholars, Velupillai, Horsburg, Pau E Peries, Gnanaprakasar, (i.e, the early set of scholars), and the later scholars, e,g., Karthigesu Indrapala, P.A.T. Gunasinghe, and the independent evaluation by Michael Roberts, leading to agreement that over a thousand place names in the North and the East are of sinhala orign. This is an etimological conclusion and has nothing to do with politics. It was announced in the early part of the 20th century by the early set of scholars and confirmed by the later set. Roberts accepts this consensus and quotes it in his Tamil Nationalism article. The present write up states clearly this consenus among scholars, while the unacceptable write up totally avoids not bring out this etylological information. Taprobanus does NOT attempt to answer this.

(2)The contributions of thse distinguished scholars are downplayed, and the single, un-referreed contribution by a non-etymologist (kularatnam) given at a politically sopnsored conference is given center of state. Taprobanus does NOT attempt to answer this.

(2)Comparison of the Sinhala and tamil stems is important in an etymological discussion. Thes separation into three sections Sinhala, Tamil, and Hybrid was not agreed upon by anybody and I have followed the more rational approach whichenables direct comparison. The object is to improve the presentation.

(3)The previous version did not give examples of place names, but dryly listed stems, endings, etc. The new version corrects such serious lacunae.

(4)In the section on Placenames in Political should not include a refernce to the personal website of a young Scttish lecturer as that is NOT and RS source (it is a staff profie, and ONLY is bio-data can be authoritatively extracted. He has NOt published this in a perr-reviewed journal). The Tags put in by Taprobanus, asking for pages in the Book by Jane Russell is without merit, The whole book is relevant. The other tags are similarly without mwerit. I have answered them as comments below

(5)The claim that JDA Perera wants "sinhalization" of all names is not found in his article that has been referred to. Perera does not even deal with the names in the North.

I took off the tag in my latest edit because we need to achieve consensus (or at least no objection). So let's wait for another 48 hours and if no one objects, then we can add the blue box back.

(1) I do not agree with your assessment. Can you please give reference (on this talk page) for your claim ? You claim The consenus among acholars, Velupillai, Horsburg, Pau E Peries, Gnanaprakasar.....leading to agreement that over a thousand place names in the North and the East are of sinhala orign. and do not provide any reference for your claim. In fact, if you see my edit I have quoted a book which claim that "According to Dutch and British records the Northern province has no natural or man made feature that is of Sinhalese origin." This exert from the book gives me doubt that there is consensus amongst scholars about Sinhalese names in Northern province (IE Jaffna). Even if you manage to provide reference that the scholars you quote agree with your claim we cannot add that as exclusive claim as the book I have contradicts this claim. So please provide reference for your claim and then we can progress from there.

Hi, You say " do not provide any reference"---I have already done this. The reference to Dr. Roberts article is included at the "over a thousand names" quote, which is also found in Indrapala. Roberts has evaluated the available evidence and come to this conclusion as well, and so he is referred to. Your version had 900 names with no supproting quote! Thanks Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still going on about nothing. Till now you have not provided full citation for your claim. Instead you say that Indrapala quotes Roberts' article. Where can I find this text in Roberts article and on Indrapala article. This is a simple request. All you need to do is just tell me the book names and the page number. Provided that you have nothing to hide, which I am sure you don't, please provide the request. It's really not difficult as you must have seen the quote in both books and even edited wikipedia with it. The main reason I am making this request is that there is a lot of confusion here. Roberts' may say that there is over thousand names of sinhala origin in the North but at what time ? Was it before the 13th century ? Or is it later like the 18th century ? Or is it much later like the 20th Century? If this is not clearly provided by author, then we cannot use his argument as there is other views (apparently from British and Dutch) that say that that earlier record show that Tamil was the only language used for names of in man-made and natural things. Watchdogb (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(2) You claimThe contributions of these distinguished scholars are downplayed, and the single, un-referreed contribution by a non-etymologist (kularatnam) given at a politically sopnsored conference is given center of state. Please see that Kularatnam's claims are explicitly attributed. This is the standard procedures for sources that do not reflect a consensus. Kularatnam's claims are attributed to him and are not presented as truth.

(2)Please remember that this is not a comparison article. This is a wikipedia article and here we do not try to "Compare" per se. Instead what we do here is get a collection of claims together from WP:RS. Further we do not need to achieve consensus to create subsections in an article.

Exactly- we do not try to comapare per se. But In etymology we show the lingustic relationships, and give examples.Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Exactly! Your mistaken here. We do not show anything. We just write what WP:RS says without giving preference to a certain source. This is why kularatnam's claims appear in this article but with explicit attribution! We are allowed to give examples but your version is a collection of examples. This makes the article look more of a list rather than an article. Watchdogb (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(3) The previous version did not give examples of place names, but dryly listed stems, endings, etc. The new version corrects such serious lacunae. Why is this a "Serious lacunae" ?

The examples establish the point, and improves the article. The object of etymology is to clarify the derivation of the words (place names), and so you need to give the words (place names). I thought this is obvious.ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What point is the example establishing ? It sounds like you are violating WP:POINT Watchdogb (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(4) In the section on Placenames in Political should not include a refernce to the personal website of a young Scttish lecturer as that is NOT and RS source (it is a staff profie, and ONLY is bio-data can be authoritatively extracted. He has NOt published this in a perr-reviewed journal) I think you answered you own concern. The reference is only given to cite that this professor is a "a social anthropologist" and the university he is employed by. Further you claim he Tags put in by Taprobanus, asking for pages in the Book by Jane Russell is without merit, The whole book is relevant. The other tags are similarly without mwerit. I have answered them as comments below. I am sorry but it is required by wikipedia to say where (exactly) you got the information from. While the whole article might be relevant you must have found the claim on a certain page and this page needs to be given. Watchdogb (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1) It is already dealt in Hybrid place name section

2) It is an internationally recognized conference to which you seem to know who was and who was not invited, where is the citation for that ?

The list of invitees and speakers shows that there are NO etymologists. The reference is already included as this is the reference to kularatnam's article. "How is it internationally recognized? Which internationally registered organization sponsored it?Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please give citation for the claim you make. Namely The list of invitees and speakers shows that there are NO etymologists . This is not covered by the reference to Kularatnam's article

Bodi, you say that Kularatnam's citation is not WP:RS but fail to give even a single tangible citation to this claim. On the other hand, I have Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, which is definitely a WP:RS, that cites Kularatnam's source as a reliable source (see the book). If Kularatnam's source is accepted by such an author there is no reason why we can't use it on wikipedia? Surely the book published by a reputable publishing company would have more rigorous standards for their reference than wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

3) This is a Wiki be ready to discuss your point of view or keep to the personal website where one can make any outlandish commentary as one wants to.

Exactly. Thanks.Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

4) Not withstanding your attempt to denigrate the accredited anthropologist as that young Scottish lecturer, the citation from his personal website is about him and his quote is from his acclaimed book which fortunately is not jaundiced by the racism is known for its balance.

Saying that Spencer is a young lecturer is to state a fact discernable from his website that you have given. How does that become denigration? This is his first book. How is it known for its balance? Has some distinguished Peer published something saying so? The book can be referred to, but not the personal website of the Scottish university. In that case, similar acreditation would be needed for all authors of all books and this is not the practice in Wiki.Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

4) I have directly quoted him from his article where he wants a singular list of place names made of Sinhalese by the government.

You do not quote him but say "Spencer further noted that in the currently Tamil-dominant Northern Province there are place names with Sinhalese etymologies, which is used by the Sinhala dominant government to claim the territory, whereas Tamils using Tamil place names in rationally Sinhala areas point to their antiquity in the island.[14] There is a movement in Sri Lanka that seeks to Sinhalize all placenames throughout the country.[15]" No page number given, and this is misrepresentation as Spencer does not talk of a "Sinhala dominant government". Also, GDAPerera is a single writer, and NOT a movement, and he has NOT asked for Sinhalization of all place names but revival of old names - give the quote from that article in this discussion and then we can see what you mean ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About Jonathan see here and I am willing to change the wording on Movement versus according G.D. A Perera and I have quoted him in the reference section. He does not talk about three languages just Sinhalese. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He further notes that Tamils if they want can keep calling their places what ever they want but the official list will remain Sinhalese. He also gives an example where official name for Jaffna will be Japane in Sinhalese. Please don’t try to WP:POINT here. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) JUst as Adam's peak has three names, Jaffna has three official names. The country has three offical languages.Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

comments

Taprobanus says: Spencer further noted that in the currently Tamil-dominant Northern Province there are place names with Sinhalese etymologies, which is used by the Sinhala dominant government to claim the territory,

Can he give a reference to a Government Gazzette notification or legal enactment based on this which is based on etymolgy? Spencer has NOT given such examples in his book and so this is a misquote.

See here Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no where in it does Spencer say that the "Sinhala dominant government" uses these etymologies. He he referes to Sinhala, and also tamil activists. They are NOT the same as the government. This is a misrepresentation.Bodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that you are discussing finally then change it from Sinhala dominat governments to Sinhala activists Taprobanus (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Taprobanus adds the Tag: writings could be re-examined.[disputed] Thus various publications by University scholars, e.g., [18], Answer: The Tag is answered by the reference [18]. Read it.

Taprobanus adds a "page needed" tag: A more detailed scientific study by Dr. Karthigesu. Indrapala [19][page # needed] Answer: The detailed scientific study is the WHOLE BOOK and asking for the page is without value.

Taprobanus adds a page needed tag: the political confrontation which developed in the Donoughmore Era [21][page # needed] Answer: The whole book by Dr. Russel deals with the subject and asking for the page is without value.

Taprobanus adds the disputed tag: that the leading Tamil experts (e.g., K. Idrapala) or scholars from the Sinhala side were not invited.[disputed] I have modified the sentence. I have modified the last two tagged sentences to take account of his objections. Bodhi dhana (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We will not take your word for it, just provide the page numbers that's how inline citation works per WP:CITE. This is a wiki so people will ask for and dispute statements there is no WP:OWN of any articles here. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course NOT. You must NOT take it word for word. Check out the reference and read it for yourself. It is part of the education. You can also be helpful by adding the page numbers instead of reverting to a version poor in historical and etymological material. I have added the page numbers. Thanks.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.94.102 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the supoproting comment and helpBodhi dhana (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bodhi let's be serious here, no need for IP's we need to read the policy WP:SOCK here but the bottom line is you seem to be unaware how wikipedia works. It is an encylopedia project and it follows how academic papers are cited with page numbers in the Notes section. Please read WP:CITE before adding incomplete references. I will give you an example. I have K, Indrapala's book on Evolution of an Ethnic Identity - The Sri lankan Tamils. Somewhere there he mentions Malaya Rata as the fisrt instances of Tamil-Sinhala hybrid place name recorded in the early historic period. If I add that sentence and only refer to the book any wiki user can ask for the page number and if I dont provide it has theright to remove the sentence. Go back and get your page numbers and let's discuss then. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

An edit by here which is referenced to a WP:RS has been removed by a revert done here without any explanation. Please explain why this part was removed without any discussion or explanation. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchdog has also reverted the tag without explanation. I had given the explanation, by pointing out that this article is an evidently subject to edit wars, and subject to highly biased presentation, as explained in detail in my discussion and coimments.Thanks.99.241.94.102 (talk)

If you see I was the first one to add the tag per your own comment. An admin involved in WP:SLR reverted this and said that it has to be 2 days before I can add the tag. Since I agreed with that (thus disagreeing to the addition of the SLDR box before 48 hours) we do not have consensus. This is why the box was removed. Still, there is no explanation to why a user did removed cited material from the article. Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How to move on from the protection

Yesterday, I protected this page because, although people were discussing here, the same unreflected back-and-forth revert war continued on the article. Our policy WP:PROTECT says "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations." I now took a closer look at the version I protected, and noticed that it contains a considerable amount of changes that don't seem to be justified. (Caveat: I haven't read the above discussion thoroughly yet), such as the following:

change from	to	comment
Kularatnam, "Tamil Place Names in Ceylon outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces" Proceedings of the First International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 1966, vol.1, International Association of Tamil Research, 1968, pp.486-493	(deleted)	I don't see what's wrong with that reference. It seems professional to me.
H. C. Ray (ed.), History of Ceylon, Vol I, Part I (Ceylon University Press, 1959), p. 35 et sec.	(deleted)	(ditto)
Robert N. Kerney, "The politics of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Ithaca, Cornell University (1973), p. 116	(deleted)	(ditto)
have become a source of political debate	are a source of heated political debate	replaced a neutral statement with unsourced POV
its location in the ancient and medieval sea trade routes.	the position of the country in the centre of ancient and medieval sea trade routes.	The readdition of “the country” is unnecessary, since the sentence clearly refers to SL. I take this as a sign that reverter did not take the time to read what ey reverted.

I have to leave now, but in about 15 hours, I will read the discussion so far and see if there were more such unwarranted reversions. If you are aware of more, please write them in a table similar to the above. I then will merge the two versions, not according to the blunt WP:PROTECT directive, but I will pick from each version what I feel complies better with the criteria of Wikipedia and WP:SLR. If I can get all involved editors to abide by WT:SLR#1RR_SH3, then I will replace the page protection with the blue box. Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kularatnam's citation is still in the article it is not deleted.The other citations were removed in the process of going back to the version of having three sections. One for Sinhalese other for Tamil and another for Hybrid. Bodhi's decison to merge Tamil, Sinhalese and Hybdri section into one has no consensus and it is an abrupt change without and discussion and agreement from the current version. He does not own this article to take over when ever he feels like it. Personally I don’t agree with that wholesale change. If he gets consensus to do it then it is different matter.

So if you look at just citations alone it will look like we have deleted valid citations but one has to see the big picture. The big picture is how to organize this article and currently it is organized by Language origin such as Sinhalese, Tamil, Hybrid, Portuguese, Dutch and English. It is similar other etymology related articles.

I think admins should leave it to the editors to solve this matter by discussing otherwise one becomes an involved party. To solve this problem we should discuss one section at a time and agree on ground rules such as using WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV etc.

The issues to solve are

1. Do we organize this articles by language origin YES or NO
2. Do we use WP:CITE or make exceptions to this article and say the whole book can be a citation.
3. Can we use Jonathan Spencers citation ?
4. Is the word heated neutral or not ? in the lead
5. Do we agree etymology of place name became a problem only after Tamil people raised the issue of political independance, is it a neutral statement to make that too without RS citations
6. Does Perera represent a movement or individual
7. Does he advocate only Sinhala names for all place names
8. Is Prof Paranavitana an unbiased scholar
9. Can we use Kularatnams' material
10. Do we have to cite material in the lead that is already cited in the body (Due to Sebastian's comment about replaced a neutral statement with unsourced POV). Do we have consensus for that in this article as the policy suggests ?

There are dozen other questiosn like this. There is no short cut to improve this article, it cannotbe done over night it will take time mean while there will be conflict and reverts and discussions and violations of policies but that is what Wikipedia is all about.

The protect is working forthe first time I see people agreeing to discuss that too politely and making concensions to move forward as you can see above. There is no short cuts to improve this artice other than to firt list out all the issues and find consensus on each one of them. No need to rush it only to end up with one sided article. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the merge of the Tamil, Sinhalese and Hybrid into one section. Specially if you see this version it tries to give undue weight to sources that take one side of the view and does not sufficiently give the second point of view. This is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV Watchdogb (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, there are dozens of questions like this, and there is no perfect quick solution. However, the reason why I mentioned items such as the word "heated" was not to induce people to pile up an insurmountable heap of problems that need to be resolved to achieve perfection. I only wanted to show that the current version is the result of a relentless act of edit-warring that shows no respect even for thoughtful edits of the opponent. My point is that protecting your version is not only not perfect, but that it is extremely unfair, because it completely sides with one extreme.

With that in mind, your statement "I think admins should leave it to the editors to solve this matter by discussing otherwise one becomes an involved party." seems oddly out of place. Are you insinuating that Bodhi dhana (or anyone on his side) would dispute my neutrality if I put his words back? That doesn't make sense! Or are you rather threatening me, if I were to remove anything that you wrote?

Guys, I need your commitment to end this wikilawyering and this revert war. I am offering my help, and the way I would like to do it is WT:SLR#1RR_SH3, because this is just the kind of situation for which I wrote it. Are you on board? — Sebastian 17:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian you did not do me a favor by protecting the version, I happen to be editing when you decided to protect it. If it were Bodhi who was editing at that time, you would have protected his version because I believe you are impartial and I would have pursued the path even then that is I would have urged for discussion to solve it. Keep in mind very rarely do Admins roll back before protecting. Personally I did not ask this article to be protected or for that matter for it to be covered by SLR agreement(I agreed to a request, yes). I simply was editing when you decided to protect it. So be it and wait till the edit restriction lifts or if you feel that you made an error then unprotect it and leave it for the people to hash it out.

Also the tone here Or are you rather threatening me, if I were to remove anything that you wrote? indicates that you are in a rush, so take it easy.

In my view the primary concern here is the division of this article into linguistic version or combined as Bodhi did. We have to agree to one version. Then everything else follows from it and yes it includes following this too. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I offered to come here and spend more time here tonight, but there doesn't seem to be much demand for that, so I think my time is better spent elsewhere. I wish you all peaceful editing. Sebastian (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one comment to your last statement: You are saying you first need agreement on the overall article, before you can commit to a set of 1RR rules. That's like saying you first need peace before you can sign a ceasefire. That's not the Taprobanus I used to know, and it makes me very sad. Do me at least one favour: If you're not ready to do the first step by abiding by a set of 1RR rules, then say so clearly instead of hiding it behind well-sounding phrases. Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to 1RR_SH3. All we need now is the rest of the people to agree/disagree to 1RR SH3. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with 1 RR either Taprobanus (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Open for Suggestions

Can we go back to substantive discussions about the content of this article rather than discussions about personalities. It is rather tiring anyway I am open for suggestions. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Need to add when edit protection expires

The earliest known Dravidian language element in place names used was during the earliest Historic period in Pali chronicles in which the Central mountainous region was named as Malaya which means a mountain in Tamil as well as Pattana derived from the Tamil word for a coastal city appened for two major ports in the north of the island namely Jambukola-pattana and Gonagamaka-pattana. ref Indrapala, K The evolution of an ethnic identity…, p.375 ref

• Indrapala, K (2007). The evolution of an ethnic identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE. Colombo:Vijitha Yapa. ISBN 978-955-1266-72-1.

Reply to "How to move on from the protection" ... and further discussion

Thanks Sebastian. You have presented a scheme for resolving the issue I will present my proposals this weekend.

Here I do the easy parts, like replying Taprobane.

  Indrapala is an excellent historian but a poor etymologist. The wrokd " malé " existed in the place name "Kothmaleé" already in the 2 century BCE, during Kavantissa's time. It existed even in Rigveda times in Sanskrit, and later in Pali, as an appelation to "barbaric people" living in the hills. Thus "mlechcha → malechcha". The Kirats, the Pulina, and Bhilla people in india, living in Hills were known as Malechchas and the word "malé" began to refer to hilly regions. Thus the usage existed in early india and no doubt came to Sri Lanka. It is not just "Tamil" but common in many early Indian languages. See aloso the book "AltIndische Leben" p 34, and also History of India by Chowdry, also "History of Kirat People" (I forget the author but Indic scholars would probabaly know of it. The Kirats are referred to in the Buddist Pali cannon as well, as a group of Yakkas - i.e., Barbarian, rough people living in the hills). On could more plausibly easily claim that the Tamil "Malaya" came from the other early Indic Languages. — Bodhi dhana — continues after insertion below

(reply) Your claim that Indrapala is a poor etymologist is just your feelings. You need to provide reference for your claim for it to be considred seriously in wikipedia. We do not work on people's feelings ! If you can prove that Indrapala's claim is not WP:RS then we cannot use his reference at all in this article as this is about etymology of Sri Lanka and not History of Sri Lanka. The whole argument made above is not cited at all. As such these arguments are moot in wikipedia. You need to provide reference to each and every claim that you make even on discussion page so that we can move forward. The claim On could more plausibly easily claim that the Tamil "Malaya" came from the other early Indic Languagesis funny. Plausibly easily claim ? Maybe you can think like that in your own train of thought but you cannot provide that as an argument here in wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "Pattana" is also NOT a Tamil word, but existed earlier in Sanskrit and Pali. The earliest usage and meaning was "Pakkana → Pattan" and referrred to villages inhabited by lower caste people (the upper caste people lived in "(p)ur(a)" or "towns" → "oor" in Tamil, pura in Sinhala ). These can be checked out using perhaps even standard Sanskrit or Pali dictionaries. Just because a word is found in Tamil, it does not become the source langage for Sinhala. This is the same mistake made by Kularatnam. It is necessary to check out the usage in the early Indic languages. Of course, there are one or two mavarik writers (esp. on the internet, c.f., Loganathan) who would claim that Tamil is the source of even Sumarian. But in an encyclopedia, we have to stick with MAINSTREAM views and NOT maverik views. — Bodhi dhana — continues after insertion below

I can give you a simple example why we need to cite our claim. You claim that pattana is not a Tamil word but do not even give a single source for this claim. Now say for example I say pattana is a Tamil word! No one can pick who is right or wrong because neither of us back our claim by RS. This is why we need source for any claim we make. Since you do not give any reference we can assume that these are just your own feelings. As this is your own feelings and since it is opposed, by mere fact that we are having a argument, means that unless you can cite we cannot take your comments as truth or factually correct. Watchdogb (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, this is NOT the place to re-evaluate Parananvitana's place in Ephigraphics, Historical studies etc. He is considered to be the greatest Ceylonese Ephigraphist and Historian of the 20th century, by mainstream scholars. So Taprabanus's attempt to diminish all mainstream historians and bring up Kularatnam and Spencer should be done by his taking it up in the proper academic circles, and NOT in an encyclopedia. Thanks everyone Bodhi dhana (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate a reference that says that Paranavitana is considered to be the greatest Ceylonese Ephigraphist and Historian of the 20Th century ? If this is not referenced we do not know if this is your own feeling or a verifiable consensus. Even if he was famous there is no reason why his source should be given undue weight to his claim over other people's claim. Please assume good faith with Taprobanus and understand that he is not here to diminish any source. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again Original researching in this article violating that rule. Pattana is accepted as a Dravidian word and a loan into Sanskrit by Indologists long time ago.[1] Malai is listed as a Dravidian word in the Dravdian Etymological Dictionary (DED)[2]. Citations from Indrapala who when talking about Sinhalese place names in Tamil dominant Jaffna is acceptable in this article (Bodhi cites from profousely) but when he talks about Tamil place names in Sinhalese areas is not acceptable because it violates one editors POV. This conflict is not going anywhere unless we follow strict wikipedia rules such as WP:CITE all books and page numbers will be cited no whole books. If not they will be removed. No Original research everything has to cited from Reliable sources and then we will worry about neutrality. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cite

I really appreciate that several people here appeal to abide by WP:CITE and related policies and guidelines. While these are meant only for articles, not for talk pages, I think it would be good in the current situation to apply these also to the talk page. Otherwise, the views expressed can indeed be regarded as just a an editor's own feelings. From now on, I propose we use a template similar to

{{fact}} for that purpose. {{fact}} itself can not be used on talk pages, so, I'm creating template:fact_t for talk pages. I inserted it above as an example. I sincerely hope this helps focus the discussion here. -- Sebastian (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that notion. Watchdogb (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it and beyond normal Wikipedia conventions, I have gone beyond what needs to be done when using RS sources. To back up the RS source by K. Indrapala when he mentions on page 375 that Malai and Pattana were Dravidian language dervived words used in Ancient Sri Lanka, I have added RS references from academics who clearly say that the current consensus is that Pattana and Malai are Dravidian language derived related words. If Bodhi has opinions that is contrary to these three RS citations then he has to argue with Verfiable and Reliable citations using page numbers or links. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

reply by Bodhi Dhana

1. I agree with the fact_t proposal.
2.Also let us NOT add more disputes before resolving existing ones.
3. Looking up the words "pakkana", "pattana", "malechcha (barbarin)" in etymological dictionaries hardly deserves the title "research". Now I find that the etymo. dictionaries are not even necessary; ordinary on-line dicts. are enough:  (a)See On-line Pali-text society Dict. p 402 and other pages for Pattana.
 (b)Online Madrass Tamil Lexicon (supported by Univ of Madras ) p2376-2378 etc,
 Cologne Sanskrit dictionary refers to the word "Pattan" in the MahaBharata.I just cut and paste for your benefit:

14 paTTana n. a city (cf. %{deva-pallI-} , %{dharma-} , and %{pattana}) ; (%{I}) f. id. L. 15 pattana m. pl. N. of a people VP. ; (%{A}) f. N. of a wife of Vikrama L. ; n. (ifc. f. %{A}) a town , city MBh. Ka1v. &c. (cf. %{dharma-} and %{paTTaNa}).
Refences to cities(pattana) in the Pali cannon
5 dharmapattana n. `" the city of the law "'N. of the city of S3ra1vastil (v.l. %{pattana} VarBr2S. xiv , 7 jalapattana n. a water-down (forming an island) , Sil. 8 maJjupaTTana or n. N. of a town built by Man5ju-s3ri1 Buddh.

:

etc., etc. This is not research. Just look it up. We have a duty to write correct stuff in an encyclopedia article, and NOT blindly follow an obvious error by Indrapala, where as Paranavithana(I provided the reference in my version) and Horsburgh (ref. 8 of present version of article) have already got it correct.

 (c)"Pattana" is already referenced in the article; the word "Pattana" is "Patuna" in early-Sinhala and this is used by Horsburg (already sited in the article) where he discussed Patuna in the  context of "Yapa Patuna" for Jaffna. So there is NO new etymology research that I am doing. It is already addressed in the exiting article and so Tabrobanus has simply not made the connection with what is ALREADY in the present article. Thus there is NO point in adding more dispute by bringing in new contradictions where there are none.
 (d)Indrapala (p 375) says that this word occurs in "many sangam" poetry, but ignores its occurance in Older Pali literature (he does not give references reg. Sangam poetry and does NOT attempt to discuss it incomparison to the age of the Pali of the Buddha's era).
 (e)Taprobanus claims that I object "when (indrapala) talks about Tamil Place names in Sinhala Areas". First, on p375 of Indrapala he does NOT talk of Tamil names in Sinhala areas. "Malaya" hill-area was probably not Sinhala or tamil in the early period and you have to provide references to prove your claim, and Jambukola-pattan does not fit in with that discription either, unless by "sinhalese area" Taprobanus means sinhalese words "Jambukola" and "pattan". These are all words derived from Pali-Prakrit (c.f. online Pali-dicitionary p402, p279 etc.) If you want to argue that Tamil Sangam poetry is older than Pali-Prakrit or Buddhist cannon, we get into more disputes which are off the main-line beliefs and you have to provide references.
 (f)Resolution: leave it as it is with just the reference to Horsburg which covers Patuna/Pattana. If "Malaya" is to be discussed, we should at least provide the Pali/Sanskrit roots and dictionary refs or better. So leave it out as it is adding disputes before resolving existing ones.
4. I did not bring up the need to discuss Paranavitana's status. This demand was put by Taprobanus and so Watchdog  can take it up with him. This is adding a new dispute. If we discuss even Paranavitana don't we have to discuss the status of authors of all articles, etc., etc? That kills the article itself.

5. Should we give a reference to Spencer? His book, properly quoted, is acceptable, but not to his personal webpage, is my answer.

6. I don't "own" any article. I did create the first article on Sinhala Place names in the North and East. That article existed for almost two years, and then suddenly, under the claim of removing the reference to a so called "private" website, Taprobanus et al removed the ENTIRE article, and instead put in an article discussing mainly etymology, rather than history. So, if we are discussing etymology, let us do a good job of it.

7.Improving the article.  This is our objective. I have consulted my academic peers (Professors at three universities including one in India), and I am equipped with the necessary bibliography as well as their advice. We need to give proper credit to all the workers in the field (Velupillai, Gnanaprkasar, Horsburg, C. Lewis , Paranavithana, Indrapala, Roberts, Medhananda etc.) by mentioning their views with due references, etymology, and examples illiustrating the etymology. We need to remember that the reader is no expert in etymology and so examples are helpful. The three sections Sinhala, Tamil, Hybrid is not helpful from an etymological presentation which needs to be comparative, and separate sections lead to unnecessary repetition in a small article, esp. when both Sinhala and Tamil etc., are strongly influenced by source langages like Sanskrit ( Colin Massica, "Indo Aryan languages", Cambridge University press, p 130-140 and references there in) . We can follow Sebastian's comparison approach of tabulating the material. Hence we use a Tabular form which shows the etymology in Sinhala tamil and other sources. Here we can even give dictionary references to on-line sources as those are most convenient for everyone to verify. Similarly, we should include any on-line source. Thus for example,reference to the Horsburgs article , like "Ceylon Antiquary, Vol I" etc., is not available to most people, where as the on-line article is. Thanks Bodhi dhana (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have clear cites from RS sources that say Pattana is generally considered to be a Dravidian word [3](ref)Southworth, Franklin, The reconstruction of Prehistoric South Asian Language Contact, page 221(/ref) Where is your cite that says it is not a Dravidian origin word or that it is of Indo Aryan origin ? Need cite please, similarly I have now cite for Dravidian origin for Malai in my original post.[4] Now lets argue with cites., if not I will move on and add the sentence with 3 citations. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rush into the details just yet. You yourself said it was important to first agree on the structure of the article before going into details. So far, I am not aware that this has been agreed upon. Could you please work towards an agreement o this first? Let me know if you feel I can help you with that. — Sebastian 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us of pending issues. Can we issit on using WP:TALK especially Technical and format standards. It is so difficult to have a conversation with Bodhi wjhen he does not follow through the proper format, creating new sections called Reply by Bodhi all the time. Seems he is not aware of the WP:Talk guidelines also along with WP:CITE. Now coming to the issues see Bulgarian placename etymology, German placename etymology, Maghreb placename etymology, all these articles deals with place names by linguistic basis. So what is big deal in Sri Lanka that he wants to submerge Tamil place names ? Taprobanus (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are write, it is frustrating. Still, please don't get personal. Please be as patient with him as you want me (or others) to be with you. ;-) Maybe it helps if we start a new discussion on a blank slate. I will write about that in a separate section below. --Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

1) Good! Thank you 2)Agreed! Let's no add more disputed text. Let's approach this in a hands off way :) 3)I have a couple comment to make here: First I am a little confused. You claimed that PaTTana is not a Tamil word but you still have not provided anything that says that paTTana is derived from Tamil word. I am assuming that you brought this argument up because of the sentence that Taprobanus proposed. If you closely see the proposed sentence it says Pattana derived from the Tamil word. What this means is that Pattna is derived from the Tamil word. So if you want to argue against this, then you have to show proof that this word is not derived from Tamil and not concentrate your effort to try to prove that pattana itself is not a Tamil word. Moving on to your point 3(c) I think there is a small misunderstanding. Taprobanus' cited sentence says that Pattana is derived from Tamil and (since there is no reference to disclaim this) therefore this Tamil derived word could have found it's way into Sinhalese into Putuna. So indeed Indrapala made a good point: (I am deducing this part) that since Putana is a derived word from Patana which itself was a derived word of Tamil. Moving to 3(d): You are trying to disprove a author because he, the author, does not mention a word appears in old pali language. This is quite a faulty logic. There might have been a million reason why he decided not to include the information and to imply that he is trying to hide something (without out any WP:RS) is not acceptable. Furthermore, the author might have "ignored" some things but that does not automatically mean that he is trying to hide the truth. Quite to contrary, he might be dealing with the specific subject matter and therefore might not have found a plausible reason to include the broader usage of the word. One last thing to say is that you had used Indrapala as a reference and therefore acknowledge that his work is WP:RS. If you disagree, and can prove that he is not a reliable source, then we cannot use his reference in this article at ALL regardless of what claim he makes. We can't pick and choose which claims are reliable and which are not reliable within the same source. If one claim is reliable, then there is no reason to assume that another claim is not reliable. Consequently the converse, however, is true !3 (e) Please read Taprobanus proposal again. He clearly has the claim referenced to an article. Please read his proposal as a whole. It is a claim made by a WP:RS. There is no argument about where "Jambukola" was derived from. The sentence claim that pattana is derived from a Tamil word. By the way can you please provide full citation for the dictionary you are making your argument from ? Half citations are not very helpful if you want users to see the actual reference. 3(f) I disagree. Your resolution is encouraging to ignore a claim made by one citation and instead have a claim made by another. This is clearly violation of WP:UNDUE. This article is not about "roots" of words. Instead we are using claims made by WP:RS. If we were to bring in "roots" the article will get messy (turning into a dictionary ) and surly violate WP:SYNTH.

4) We will see Taprobanus' reply 5)Sure, then you cannot contest or add fact tag on the sentence that claim where he works and what he does 6)You should have noted the fine print in wikipedia that says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Taprobanus et al cleaned up the article. This is allowed under open source. Sorry :( 7)Good work in consulting academic peers and good work on getting all the material. I agree that examples are helpful but too much example is actually counter productive. This is not a math problem or a physics problem and 5 or 6 examples should be enough for readers to understand. I strongly oppose having just one section for Sinhalese, Tamil and Hybrid place names. Your concern of repetition is currently not a problem as there is no great overlap. My reasons to have 3 sections is because the names are actually divided (etymologically) in these sections. In the Northern province places are named with Tamil meanings and it has been named that way since long back. There is reference that in the 17th century and only Tamil words were used for natural and man made made features in Vanni (with his map covering everything from parts of Vavuniya to Yaalpanam (Jaffna)) See reference 4 on the main article . Likewise there is Sinhalese names for areas in south Sri Lanka. So it makes a lot of sense breaking the article in sections that discuss the name etymology in each article. Watchdogb (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion from what's most important

This discussion has become very confusing, with several chapters only named "Reply by X" or simply "Reply". I propose that we archive the discussion and restart it in an orderly way. The arguments are not lost, but can be copied back into the discussion when their time has come.

Let's put first things first. Taprobanus wrote "In my view the primary concern here is the division of this article into linguistic version or combined as Bodhi did. We have to agree to one version. Then everything else follows from it." Now that we have agreement on the basic rules, I agree that this is a basic step we need to solve. My impression is that this also is important to Bodhi. However, since he wrote "Taprobanus et al removed the ENTIRE article, and instead put in an article discussing mainly etymology, rather than history.", it seems to me that there may be disagreement on an even more fundamental level; on the level what this article should be about. I therefore propose to ...

1. ... archive the existing discussion;
2. Find out if there is agreement on "What should the article contain".
3. When that is settled, I propose to discuss "Structure of the article".

Objections? --Sebastian (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections Taprobanus (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that notion. Watchdogb (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Also, just a few comments arising from the discussions that are to be archived.

(1)Taprobanus says that I quoted profusely from Indrapala but object when he quotes some thing which he feels is favourable to "tamil" point of view, or something to do with Tail places in Sinhala areas (but does this apply to Jambukola pattana?), or words to that effect. Note that I have referred to the Indrapala Ph.D thesis may be twice. That work faced a board of examiners and the overview of a supervisor and it is wp:rs. The more recent book is entirely different, and it has had some very scathying reviews (e.g., from Dr. Godege, 3-5 Sept. 2007 Island newspaper), nevertheless, Indrapala has earned his status and he can be quoted, but obvvious errors must NOt be propagated. If I am just pushing s "sinhalese" point of view, then I should have exclusively quoted sinhala etymologists/linguists ( Mudliar Gunasekera, W. F. Gunawardana, Munidasa Kumaratunga, R, Tennakoon, Arisen Ahubudu, D. Hettiarachchi, Sugathapala Silva, J. B. Dissnayake etc etc). Instead, I have used only Tamil etymologists and European etymologists-Historians (Gnanapraksar,K. Vellupillai, Raanayagam, K. Indrapala, Tambimuttu, Horsburg, C. S. Lewis, etc.), as well as Paranavithana and K. M. de Silva. One reason for this is to avoid this can of arguments.
(2)I don't understand what watchdog says in reply to my pointing out that "Pattana" is a word already found in the MahaBharata and in the Pali canon. Indrapala says that "Pattana" is first found in Sangam poetry in Tamil. So is watchdog claiming that Sangam Tamil older than the Mahabhrata Sanskrit (yes or no?)or the Pali canon which is Pre-Asokan(yes or no?). Indrapla says on p375 of his book (a long footnote) that it is a Tamil word and does not explore the etymology crtically. I did not give URLs to dictionaries because, even if you give the url, you stll have to type in the word "pattana" into the dialogue box to bring out the dictionary page, after setting the uft-8 fonts and other choices. Perhpas that is not too much to ask. Also, Taprobanus who raised this issue has not said anything either. ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible future version of this article

Resolved

New beginning

Thanks everybody for agreeing to start on an clean slate, and to start with the following questions first:

1. Find out if there is agreement on "What should the article contain".
2. When that is settled: "Structure of the article".

As a reminder, people also agreed to WT:SLR#1RR_S3 and to cite their claims. If someone forgets to cite a claim, simply add "{{talkfact|nice=yes}}" after the statement in question. Lastly, I want to remind people to stay on topic. On WT:SLR, we have a rule that any member can remove an off topic text; I really hope that we can do without that here.

Enough said - let's begin! --Sebastian (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I now realize the first headline I wrote was still ambiguous since it allowed discussing anything in the article, down to such details as which particular authors should be quoted. Since I'm afraid this only distracts from our chances of reaching a consensus, I am renaming the section to "What should the article be about?". Please, everybody, let's postpone discussion of these details till after there is agreement on this basic question. As a reminder, I grayed out the off-topic text. Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dividing this talk page into two sections

Another thing I'm realizing only now: There is no box on top of the article that says that the current version is only temporary. Since, we currently don't know how long it takes till we get to the final version, we need to be open to concerns about the current version, such as #portuguese place names. I will therefore create Level-1 headlines that split this talk page into one part for the future version of this article, and one part for concerns regarding the current, temporary version. However, I would advise people not to invest too much time into the temporary version.

Unfortunately, the only editor who proposed a fundamentally different version, Bodhi dhana, is not very active, which concerns me because it may mean that this confusing situation could go on for a long time. How about setting a time limit, such as the following? "If there is no substantial movement in the next two weeks then we discard the discussion and just stay with the version we have." I want to give Bodhi dhana a fair chance to make his point, but it is also not fair to keep other editors waiting, who want to move on. Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What should the article be about?

The article should be titled "Place Names in Sri Lanka". The average reader comes to the article to learn something about place-names history, etymology, ethnology etc. So it should be a general article. The double word "Place names", when used as an adjective, takes a hyphen as in "place-names etymology", otherwise there is NO hyphen. Etymology, as seen from the Wiki definition itself, brings out how a word is derived from other source words, and also discusses some historical aspects. Thus Sinhala and Tamil words need to be related (not separated), and linked to source words in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, or even Sumarian, Austronesian, austro-asiatic forms, where information is available. Here, some political points of view may arise by claiming that a word is "originally" from Sinhala or Tamil, where as really it may have come from one of the source languages. Since I do not wish to be unfairly accussed of a Sinhala bias, I will try to draw my etymology etc, largley (but not exclusively) from tamil authors (Gnanaprakasar, Velupillai, Rasanayakam, Arasakularatnam, Indrapala, Ratnum etc.) as well as from basically western authors (Horsburgh, C. S. Lewis, Denham, Nicholas, Brohier, Karashima etc, as needed). But every editor of place names should look at the work of many sinhalese linguists and historians which are germane to the subject. I will give the needed references in the article. We need to deal with both etymology and Ethnology. Etymology is best done using a comparative table embedded in a descriptive paragraph instead of having three sections (sinhala, tamil, hybrid) as done in the present version. The table can include columns for the source languages, and references can be given to the on-line dictionaries. Unlike even a decade ago, the on-line dictionaries are now very comprehensive and sometimes even better than the older, printed "etymological dictionaries" which tend to be incomplete. The ethnology writeup is easy, but it is also the part open to controversy. This will fit into a historical chronology (ancient, medeival, colonial), as well as into a topographic arrangement. If there is some consensus for such a draft, I can write it rapidly and it can be reviewed by everybody. ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you want the following in the article:

• Etymology
• History
• Ethnology

I would think that there is probably agreement that etymology and history should be part of the article, because etymology is history, according to our article etymology. The big question now is: Does everyone agree that ethnology should be in the article as well?

A case can be made for a more general name such as "Place Names in Sri Lanka". It seems to fit well to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which say in a nutshell: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize [...]". Does anyone see a problem with that name? Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is based on Cumbrian placename etymology, German placename etymology and Maghreb placename etymology, so why we have to deviate from an established convention ? Just a question. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that there is a convention. There is also Place names in Zimbabwe. Maybe we could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities or another independent project. But please, for now, let's focus on content, not on the name. The name only plays a role in this section because it influences the basic question: Does Wikipedia need an article about anything related to SL place names, or only one about their etymology? — Sebastian 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia need an article about anything related to SL place names - No

or only one about their etymology? - Yes . Also I have no objections to the title being Placenames in Sri Lanka also I think ethnology should be left out. Taprobanus (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose the name change of the article to Placenames in Sri Lanka. I oppose addition of ethnology because this talks about place names and ethnology is out of topic. Books often do go off topic but that is a characteristics of books in general. On the other hand, wikipedia strives to stay on topic! Having ethnology section could introduce more problems and take the article off topic. Watchdogb (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether "Etymology" is actually the thing we want to speak about. Etymologies can only be established on a case by case basis. Furthermore, you have to trace back the word through several sound changes, for which you need references. You could have individual pages for Etymology of Jaffna, but I am not sure about notability in this case. All in all, I think wp is not the place for such an extensive coverage.
The article as it is now speaks more about "Toponymy" than about "Etymology", and given the available sources, this seems a sensible enterprise to me. I think that in the long run, this article should be moved to Toponymy of Sri Lanka or sth like that. This would also make it a less likely target for POV-warriors. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a sensible option Taprobanus (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

scope of this article the etymology section of this article

while I am more or less a historical linguist myself, and certainly interested in etymology, we should strive to clearly define the scope of this article. In its present state, there are some towns and villages, but also streets in Colombo. Wikipedia surely does not want to cover all Sri Lankan street names, and the etymology of Queen's Street is quite boring actually. The following points might speak in favour of listing a particular etymology

• big towns
• touristic places
• minority language place names (Portuguese, Dutch, Malay, Vedda)
• Completely different names in different languages
• Disputed cases e.g. Jaffna
• illustration of a certain pattern: X-pitiya, X-goda, X-gala etc and similar formations in Tamil
• etymological curiosities like reborrowings, blendings, distortions
• interesting semantics (kiribathgoda=milk rice village, Duplication Road)

The next list includes points which might speak against inclusion

• banality (Colombo Road)
• lack of relevance (Jambugaspitiya, a suburb of Kandy)
• redundant illustration of one pattern (kollupitiya, singhapitiya, jambugaspitiya)

I think one can also focus more on patterns than on individual places. In Sinhala, for instance, the X+Y pattern is common, where Y is a geographic feature and X is a plant or an animal. This is not the case in Portuguese or English, where St John, St Mary etc are more common. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In your statement minority language place names (Portuguese, Dutch, Malay, Vedda) I dont see Tamil, any reason ? otherthan that be my guest and go at it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is an official language, as is English, which is why I did not include them in the list. Another reason is that numerically speaking, Tamil and Sinhala are "major" languages as far as place names are concerned, while all other are minor (English debatable).

If there is some Tamil place in a predominantly Sinhala region (e.g. Aluthgama), this might be notable because it is uncommon, and Tamil is a minority language there.

On the other Hand, Tamil is not a minority language on the Jaffna peninsulaJasy jatere (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read what you have posted, you also need to be cognizant that Sebastian is trying bring order to an article through mediation in the section above, so why not coordinate through that process ?Taprobanus (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Taprobanus. We have indeed a conflict there. I hope I found an acceptable compromise - see #Dividing this talk page into two sections above. Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section in order to avoid the mentioned conflict.Jasy jatere (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the current temporary version

Resolved

Note: Please don't invest too much time in this since this article may soon be completely rewritten. Sebastian (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

portuguese place names

The etymology of Kollupitiya and Mattakuliya strikes me as completely bogus. First, koan is no Portuguese word, and koan>kollu is not a very plausible development anyway. Second, Coolie is a term which was coined in the 18th century, when the Portuguese had long been ousted from Sri Lanka by the Dutch. It appears that our friend Scott from the Daily News is not a very good etymologist, and we should take this source with a big grain of salt, also wrt to the other words for which he is cited as a source. Furthermore, much of the content is copy and paste from the Daily News article and thereby a copyvio. I suggest removal or rewording. I would normally do the rewording myself, but in this case, I think little can be salvaged Jasy jatere (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that etymology in protuguese is bogus is just your feelings. There has not been even a single citation that has been presented here that these news are false and that they are inaccurate. On the contrary, Daily News is used in wikipedia as if it thought it was RS and I have no reason to believe that the they would be any different in this article. There is no reason to tag a section that is cited based on own feelings. I have removed the tags and I am more than willing to revert myself if you can provide reference for your claims and specially the possible WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit but changed it to Accuracy-section. It is good to have many editors that too those who know what they are talking about instead of arm chair etymologists like me :))) Taprobanus (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I know some Portuguese, and koan is not even a nonsense word in that language, it's just letter salad. You find the information on Coolie and its etymology on wp, where it is sourced. I happen to share an office with a Portuguese linguist working on India (cool, eh?), who has just confirmed my position that both claims are bogus. I do not want to judge Daily News as a whole, but from a scientific point of view, the linked article is not reliable. Other articles in that newspaper may or may not be reliable on other topics. It is a daily newspaper, no linguistic journal. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jasy jatere is making a good point. Daily News is not a reliable source for Portuguese etymology. We haven't even classified it as a reliable source for anything on WP:SLR#List of sources. In addition, I think we need to allow for a bit of common sense. I agree with Jasy jatere that, even if we had the citation from a reliable newspaper, it is just not the same as a scientific statement. This article doesn't even cite any sources, nor does its author seem to be an authority on the subject. On the other hand, the argument against "koan" may be just a misunderstanding, since the article doesn't say that that was Portuguese. But then again, the article says nothing about the word "koan" at all - which doesn't add to its reliability. A good article should not be based on such unscientific evidence. Sebastian (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Jasy jatere has joined in, and seems to show critcal thinking. The etymologies presented in the current version of the article, and based on sources like [5] Ref 13), tourist material [ Sri Lanka Info - Reiseinfos - Verkehr - Motorräder Ref 14), or "Ville Carte Migamuwa" (ref 15)] or the article by Kularatnam (ref 6), or others by even well established people, need to be critically reviewed by the editor before he puts it into an encyclopedia. The material on "chilaw", probabaly written by somebody at the municiplaity in Chilaw, is just not correct, as is obvious to anyone who has studied the subject. Negambo can be easily traced via Dutch and Portuguese writings to " mee (→ nee ) gamuva (→ gamu → gambo ). I won't take space here to give references as it has not been contested (except for hilarious derivations "nikan-biruva" →negambo" ). The derivation of Chilaw is also incorrect as "Chilaw, Halavatha", and the Tamil "Silaapam" all arise from the same root, and the Chola landing is recorded to have occurred in 'Salawattota' in 1190 A.D. Thus we have written records back to the 12th century and perhaps to even earlier times. Similarly, Kularatnam's article gives various root words as being of Tamil origin but gives no supporting references. In fact, easy reference to dictionaries shows that the words under consideration are themselves from older Sanskrit or Pali sources, and hence Kularatnam's etymological division into sinhala and Tamil root names is not valid, and not supported by any references in his article. If the title of the article is limited to Toponymy, then sections on politics etc have to be deleated. I favour the general title "Place names in Sri Lanka. I { suggest to Jasy jatere that he takes a loook at the vesrion " that existed, say in January 2008, which was informative and balanced.} The etymologies for "mattakkuliya" and "Kollupitiya" are also clarly speculative while the more well known ones are simply ignored in the newspaper article. "kuli(ya)" means a "depresssed ground area" both in Old tamil and sinhla, and linked to prakrit sources (I won't give references here). Thus "Mattakkuliya" or "Madakuliya", means "muddy deprssion". This has been discussed I think by the grammarian Arisen Ahubdhu. The well known origin of "Kollupitiya" cognate with the Tamil "Kollupiddi", implies the meaning "field where horse gram (kollu, Macrotyloma uniflorum is the Latin name)" was grown. The speculative etymologies are presented by writers for jornalistic novelty; they have not subject their ideas to peer review. However, if we cannot agree on an etymology, we don't have to give it in the encyclopedia. The article has to be academically conservative and rigorous in its approach.Bodhi dhana (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We have all agreed that the Portuguese place names section is incorrect but to say the previous version "place names in the North and East of Sri lanka" was a balanced point of view only you can say that to yourself because I would say that the article itself was not notable and it was simply an extension of WP:BATTLE into wiki space based on a personal website. Taprobanus (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating your point of view. However, I am well aware of your opinion. We need to move on from the present version which is nither fish nor fowl Bodhi dhana (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

On the sources 13, 14 & 15 you cite, I added them because Taprobanus had put a there, implying that the statement that there are different names needs to be sourced. Actually, these names are so common that no one ever cares, so that there is little literature on that. I used these webpages because they actually do belabour the obvious: the Tamil, Sinhala and English names are different. I derive no etymological claims from these sources, just a synchronic toponymical one. I find it a bit overzealous to source these statements, we do not source the different names for Geneva either, as they are not very likely to be challenged. I have no principled objections against the etymologies you provide, but would need to check them in more detail. In any case, they seem to be more thorough than what is there now.

As for the etymology of Chilaw, I think that a common origin might be found, same for Negombo/Migamuwa, but Nir KoLumbu is obviously different, as are Nuwara and kaNDi.

The version you cite is not exactly balanced. There is a focus on Tamil areas, a certain POV, weasel words in the first sentence Many Place Names in the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka with Tamil sounding names appear to have etymologies originating in the Sinhala language. However, it could serve as a valuable model for a subsection of "Place names in the Tamil majority area", "Place names in the Northern Province" or sth like that.

On a different vein: what happened to the complete rewrite of this article? Who is in charge of that? Any progress? Jasy jatere (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral person we volunteer you :)))Taprobanus (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best to have Jasy jatere do the dirty work. Once this is done we can discuss see what needs be changed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)