Talk:Sri Lankan Tamils

archive 1

photo of arugam bay children

Resolved

Hello, I was wondering whether the children on the photo are indeed Tamils (Rather than Sinhalese or Muslimsm who are majoritary in that area IIRC). Maybe one can find another photo which portrays Eastern Tamils better than this one. As it is, the photo looks just like run-of-the-mill South Asian village children. I would propose removing this picture from the article, but I leave the decision to regular editors of this page Jasy jatere 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

DoneTaprobanus (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we add this pic

Resolved

Tamil Population by District to the article ? Taprobanus 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reflist Change

 Not done I changed the reflist from one column to two, since there were enough citations to warrant such. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Request

Resolved

Hi, re Sri Lankan Tamil people article- I'm not really good at copyedit, and apart from that I do not have any time left to juggle, unfortunately. Although I'm truly interested in this topic and a number of topics related to Tamil, I'm unable to participate or contribute at this time. Unlike the SLT, most of the articles related to Tamil in WP are in real mess! At present I'm not able to do much. I looked at the SLT article and it appears like the lead para needs major modifications. I don't know why one has to say, right at the opening, Sri Lankan Tamil people (Tamil இலங்கைத் தமிழர்) or Sri Lankan Tamils or Ceylon Tamils, are a trans-national minority who are native Tamils from Sri Lanka. Is it not better to simply state the facts first? Say, like- Sri Lankan Tamil people (Tamil இலங்கைத் தமிழர்) or Sri Lankan Tamils or Ceylon Tamils, are Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka. They constitute a majority in the northern and eastern regions of Sri Lanka, though they are in minority in the rest of the country. Due to the prolonged political unrest, spanning more than 50, ..." Then slowly introduce the facts of alienation and the historically perceived deeper ethnic-political-religious divide etc. I do understand why there is "trans-national minority" etc. there. But I think, it starts of with a certain confrontational or controversial tone right at the beginning. There is so much scope to say in this article about the glory and struggle of SLT! It is a great pity I'm not able to make any useful contribution here at this point in time. --Aadal (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Resolved

Hey, I think Sri Lankan Tamils are called as Eezhath Thamizhar (ஈழத் தமிழர்) rather than Ilangai Thamizhar (இலங்கைத் தமிழர்) in Tamil. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See academic book citations for Eelam Tamils should be used if challenged Taprobanus (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Eelam Tamils

Resolved

The term Eelam Tamils is used by public figures today, by resources, as well as for self-identification by Tamils of Ceylon. The same as Ceylon Tamils. It is also in Sangam literature. Wubbabubba (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a single Sri Lankan related article is either WP:GA or WP:FA quality except the three Jaffna kingdom related ones. Belive me, I have put enough hours into this article and I will take it all the way to FA status. Words like Eelam Tamils are more politically loaded than in actual usage in academic circles in English but is a vaild usage in Tamil language without any conotation for Tamil Eelam. (example Sangam Tamil literature) The article once upon a time had that terminology but attracted a lot of negative attention because of it, as this is a Wiki articles that attract such negative attention never reach FA status.Taprobanus (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also a BIG THANKs for your interest, can you kindly work on the section that requires expansion that is Post independence politics, when you have time ?Taprobanus (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you feel concerned, and respect your efforts to get this article to FA status. I also believe you know that wikipedia is not a place to cater to those few who feel uncomfortable with what they perceive to be a fact's 'connatations'. That Ceylon Tamils have also been identified as Eelam Tamils for over 2000 years cannot be and isn't being disputed. However, understanding your desire to not attract negative attention to this article until getting it to FA status, I will not persist on its inclusion for now. I will try my best to work on sections. The article looks great. Well done! Wubbabubba (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a section that is altogether missing is Folk traditions.Tamil people automatically assume that only Carnatic Music and Bharatnatyam are our sole expression of culture but forget the realilife experiences of all the village folks who have no idea what these expressions are. I have a book but it is solely on Batti Tamils. I can also get some traditions of Negombo Tamils from the internet but have nothing on Jaffna Tamils, the most Sanskritized group so with less of a folk tradition than others but nevertheless requires a mention about them. Do you have any books on them ? Taprobanus (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts for improvement

Resolved

 Doing... Taprobanus, I was looking over the article (did not spend too much time on it though) but felt some things could be improved. Examples being,

• Try to keep the political and military unrest part as short and neutral as possible. Currently it reads a bit propagandist and could get in the way of the article making progress by way of edit wars.
•  Done
• In the lead, focus on general details of Tamils in Srilanka (in a few lines), culture: religion, cuisine, festivals and populations rather than highlighting political issues.

 Doing...

• A quick look at the cuisine section and saw this sentence The emphasis is on minimum use of ingredients to turn out simple, wholesome fare with nutrition for the family rather than gourmet for a sophisticated palate. This reads as is the mainland Tamil cuisine is not wholesome. Needs some work there. In fact this is a good section to expand and attract attention of the right kind.

 Done

• As always, the literature section should give more details on literature:What a writing was about in a few lines, perhaps provide comparisons to contemporary Tamil literature on the mainland (India) and even comparisons to Sinhalese literature of that time and in neutral terms.

In short this article has good possibilities.Thanks. More later when I have time.  Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, I am taking a short break and will get on with this little later. Taprobanus (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence "In the 10th century Pandya and Chola wars against Sri Lanka culminated in the Chola annexation of the island, which lasted until the latter half of the eleventh century" in the history section could be a red-hot button. I am ofcourse, not very familiar with Sri Lankan history. Better to clarify from other sources as well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Maintain consistancy in dates, either use 2nd century OR second century. Done
• Use ndash between citation page numbers instead of a dash such as pp.34-35.  Doing...
• provide disambiguation for all vernacular terms, if possible wiki link it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sentence can be a hot button issue. More sources should be put in, to better clarify.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)  Done

• I think the "Lead Image" should show Tamils "in Sri Lanka" rather than Sri Lankan Tamil immigrants in Canada. The earlier image was excellent. The current image could also be used in the article in the section that describes their immigration to the west.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  DoneTaprobanus (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not ignoring the comments, I am trying to finnish the article as best and then go over the suggestions later Taprobanus (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Try to provide only "power links", links which provide extra and directly related information to the reader about the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vedda.org

Resolved

Is Vedda org a reliable source for articles about Vedda people ?. It is run by Living Heritage Trust. Associated people are

• Patrick Harrigan
• Dr. Wiveca Stegeborn an anthropologists. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. This University of Texas book cites it, along with a couple of travel books. This chapter in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, an "illustrated reference volume [which] is both accessible to the nonspecialist and written by leading scholars" is written by Stegeborn.John Z (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Vadakkan's comments

Hi Taprobanus. The article looks good. I've read through it, and will read it more closely over the weekend. A couple of initial thoughts:

• The "history" section ends fairly abruptly in the 18th century, with the more modern bits being covered in the section on "politics". This is fine, but perhaps you could add a paragraph or so summarising the developments since then, with the details remaining in the politics section?  Doing...

• I think the "marumalarchi" poets (and definitely Mahakavi) deserve a mention, as perhaps do Varadar, Neelavannan, the Marxist poets, Cheran and others? It may also be worth mentioning the fact that authors like Appadurai Muttulingam have won critical acclaim and awards on both side of the Straits - to emphasise the fact that SL Tamil literature isn't just an isolated phenomenon, but something that has an important place in, and has made an impact on, Tamil literature more generally. -- Arvind (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• One more point on the "history" section - Iravatham Mahadevan discusses pottery fragments from Poonagari in Jaffna which have inscriptions in Tamil-Brahmi characters. Most of these are too fragmentary to be read, but on one the word "vēḷān" is clearly legible. Mahadevan identifies this as a clan name also found in inscriptions from Tamil Nadu, and says that the inscriptions "leave no doubt that the language of the pottery inscription is Tamil." He also says the sherds have tentatively been dated to the 2nd century BC, pending regular excavation of the site. Mahadevan is clearly a RS (the book in question is part of the Harvard Oriental Series!), so I'd say this epigraphic evidence merits a mention in the article. -- Arvind (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote and full cite from Mahadevan:

"Several inscribed sherds have been discovered during exploration of villages in the Poonagari region of Jaffna. One of the inscriptions reads vēḷāṉ, a clan name related to vēḷ. Most of the other sherds are too fragmentary, but the occurrence of the diagnostic Tamil-Brāhmī letters ḻ ḷ ṟ and ṉ leaves no doubt that the language of the pottery inscription is Tamil. The sherds have been tentatively assigned to ca. 2nd century B.C. pending regular excavations of the sites." - Mahadevan, Iravatham (2003), Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D., Harvard Oriental Series vol. 62, Cambridge, Mass: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, ISBN 0-674-01227-5 at p. 48.

There is also a photo of the "vēḷāṉ" potshard on p. 56 of the book (Figure 1.21A). -- Arvind (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've just begun a copyedit of this article—just so everyone knows who I am and what I'm doing. I've started with Tamil-speaking communities and I'll work my way down, doing the lead section last (because it's a summary of all the rest). If any of my edits seem incorrect for any reason, don't hesitate to tell me (or revert them). --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anna Taprobanus (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

History

 Done About the second sentence:

Some Sinhalese historians argue that there was no organized Tamil presence in Sri Lanka until the invasions from modern southern India in the 10th century CE, whereas Tamil historians contend that Tamil people were the original inhabitants of the island.

There are a few possibly troubling issues here. "Some historians argue" is considered a weasel phrase to be avoided, for one thing. And there are several emotionally weighted words here: argue, contend, invasions. Perhaps this sentence might benefit from a reference to some authority for the information. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence says exactly what is argued in the real life situation in Sri Lanka but you are right, it is not an encyclopedic statement. How about

There is conflicting versions of Tamil presence in Sri Lanka with arguments ranging from original inhabitants of the island to post 10th CE century arrivals after Chola conquest of the island. what do you say Taprobanus (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a good and neutral claim by K.M de Silva's "Managing ethnic tensions in multi-ethnic societies". I will see if I can get the exact quote from this book. Watchdogb (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Idea Actually, from a literary standpoint, I like the original. :) I'll try a reword like you've done here, making the arguments a bit more anonymous. It would still be nice to have a reference immediately after the period, though, as a verification for this point. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I will get the reference in a couple of days. Watchdogb (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Customary laws

 Done In the Regional groups section, first paragraph, the article mentions that the Negombo Tamils are distinguished by their "customary laws". This sounds a bit odd to my ear, but I'm not exactly sure what is meant. Does this mean the laws of the groups' habits and customs? Or would "traditional laws", or "common laws" be a better fit? --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Customary laws are based on Roman Dutch tradition as opposed to common law that is based on English traditions. The correct terminology is customary laws. Number of communities in Sri Lanka are gioverned by customary laws such as Thesavalamai, Mukkuva laws as well as common law. Taprobanus (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you, I have learned something. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Tamils: Kuti system

 Done A few questions about this important material:

• The word Kuti is always capitalized. Is that as it should be?
• In the introductory sentence, Kuti is referred to as a word ("The Tamil word Kuti means ...") and is properly italicized, but from then on I don't see why italics are used. Is there a rationale I've overlooked?
• As a lay reader, I find the material on the Kuti system confusing, and I think the problem is the definition with which it's introduced. "Kuti means a house [a physical structure] or a settlement [small village]." There are other meanings of those nouns, but those are certainly the most common and will be assumed by most readers, I believe. Now if you substitute "village" for "Kuti" in the following sentences, it's confusing. Could we introduce the idea of the Kuti system with a little more explanation? --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re arranged the sentences so that it is clear to outsiders as to what Kuti system means. I have to write up a sub article to explain it more. Currently the meaning is that it is exogamous matrilineal clan system that applies to marriages and property rights. One who is born in a kuti cannot marry into it. They have to marry outside and then inherit his wife’s kuti. About capitalization, I am not sure that it should be capiltalized after the initial capitalization. About italics again I am not sure what the convention is. It is a foreign language word, should it be or should it be not?Taprobanus (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your update of the text is great. Now we're saying something like "Technically, the English translation of the word is 'x', but in practice, it refers to ..." This is much clearer. Very good point about kuti being a foreign word. Yes, that should be italicized. And a separate article about the kuti system would be a very helpful if you have the time. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

 Done

1. In the Northern Tamils section, Vanni has "tank-based cultivation" and an 1890 census found "711 tanks". What are these tanks?

1. Most (but not all) of the spelling in the article is British English. Before I start correcting the spelling to go one way or the other, I wanted to make sure that this is what you want.

--AnnaFrance (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • It is actually a Reservoir or Irrigation tank
  • Is American that is the standard in Wikipedia ? I am not sure and dont have an opinion. Either will do. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah. OK, I'll use "irrigation tank". And I'll use American English spelling if there's no other preference, only because it's a bit easier for me. WP has no inherent preference. --AnnaFrance (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regional Groups: Northern Tamils

 Done This section needs a close proofread for accuracy. I just did a heavy edit. Don't worry too much about narrative flow at this point—I'm trying for clean and accurate right now. Afterwards I'll give the whole article a run-through to catch finer details and try for a smoother flowing prose. Oh, and don't hurry on my account. I'll continue on. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The section seem to be in line to the accuracy that it had before the copy edit, so I would assume that the section is fine. Watchdogb (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

 Done In the first paragraph:

Rice and curry refers to a range of Sri Lankan Tamil dishes. It is unique compared to Indian Tamil cuisine, with regional variations between the Northern and Eastern regions, from the fan-shaped leaves to the root, the palmyra palm forms an intrinsic part of the life and cuisine of northern region.

It is unclear here what the "It" at the beginning of the second sentence refers to. It should refer to "rice and curry", but later on in the same sentence the subject is the palmyra palm. I suspect that something in this paragraph got out of order. --AnnaFrance (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Last copyedit pass - for style

 Done I want to make one last pass over the whole article (fast—maybe 2 days), catching things I've missed and trying to improve the overall written style. But first, could somebody (or, better yet, several people) run over the article top-to-bottom, checking for any inaccuracies I may have introduced? It would help to get those fixed first. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am done editing too :)) Taprobanus (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I will run through the article to see the accuracy before and after CE! Watchdogb (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have completed the check and I feel that it has not changed the accuracy of the article. Watchdogb (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll probably start the last run-through tomorrow. This holiday weekend (here in the US) has gotten a bit crunched. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

 Done I just noticed that there are no footnotes in the lead section. After looking around WP a bit, I see that some have footnotes, some don't. The only thing the MoS says is:

editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material

which is no help at all. :) But if I were you, I'd be ready to copy a few footnotes up to the lead section (if Featured Article reviewers mention it), because this subject involves a few high-emotion issues.

But the main thing I wanted to ask...in the lead section, next-to-the-last paragraph, last words, there is a mention of enforced disappearances of "a large number of people". I can't find any mention of this elsewhere in the article, which it should be since the lead is just a summary of the main text. (I'm tired today, so it may be somewhere and I didn't see it.) Also, vague terms are usually jumped on by Featured Article reviewers, who are not going to like "a large number". Is there any way we can get even a little more specific about this number? "About (number)", "around (number)", "more than (number)" – any of those would be fine. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great will do Taprobanus (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See this with cites with quotes. Is this adequate ? I have many other citations too.Taprobanus (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see exactly where this link is pointing to. My browser jumps around with it. The part that I was referring to is in the very top section, at the end of the 3rd paragraph where it says: "has resulted in the death of more than 70,000 and the enforced disappearance of a large number of people". I was just wondering if we could get something a little more specific than "a large number of people". Added note: I find it very easy to overlook messages here in WP. I wish there were better notifiers. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Italics

I'm really struggling with the whole issue of italics. The WP:MOS is clear that the occasional foreign term, not in everyday English usage, is italicized. None of their examples are proper nouns (generally any noun that is capitalized). I found in the Chicago Manual of Style, frequently cited by Wikipedians, the rule: foreign terms are italicized, but not proper nouns. OK. But which Tamil terms are proper nouns? It appears that many words are capitalized in Tamil that aren't in English, so I'm not too sure about things.

Conclusion: I'm making the best decisions I can about which italics to leave in and which to take out. If you feel that I've made a mistake somewhere, please wait for a couple days before you change it. Otherwise I may mistakenly assume I just didn't catch that word, and change it back again. :) --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Part of the image is a stamp, which not be free. Also, the stamp can be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)", as in this case, the person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a little confused. The picture of the stamp (of Sir Muthu Coomaraswamy) has been released as free use by the copyright holder - a wikipedia user here. Watchdogb (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the stamp was created by postal dept of Sri Lanka, so remains it's copyright property. "The copyright for it may be owned by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction" Only if the stamp is PD, 70 years old then it is acceptable.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That means we have to change it when time permits. Thanks. Taprobanus (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Not NOW?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Taprobanus wants to create another collage to replace this picture and he might not have the time to make a collage at this moment. Watchdogb (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taprobanus, i volunteer to edit the img if you tell me a fourth img that can be added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ver much. This seems the only other clear copy right material that can be added. It is of Ananda Coomaraswamy. Taprobanus (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Howdy. I'm going to review this for GA. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure this one's a pass! Looks great (although really long!). Plenty of refs and pics... Only suggestions that would be needed for FA would be to fix the couple of red links on the page and the section on Shoba Sakthi in literature; it's about novels and it comes in the theatre section. Other than that, looks good.

GA Requirements:
1.well-written, organized, easy to follow, everything explained or wikilinked.
2.lots of reliable refs, no original research as far as I can see
3. stays focused, is well-organized
4.NPOV
5. stable
6. appropriately illustrated with tagged images

Good job. Feel free to keep improving it in whatever way you can! Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is really long. One thing I noticed - most articles have a separate page for history (if there's enough history to mention). I think the History and Migrations sections should be on a separate page. That would help make the article manageable and concise. Joshuagross (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sort of agree but we were using Azeri (FA quality) and Amish (GA quality) as the examples to follow in creating this article Taprobanus (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam, not a religion followed by Sri Lankan Tamils.

In the heading, why does it say that Tamils follow Islam as a minority religion? The vast majority of Sri Lankan Tamils are Hindus with a significant minority of Christians. The vast majority, (probably over 99%) of Sri Lankan Tamils do not adhere to Islam, nor is it mentioned in any official statistics. To be fair, if you want to include Islam as a "minority" on the section make sure that you include Buddhism as well. Get what I'm saying? It is plausible enough to the say that there are small populations of Indian Tamils (estate Tamils) that follow Islam, however, there simply isn't a significant number of Sri Lankan Tamils that follow Islam, so it should not be on that section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.231.185 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree unless we find citations to the contrary. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you talk to yourself? You are the only Canadian here. Your IP farm range includes 70.48.229.204, 70.48.235.135, 70.48.231.185. Anyway explain who is B.H.Abdul Hameed?

Anwar, you need to calm down, before accusing people the anon range is from an editor who is specifically interested in Sri Lankan Muslim issues, I am not and nor will I waste my time trying to edit that article. My interests are different. I or some one else may have added Abdul Hameed under the category of Sri Lankan Tamils. But for that catergorization there is no relibale sources. The Toronto anon range has been creating as well as vandalizing articles. I have enough evidence now to report it to ANI and have it blocked. I am trying to give it some time Taprobanus (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. The user, who has been blocked for edit warring, has not provided references for the claims. Lack of willingness to use talk page also hinders the article's ability to move forward. Watchdogb (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which user, Anwar sadat? I still see some edit warring going on between him and 70.48.235.135/70.48.231.185. Joshuagross (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They are both edit warring and the anon has been vandalizing number of articles such as Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, Tamil people and Sri Lankan Tamil people where he wants to remove the following, There is a significant Tamil speaking Muslim population in Sri Lanka; however, unlike Tamil Muslims from India, they do not identify themselves as ethnic Tamils and are therefore usually listed as a separate ethnic group in official statistics.[15][10] We can see number of IP ranges all from Bell Canada, Toronto, if this will not stop I will have to inform ANI and get him blocked for a very long time. 12:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that the principle editors of these Tamil articles seem very biased, which is why this same quote continuously appears on all of them! In particular, the user Taprobanus keeps on trying to indirectly add the Sri Lankan Moors into the ethnic fold of Sri Lankan Tamils, when he himself knows for a fact that that there is substantial historic and academic proof that these two communities of Sri Lanka belong to separate ethnic groups with differing origins. This quote, There is a significant Tamil speaking Muslim population in Sri Lanka; however, unlike Tamil Muslims from India, they do not identify themselves as ethnic Tamils and are therefore usually listed as a separate ethnic group in official statistics.[15][10] has actually been very carefully constructed to sway the reader into believing that ethnic Muslims of Sri Lanka belong to the Tamil race but don't want to be identified as such. Perhaps removing the quote is not the answer, however I think it needs to be better worded. For example the quote would be better explained if this were said instead:There is a significant Tamil speaking Muslim population in Sri Lanka. However, though Tamil is spoken, they identify as being Arab origin, and are therefore listed ethnically as Sri Lankan Moors in official statistics.[15][10]. Something along this line would be more sufficient in explaining this article.

And one more thing, I still see user Anwar Sadat adding Islam as a religion of Sri Lankan Tamils. This is completely erroneous and should be looked into more deeply. It's almost like saying that Sri Lankan Tamils follow Buddhism as a minority religion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.229.204 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence originally, not Taprobanus. The contrast with Tamil-speaking Muslims in India is pretty important, and I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate it, as your suggested draft would do. Actually, I'm not sure I've understood your concern. None of the articles in question even make any claims about the existence of a "Tamil race", let alone that Sri Lankan Tamils belong to it. -- Arvind (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arvind, this shows how some people are so focused on one point of view that they assume the worst of others. This is an encyclopedic article so we have to use appropriate language. There is no guaranteed 100% factual statement that can be made about Sri Lankan Muslims that all 100% believe that they are distinct from Sri Lankan Tamils or vice versa. Because we don’t have a survey to back it up so what we can say is that in general Sri Lankan Muslims believe they are distinct although they speak Tamil unlike their kissing cousins in India in Kilakarai who believe they are Tamils even if both share the same ethno genesis.

Muslim traders from Sri Lanka have used Tamil in their correspondence at least since the 13 the century as inscriptions were found in Vizianagaram in Andhra, but these are factual academic details not suitable for political and racial discourse that some in Wikipedia like to indulge in. Muslims from South India have used Tamil in their business dealings starting from the 9th century in Sthanu Ravi’s period in Kerala. This is amazing considering that this time frame is just after 2 centuries of advent of Islam and Arabic associated with in the world that Muslim Traders of what ever origin had shifted to Tamil like Kerala Jews and Syrian Christians had many many centuries ago. Taprobanus (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What you don't understand is the differences between the concept of ethnicity and language. For example, you can't assume that Sri Lankan moors belong to the Tamil identity simply because they have adopted the Tamil language. Language itself cannot be used as something to determine an ethnicity. For example, most people of Indian origin in the Caribbean speak English as a mother tongue, however they certainly aren't ethnically Anglo, are they? Another good example are the Cape Malays in South Africa who speak Afrikaans as a mother tongue, although they have origins in South East Asia. Think about this thoroughly.

To Arvind, I did not tell you to completely remove that quote. Just fix it so that it is unbiased. Thank You

Ceylon Tamils in Malaysia

Resolved

I note the statistics for Ceylon Tamils in Malaysia were taken out because of the unreliability of the source. I have a book which gives the figures as of the 1970 census, perhaps it's better than nothing? Here's the quote:

"Statistics on the population of Sri Lankan Tamils befoe World War II were rather inaccurate mainly because they were lumped together with the Indian Tamil population. It was only after 1940, when the various Sri Lankan Tamil associations in Malaya made representations to the Superintendent of Census, that they were enumerated separately in the 947 census.... [I]n 1970, [it was] 12158 males and 12278 females."

Source: Rajakrishnan, P. (1993), "Social Change and Group Identity among the Sri Lankan Tamils", in Sandhu, Kernial Singh; Mani, A. (eds.), Indian Communities in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 541–557, ISBN 9812100172 at p. 543 -- Arvind (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What a god send, thanks you very much Taprobanus (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)