Talk:List of Sri Lankan monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of Sri Lankan monarchs is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2010Featured list candidateNot promoted

Reference[edit]

Reference — The various lives of St. Jose Vas, both online (Codrington, W.L.A. Don Peter's The Catholic Church in Sri Lanka, etc) and hard copy (e.g., Fr. Cosme Jose Costa S.F.X.'s Life of Blessed Joseph Vaz, Apostle of Kanara & Sri Lanka). He lived in Kandy during Vimala Dharma Suriya II's reign, and died in 1711, in the early years of Vira Narendra Simha, who had ascended 1707, and had faced a rebellion in 1709. The Nayaggar Dynasty, which converted from Hinduism to Buddhism, expelled Vas' successors, and they took refuge in the Kingdom of Vanni until 1815, when England annexed the Kingdom of Kandy.

Note[edit]

Removed the insertion of details of the current claiment to the throne of Jaffna - this list should only include enthroned and consecrated monarchs. Perhaps the person who inserted it should consider creating a page and placing a connection in Sri Lanka Politics.DocSubster 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffna Kingdom[edit]

where is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Please explain what motive behind to not to include or deleted the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why queen Elizabeth II listed here?[edit]

Sri Lanka is not part of Commonwealth realm and thus queen Elizabeth II does not hold any value in Sri Lanka.Tarikur (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key word: is not. We were until the 1972 republican constitution, hence the term of the Queen "ending" in 1972. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, Snowolfd4 is quite right. To elaborate: Queen Elizabeth II was Ceylon's (now called Sri Lanka) head of state from 1952 (when she succeeded her father King George VI as Monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, and Ceylon) until 1972 when the country adopted a republican constitution. Therefore, while King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha was the last monarch of Sri Lanka as an independent country before colonial takeover of Kandy by the British, following the granting of independence to Sri Lanka from Britain, and fully overall, Queen Elizabeth II was Sri Lanka's last monarch. Also, just for the future: A country is not part of "Commonwealth realm, but it is a Commonwealth realm. As for the "queen Elizabeth II does not hold any value in Sri Lanka" (odd phrase to say), remember that Sri Lanka is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, of which Queen Elizabeth II is Head of, and The Queen was also one of the nation's post independence heads of state, which makes her quite important in Sri Lankan history. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajaraja coin.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Rajaraja coin.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese & Spanish title[edit]

It may have simply been a pretense, but the article should note somewhere that the Portuguese and Spanish monarchs claimed the throne of "Ceylon" (Ceilão). Philip II apparently bore the title only briefly from 1597 to 1598. — LlywelynII 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs of mythical and quasi-mythical status[edit]

Does anyone think it fit to include maybe the more mythical rulers of the island referenced in the Mahabharata, or even Vijaya's predecessor, Kuveni, in this? - Walkalia (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of Sinhalese Monarchs who reigned in the kingdoms of Sri Lanka as referenced in the Mahavamsa and related Chronicles. However you are free to create your own article with the monarchs you suggested, provided it meets wikipedia policy.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiency[edit]

I see insufficiency in this list as it limited as follows:

  1. list of Sri Lankan monarchs since 543 BC
  2. Ruhuna, Maya Rata, Dhakkinadesa and the Jaffna kingdom are not on this list

The list should contain whole list/details. If anyone does not like, please rename the list as per content. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 10:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the generally accepted list of Sri Lankan Monarchs. Kingdoms such as Ruhuna, Maya Rata and Dhakkinadesa were subkingdoms/principalities and not like that of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa etc. As for the Jaffna kingdom, it is of a foreign origin, for which there already exists an article List of Jaffna monarchs.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the term "generally accepted". It would be good to include all monarchs until Monarchy of Ceylon as per the term of "Monarchy". What is the reason of limiting the list? Otherwise, it is good to rename to suitable title. You may rename like "List of Sri Lankan monarchs (Mahavamsa)". Kingdom of Ruhuna was a kingdom and Jaffna kingdom and Monarchy of Ceylon were part of Sri Lanka, not a separated island. People were ruled by them. If you are good with local languages, refer සිංහලේ රාජාවලිය & ஆட்சியாளர் பட்டியல், இலங்கை. BTW, Please do not remove POV in this article until the dispute is resolved.--Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By generally accepted I mean it is what historians use such as Codrington, who is well respected source many Sri Lankan editors use here on wiki. It would not be correct to say the Monarchy of Ceylon is the same as the the monarchy in this list. They are two different monarchies ruling two different entities. George III of the United Kingdom and his successors were monarchs of British Ceylon, a completely different entity to the Kingdom of Kandy and its monarchs which ended in 1815. Therefore this article ends at 1815 and the other one begins in 1815. The same applies to the Jaffna Kingdom. As for Ruhuna, it was a region, principality not a full kingdom. That article is wrong. Those articles you have linked are articles within wiki, which are not reliable sources for wikipedia, they are heads of state articles rather that monarchy articles. Thanks :)--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wanted to add capitals to the monarchs or tried to create a list with monarchs/rulers & capital of Sri Lanka. But, above mentioned two insufficiency issues gave me negative impact. I do not happy with "limited" era (543 BC - 1815) and "missing" monarchs/rulers. Even though, it has holistic title "List of Sri Lankan monarchs". I would happy to rename this title with possible name or do you think we can create an article with the title "List of Sri Lankan rulers". I hope you could understand my interest. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you are enthusiastic about creating new articles, and please fell free to ask for help or assistance at anytime. If we were to create the article "List of Sri Lankan rulers" then that would include, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governor Generals, Governors etc... the list would be too long and against wiki standards of separating each office. I have spent the past few years editing these monarchy articles related to Sri Lanka and I think it is best if we try not to complicate things. If you want to create an article on the Capitals of Sri Lanka I think you should go ahead. Here is an example Capital of Japan. I myself created a similar article in the past.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalese monarchs and Tamil kings[edit]

What is the relation of Tamil Kings such as Elara and The Six Dravidians, etc? These should be removed or reverted to old name. Otherwise, the list could be marked as POV. --AntonTalk 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this list is about the monarchs who have reigned under the Sinhalese Monarchy. Elara and The Six Dravidians, etc. were Indians (from what is today India) who at one point seized the crown from the ruling family and became monarchs of the kingdom. Hence although they are usurpers, they are also seen as monarchs of the Sinhalese Monarchy. It is not a POV, but what is recorded and seen as a list of all the monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, therefore it is not selective. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this list is misleading. Firstly it suggests that the entries on the list belonged to the Sinhalese ethnic group. Not only does the list include Tamil rulers from South India it also includes non-Sinhalese monarchs who ascended the thrones e.g. the Nayaks of Kandy. Secondly, there was never a "Sinhalese Kingdom". There were Sinhalese kings who ruled Sinhalese people but reliable sources call these kingdoms by other names e.g Kingdom of Anuradhapura, Kingdom of Polonnaruwa, Kingdom of Kotte, Kingdom of Kandy. Stitching all these kingdoms into one single "Sinhalese Kingdom" looks very much like POV I'm afraid.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have an article for Sinhalese monarchs, you can do so. But, do not add Tamils or change to old name. BTW, Vijaya is an Indian too as Elara - both invaded the Island. I add POV since there is no solution. --AntonTalk 02:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok there is some misunderstanding, and I urge editors not to jump to conclusions as the whole topic is under construction and expanding. AntanO and Obi2canibe thanks for pointing that out. This article is not a list based on ethnicity but a list of people who have ruled through the Sinhalese Monarchy, this includes foreigners who have seized the crown or have ruled legitimately. I will make that clear in the article now. Eg. The Nayaks are considered Sinhalese kings as they ruled the Sinhalese people through the Sinhalese Crown (Monarchy), from a Sinhalese Kingdom. That will also be made much more clearer in the article. All foreigners or those who are not ethnically Sinhalese, are clearly marked. This should not be unusual as foreigner monarchs are quiet common. The Romans, the English, the French and even the Jaffna monarchy all had rulers of foreign ethnicities, however they are considered the same as their legitimates.
As for the second point, I am not stitching all these kingdoms together. (Although each kingdom is a continuation from the one before, it is highly evident and the argument that at least the Kingdoms of Tambapanni, Upatissa Nuwara and Anuradhapura are really one kingdom would be a valid argument. however as history is recorded they are known by their capitals and until their are more reliable sources should not be an issue. The term Sinhala Kingdom is used to refer to the kingdom at the time, and overall through out the history of Sri Lanka. It is not a kingdom article per se. It is not a term I have created nor is it POV. Please keep in mind there is still much to do on this and related articles, and hopefully all issues will be met.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article does give impression that all the monarchs on this list are ethnically Sinhalese. I urge you to correct this soon and identify all the non-Sinhalese monarchs. You will also need to remove it from Category:Sinhalese Monarchs because its grand-parent category is Category:Sinhalese people. I also urge you to expand Sinhala Kingdom with reliable sources to show that it existed from 543BC to 1815AD - it doesn't currently. Also you will need to create Sinhalese Monarchy which is mentioned in the first line of this list but doesn't exist.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will address all those points in due time.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Anuradhapura, Kingdom of Polonnaruwa, Kingdom of Kandy, etc are terms invented based on capitals. But kings in Sri Lanka never called their kingdom as Kingdom of Anuradhapura, Kingdom of Polonnaruwa, Kingdom of Kandy, etc. Sinhalese kings in their inscriptions took titles like 'Tri-Sinhaladhīshwara', 'Sinhalapathi', etc. So, Sinhalese kingdom existed since 543 BCE to 1815 CE. But It can't be considered as a single continuous kingdom. Because Sometimes There were more than one kingdom parallely which claim to be Sinhalese kingdom. Sri lankan sinhala (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpers? Then Vijaya was the First Usurper of Srilanka from Kuveni's Father. This usurper category should also be deleted. Cholas and Pandyas are Tamils. They are not Sinhalese. So Srilanka Monarschs is only the Nuetral Title.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tenkasi Subramanian, This issue has been discussed above and further edits are yet to come that will clarify all you need to know, I have further highlighted the non ethnically Sinhalese monarchs to make clear all foreign monarchs of the Sinhalese throne, that includes all the Cholas and Pandyas. As for Usurpers I will answer that Here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to identify ethnically or non ethnically Sinhalese, make it in separate article. Here the title Srilanka is only neutral title.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user Blacknight always calling Tamil rulers as usurpers and foreigners. The first Sinhalese king of Srilanka Vijaya himself an usurper. Then each and every Sinhalese king are also Usurper since his ancestor Vijaya himself an usurper King.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undo to the Previous Topic[edit]

The previous topic of this article is List of Monarchs of Sri Lanka. During last year Blackknight changed the title of the article to List of Sinhalese monarchs. If he want "List of Sinhalese monarchs" means he should create separate article. But he changed the title without discussion.

When I undo to the previous title List of Monarchs of Sri Lanka he again changed the article Title to "List of Sinhalese monarchs". Reason by Blackknight mentioned below.

// 01:50, 21 October 2014‎ Blackknight12 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,266 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன்: Parameters of the article has been changed without disscussion. //

So I request other administrators to change the article's Title to the previous one with its history.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For information, here is the full list of moves of this article:
11:09, 7 September 2005 Thewayforward (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of kings and rulers of Ceylon to List of rulers of Ceylon
11:26, 7 September 2005 Greenleaf~enwiki (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of rulers of Ceylon to List of rulers of Sri Lanka
12:17, 29 August 2008 Vimu~enwiki (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of rulers of Sri Lanka to List of monarchs of Sri Lanka
00:53, 24 November 2009 Blackknight12 (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of monarchs of Sri Lanka to List of Sri Lankan monarchs
05:09, 5 September 2014 Blackknight12 (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of Sri Lankan monarchs to List of Sinhalese monarchs
12:31, 20 October 2014 தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன் (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of Sinhalese monarchs to List of monarchs of Srilanka
01:51, 21 October 2014 Blackknight12 (talk | contribs | block) moved page List of monarchs of Srilanka to List of Sinhalese monarchs
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that list, I recommend starting an RFC to decide on the title once and for all; there's no point moving it anywhere until there's a clear consensus for one of the above titles. Yunshui 雲水 08:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here the problem is between land name and people name. Ceylon and Srilanka meant for land. Sinhalese meant for People. So what ever the title that should be the land name. As srilanka is the well known name there is no need to prefer ceylon. If Blackknight want to write ethnic list means he should write separate article.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

The introduction part and "Notes" turns to article into original research. Newly created list ([Lists of Sri Lankan monarchs]]) tried to justify it., and particularly "Sinhalese and foreign rulers who have ruled chronologically and in succession under the Sinhalese Monarchy". Otherwise, create "List of Tamil monarchs in Sri Lanka" as well as for Portuguese and Dutch. --AntanO 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this list?[edit]

There seems to be a lot of confusion or refusal to accept as to what this list is. It has been made clear in the article's lead, as well as in the talk discussions as to the content of this article. However here is an expanded explanation to supplement the above discussions.

The fact of the matter is that periodically South Indians, specifically Tamils, have held the post of monarch of any one of these Sinhalese kingdoms that is within the Sinhalese Monarchy, this does not make them ethnically Sinhalese, but does make them king of a Sinhalese kingdom and of the Sinhalese people. Eg. Elara was King of Anuradhapura, Kalinga Magha was King of Polonnaruwa. No one is denying they are still Tamil, but they did rule over a Sinhalese Kingdom.

Below is a table to understand where this list located in the whole framwork of things:

Country Type of Government Office of Head of State List of Head of States
Sinhala Kingdom Absolute Monarchy Sinhalese Monarchy List of Sinhalese monarchs
Japan Constitutional monarchy Emperor of Japan List of Emperors of Japan
Spain Constitutional monarchy Monarchy of Spain List of Spanish monarchs
United States Federal Republic President of the United States List of Presidents of the United States
India Federal Republic President of India List of Presidents of India
United Kingdom Constitutional monarchy Monarchy of the United Kingdom List of British monarchs
Sri Lanka Republic President of Sri Lanka List of Presidents of Sri Lanka
France Republic President of France List of Presidents of France
Thailand Constitutional monarchy Monarchy of Thailand List of monarchs of Thailand

There have been many efforts made in this article to show this is not a list of ethnically Sinhalese monarchs, such as a hatnote above the article lead, the text This list is not a list of ethnically Sinhalese monarchs in bold in the article lead and highlighting all foreign monarchs in blue throughout the article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem bro. Just start new article.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the word "Sinhala" means? Land, territory, ethnicity? I prefer the previous title. The explanation or justification seems to rationalization. It start from Prince Vijaya, but the island was exist before his arrival and it was ruled. So, where to add them? --AntanO 10:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a rationalisation, I urge you both to read some history of the island and become better acquainted with the topic. "Sinhalese" refers to the Kingdom(s), which is derived from the Sinhalese people that created it, the same way England is derived from the English people and Tamilakam is derived from the Tamil people. The kingdom lasted from 543 BC to 1815 so it is not a list of the history of kings in Sri Lanka, only between that period in the Sinhalese kingdoms. Can you tell me what/who was before Prince Vijay? To my knowledge recorded history begins with Vijaya. Before that, even somewhat after, is mostly mythology. But I think List of Sri Lankan monarchs is where you would add related topics.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has arisen because List of Sri Lankan monarchs was renamed List of Sinhalese monarchs so as to exclude Jaffna kingdom and European colonial era monarchs. It should go back to List of Sri Lankan monarchs and include every monarch who ruled territory on the island of Lanka.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that is the issue here. Though I'm still trying to figure it out myself... Obi2canibe & AntanO I really hope you do not think this is some kind of edit against Tamils. It is not, I have no such issue.
That is not the case, the article was created as a list of historical rulers over the history of the island, starting from Vijaya to the current presidents of Sri Lanka, as the list became more detailed it has been spun off into several more detailed and more specific articles, culminating in this as one of them. There have been three separate monarchies on the island over its history and there are detailed articles for all of them: List of Jaffna monarchs (Jaffna Kingdom), Monarchy of Ceylon (British Ceylon) and this one List of Sinhalese monarchs (Sinhala Kingdom). All three are separate lines of monarchs, another reason as to why they should be spun off. I guess the issue is how the article had evolved over time. Users have interpreted this article to be the main list, as it is the oldest, and are offended that the other two monarchies are not there. The list of Sinhalese monarchs was the longest so it was just easier to spin off the other lists into new articles.
I think List of Sri Lankan monarchs is doing what you request already. It includes all the monarchies including the Jaffna kingdom and European monarchs, and talks of the history of the monarchs that have ruled territory on the island. List of Sri Lankan monarchs continues to be the parent article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This presumes that there was an entity called Sinhala Kingdom - there wasn't. There have been numerous monarchies who have ruled parts of the island but there is no direct lineage between them. Kingdoms came and went as power shifted between different groups. Often there was several kingdoms at the same times which ruled different parts of the island. At the end of the 16th century there were no less than five kingdoms on the island - Jaffna kingdom, Kingdom of Gampola, Kingdom of Kandy, Kingdom of Raigama and Kingdom of Sitawaka. Four of these are included on this list. How can a kingdom have four different kings at the same time? You must move away from the notion that there was a single Sinhalese monarchy from the arrival of Vijaya (543BC) to the signing of the Kandyan Convention (1815AD) - this is just myth.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the point, and you are relying on your preconceived notions of the history of the Island. I never said the Sinhala Kingdom was one kingdom that existed from 543 BC to 1815. They are successive kingdoms that ruled the Sinhalese people, and were named after their location of the capital. Up until the Wijayaba Kollaya in 1521, there was only 1 Sinhalese kingdom at any one time. (See timeline below) After 1521, or there abouts, the kingdom divided, hence your example. K. M. de Silva in his book A History of Sri Lanka refers to the Sinhala kingdom throughout the book, P. W. Rambukwelle talks about Sinhala Kingship from 543 BC up until Dambadeniya, it is not one kingdom per se, but they are definitely all directly related. There very much is a direct lineage between the kingdoms. At a point in time when the capital was moved, history regards it as a new kingdom, however the same line of monarchs continued to rule. For example, the House of Vijaya continued to rule Tambapanni, Upatissa Nuwara and Anuradhapura continuously. So did the House of Siri Sanga Bo with Dambadeniya, Gampola and Kotte and when split Sitawaka and Kandy as well. Through Dambadeniya to Kotte there was also an unbroken line of kings. Hence they are undoubtedly connected. The reasons for the many kingdoms we see today are because the center of administration moved, during which they are known by the name of their capital. Events such as war (Anuradhapura), invasion (Polonnaruwa) or the death without a legitimate heir (Tambapanni) are examples of why the kingdom moved. However the people, the monarchs, the traditions, the language, the land continued as did the kingdom before that. Details such as the monarch's role, royal titles, succession, regnal names continued throughout the 543 BC to 1815 period. For example the regnal name Vijayabahu was used 7 times over multiple kingdoms and multiple royal houses over a period of 500 years and there is no overlap of names, Vijayabahu I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII. The same is true for Aggabodhi, Bhuvanaikabahu, Kassapa, Mahinda, Parakramabahu and more. Each monarch of any of these names considered their predecessor by the same name as the in same line to themselves. The Jaffna Kingdom does not follow these same traditions of kingship, it has its own, it was predominantly Hindu, its language was Tamil and it ruled over predominantly Tamils. Therefore it is not a Sinhalese Kingdom and is not listed on this article. Calling these monarchs or the Jaffna monarchs Sri Lankan is anachronistic and would not be correct as Sri Lanka refers to the present.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of KandyKingdom of SitawakaKingdom of KotteKingdom of GampolaKingdom of DambadeniyaKingdom of PolonnaruwaChola occupation of AnuradhapuraAnuradhapura KingdomKingdom of Upatissa NuwaraKingdom of TambapanniNayaks of KandyHouse of DinajaraHouse of Siri Sanga BoHouse of KalingaHouse of VijayabahuHouse of Lambakanna IIHouse of MoriyaHouse of Lambakanna IHouse of VijayaHouse of VijayaHouse of VijayaHouse of Vijaya
The page/list "List of Sri Lankan monarchs" does not give clear view. You can keep "List of Sinhalese monarchs", but remove the Tamil rulers and create "List of Tamil monarchs in Sri Lanka" where include those who removed from "List of Sinhalese monarchs" and add "List of Jaffna monarchs" as it only includes the rulers of Jaffna kingdom. What does the word "Sinhala" means? Land, territory, ethnicity or something? There is no specific measurement to say "Sinhalese monarchs". Eg: Ellanan - Tamil & Hindu, Dharmapala of Kotte - Singhalese & Christian, Bhuvanaikabahu VI of Kotte (not sure about religion & ethnicity), Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy - Telugu & Nayak (Hindu caste). --AntanO 14:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then please work with me to make List of Sri Lankan monarchs more clearer. Let me put it this way, the measurment to calling someone a Sinhalese monarch, is a king or queen who has ruled over the Sinhalese people, in a Sinhalese kingdom, regardless of ethnicity, religion, language, caste etc. Just a human who has held the office of king, within a Sinhalese kingdom. Sinhala/Sinhalese refers the the kingdom and its people, not the monarch per se.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntanO The article's title was "Land Name + Monarchs" first. No need to change the title from List of Srilankan Monarchs. If Blackknight wants to list Sinhalese just create new article. That's all. Undo the article to the edit before the title was changed.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is misleading the readers with POV. Why does this list Sinhalese monarchs include Tamil kings? How do they fit into "Sinhalese monarchs"? Why can't you moved to old name? --AntanO 15:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the hatnote of the article: "This article is about leaders of the Sinhalese monarchy. It is not to be confused with a list of ethnically Sinhalese monarchs." See also Sinhalese monarchy, also linked from the article's first sentence. Huon (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read Sinhala Kingdom. It says about ethical issues. What do you mean by the word "Sinhalese"? How people understand the term in Sri Lanka? Do you have any idea? --AntanO 18:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

questionable information[edit]

I am vary of how prince vijay, who was mooted out the country of his origin, elevated to the ranks of a king in Sri Lanka. when expelled from his own kinsmen, in India, he was sent away and he landed in Ceylon. although events reflect that his consorts and of those of whom were expelled were shipped out as well, there is no mention of whether they met up or what transpired thereafter...

Vijay, after having 02 children (Son and Daughter) with kuveni, called it quits with her since he had arranged for a queen of Aryan heritage so that he could be crowned king. he died before having a heir to the throne (which is not entirely true since he had a son with Kuveni). Vijays reasoning does not or did not prevent his son from ascending to the throne which is how it should have been -

Vijayas brother, himself was much too old, and instead had his third son ( Panduvasdeva ) to rule. basically Vijayas nephew, one that he never knew or saw ended up ruling Ceylon whilst his own son was denied his rightful Place.

In conclusion... Vijaya could never have become a king of Ceylon because there was no known or recorded coronation or any ceremony that would give him that power to do so. One wife was thrown out and the other never made it in time and even if she did, Vijaya would never have been possible to father a heir - especially if there were a string of daughters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quick question (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Sinhalese monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: with apologies to well-intentioned relisters, long debates with a large number of participants are difficult to get to consensus, and this one needs to be finished up. I worry that any close may be sent to move review, which is unfortunate for all participating, but as an uninvolved administrator, I am closing this discussion as return to List of Sri Lankan monarchs. Please rest assured that I have read the entire discussion both above and below. I will make a few findings:

  • 1) “Sinhalese” is unappealingly ambiguous, because it may relate to either the ethnic group or the Sinhalese monarchy. The scope of the article has been discussed in depth here, but that does not abrogate the requirement for a precise title, and the repeated conflicts over the title are evidence that the name is not unambiguous. Even when all editors are operating with good faith, an ambiguous title can cause conflicts about scope. There is an argument that this is one of three articles on monarchies on the island of Sri Lanka, but the list does not need to exclude any of them, and there has not been any other overarching List of Sri Lankan monarchs as has sometimes been argued here.
  • 2) “of Sri Lanka”/“Sri Lankan” is somewhat ambiguous because it can refer either to the island or the political entity established in 1972. Given the second sense of the term, it can appear to be anachronistic. “Ceylon” is dated and no one appears to be advocating for its use. In effect, the use of the term "monarch" points to the fact that it will not apply to the post-1972 state.
  • 3) “Sinhalese Kingdom”/“Sinhala Kingdom” avoids only some of the ambiguity of “Sinhalese,” but it garners objections because it actually refers to many different kingdoms that ruled in succession (with minor overlap). There are still debates as to exactly which should be considered Sinhalese, so it is not ideal. If sublists are required, they can be organized by kingdom (e.g. Kandy, Anuradhapura) rather than necessitating that they each be attached to a single list of rulers of Sinhala Kingdoms.
  • Thus what we have had here is a case of an inherently polyphyletic list. The debate over the contents of the list is outweighing its actual usefulness, and the possibility of excluding certain groups is causing rancor. What is needed is a monophyletic article title that clearly establishes one criterion for inclusion. There is no need to exclude any groups based on their origins here; readers can skip to the section they want to read about, wherever the rulers or their ancestors came from. Subarticles, many of which already exist, can be used to deal with finer distinctions. The title with the broadest scope, and with the absolute longest (5-year) history of consecutive use here, is List of Sri Lankan monarchs, which is only as anachronistic as the existing History of Sri Lanka that already discusses the island and each and every monarchy that laid claim to it. I understand that the scope was an issue when the page was moved away from this title in 2014, but the overarching list needs populating and this is a good place to do it. Dekimasuよ! 22:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


List of Sinhalese monarchs → List of monarchs of Sri Lanka – The list is misleading the readers with POV. Why does this list Sinhalese monarchs include Tamil kings? How do they (Tamils) fit into "Sinhalese monarchs"? Why can't you moved to old name? AntanO 15:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment... I was about to close this debate as "no consensus", because I see no general agreement here among editors as of this date. Instead, I decided to give this debate up to one more week and relisted it for the very rare third time. Just so everyone is clear, while a no-consensus outcome usually means that the present title will not be moved, in this case the present title has only been fairly stable for about three years and four months. So in this case a no-consensus outcome would probably mean reversion to this article's most stable title, a name that contains "Sri Lanka". That would likely be the original title according to page-move logs, List of monarchs of Sri Lanka. Those logs tell us that title lasted about four years and was then changed to "List of Sri Lankan monarchs", which lasted another five years. So for nine years this article's title had "Sri Lanka" in it. I will notify all the WikiProjects involved with this article, and editors are asked to try very hard to come to a consensus to choose the highest and best title for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, see extensive discussions above. The Sinhalese monarchy at times was ruled by people who were not ethnically Sinhalese. That's not "misleading with POV". Huon (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question-- if this is really a list of monarchs of Sinhala Kingdom, why not call it that? List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom? tahc chat 17:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that may be an option, but Sinhalese monarchy and Sinhala Kingdom should be merged. The latter right now is largely a list of content from the Mahabharata, unreferenced, and when I remove that in a moment (since the Mahabharata is irrelevant to the topic of that article), we'll end up with something totally redundant to the much better-developed former article. There seems to be a general trend in Category:Lists of monarchs to name the articles "List of X-ian monarchs" instead of "List of monarchs of X", but there are plenty of exceptions. Huon (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There was never a Sinhala Kingdom. Expand this article to include all monarchs who ruled over the island known as Sri Lanka since 1972.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not ethnically Sinhalese, how do you get the name/word Sinhalese? What does the word Sinhalese mean? Sinhala Kingdom refers the kings as ethical Sinhalese. --AntanO 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Aside from the fact that Sri Lanka is spelt wrong in this proposal, this topic has been debated time and again, by the same editors who periodically bring up the same issues that have already been debated before. (See above discussions). The topic of this article is spelled out in the previous discussion, under the heading #What is this list?. To spell it out one more time, this is a list of monarchs who ruled under the Sinhalese monarchy, which had its own traditions, customs, laws and titles etc. etc... The fact is that during this period of over 2000 years people who were not ethnically Sinhalese have also ruled these Sinhalese kingdoms, under the Sinhalese monarchy. Foreign monarchs of the Sinhalese monarchy are not just limited to Tamils, but also Telugu people and people of the Kalinga. The Tamils who ruled under the Sinhalese monarchy are also divided between coming from the Pandyan dynasty, the Chola dynasty (who were different nationalities at the time) or being total strangers not affiliated, or not known to be affiliated to either. I suspect the users who want to change this article want do so because it just does not sit right with them that historical Tamil people could have the title of Sinhalese monarch, as seen with the creation of this article: List of Tamil monarchs after a similar discussion. This issue is directly addressed in the hat note in the article, in the lead and the highlighting of the list, as a result of discussions (#Sinhalese monarchs and Tamil kings) to resolve these very issues we are once again talking about here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This can lead to another debate until it gives clear and natural point of view to readers. I never see a clear explanation or justification to the rename List of monarchs of Sri Lanka → List of Sinhalese monarchs. If it not ethnically Sinhalese, what are those Sinhalese kingdoms and Sinhalese monarchy? (Though, I don’t see the different between Sinhalese kingdoms and Sinhalese monarchy.) Is it a myth or ideology? Who created Sinhalese monarchy? How does it can justify by reliable sources? What does the word Sinhalese mean? If it not ethnicity or language, what is it? The island, now known as Sri Lanka, had history before the arrival of Prince Vijaya who is an Indian and his ethnicity is not known yet. I am afraid some users have the Sinhalese ideology & concepts and contribute articles in Wikipedia. I welcome a neutral article beyond ideology. Anyone can add introduction paragraph and say it not ethnicity, but prove by reliable source. --AntanO 02:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one is not ready to answer my questions. If you aware the topic, you can answer that could be easy to WP:CON. --AntanO 09:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated and expanded the lead, I hope it answers your questions.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sinhala Kingdom is myth or ideology. If not give, give historical and reliable source. (Remember, Mahabharata and Mahavamsa are epic, not historical record.) The introduction repeats the same and failed to tell what Sinhalese monarchy is and how it is defined. Sinhala is a common term that uses for Sinhala people and Sinhala language. Is there any other meaning? If you say Greek empire, it automatically connects with Greek people, language and land. Mainly, the list failed to say how it included non-Sinhalese kings under Sinhalese monarchy. Eg: The list includes Ellalan, who was a Tamil king from Chola Empire ruled most of island. Did he rule under Sinhalese monarch? If so, how, and give reliable source. When Roman Empire conquered other countries, Roman emperors were not marked as native kings and considers as local monarch. I don’t have objection to have List of Sinhalese monarchs, but remove others who are not part of Sinhalese monarchs by language, ethnicity, religion and culture. If so, I can expand List of monarchs of Sri Lanka or start List of monarchs and rulers of Sri Lanka and include all, especially Kuveni who was queen before Vijaya. Do you want to dump and re-write history? --AntanO 10:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point and scope of this article. It is specifically not a list of monarchs based on ethnicity. It is clearly written in the article multiple times. I agree, we do not need a list called List of monarchs of Sri Lanka that are also ethnically Sinhalese. That is not what this list it. The ethnic make-up of the monarchs do not matter here, this is a list of people who ruled the Sinhalese Kingdoms under the Sinhalese crown monarchy. That is all.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what is a "Sinhalese crown"?
Is it a list of people who ruled Sri Lanka (or part of it) from Sri Lanka? tahc chat 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Sinhalese monarchy is the kingship of the Sinhalese people during the time of the Sinhalese kingdoms. It is a list of people who ruled Sri Lanka during the time of the Sinhalese kingdoms and under the government that is the Sinhalese monarchy. It is not a list of all the people in the history of the world who ruled Sri Lanka, part of Sri Lanka, or from Sri Lanka. It is specifically during the time of the existence of the Sinhalese kingdoms. If you haven't yet read the new lead, I urge you to do so.--Blackknight12 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since others have claimed there is/was no "Sinhalese kingdom", your reply seems to be you dodging a straightforward question. How do we know it is not a list of monarchs based on ethnicity if you cannot even clearly state who gets to be on the list in your own POV? tahc chat 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dodging any questions. I would appreciate it if you read the previous discussions and the lead in the article as I have answered these questions many time over. There is a whole paragraph on the Sinhalese Kingdom:
"it existed not as one continuous state but has been historically referred to as a series of successive kingdoms known by the city at which its administrative centre was located. These are in chronological order: the kingdoms of Tambapanni, Upatissa Nuwara, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Gampola, Kotte, Sitawaka and Kandy. The kingdoms existed in what is today the modern state of Sri Lanka".
This is not a list I have arbitrarily created, its based on historical lists from in the Mahavamsa (Great Chronicle) Page xxxvi and Rajaveliya (line of kings) Page x, among other sources. These lists themselves contain the rulers who are not ethnically Sinhalese. This list contains all those who have ruled the Sinhalese Kingdoms in chronologically order, ethnicity is not a qualification to be on this list, having ruled one of these Sinhalese Kingdoms is.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User says The Sinhalese monarchy is the kingship of the Sinhalese people. So, here comes ethnicity. Did non-Sinhalese rule under Sinhalese monarchy? How? //It is a list of people who ruled Sri Lanka during the time of the Sinhalese kingdoms and under the government that is the Sinhalese monarchy. Again, non-Sinhalese conquered and ruled under Sinhalese kingdoms and Sinhalese monarchy?? It doesn't make any sense, but POV. Also see my note below. --AntanO 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes non Sinhalese people did rule under Sinhalese monarchy. How. When the usurped the monarchy, or through marriage inheritance, such as the Nayaks of Kandy.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
//Yes non Sinhalese people did rule under Sinhalese monarch// - Give me reference from reliable source. How it was possible when usurp? Did they usurp and rule under Sinhalese monarch? If so, why? Was marriage inheritance a fact? If so, tell me in others case, especially Ellalan, Rajendra Chola I, Kalinga Magha, etc? --AntanO 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I initiate it on 15 January 2014 and user Blackknight12 moved the page on 5 September 2014.
  • Support The question is simple. Even the ones who did a surface reading on Mahavamsa and historical chronicles of Sri Lanka, will refuse to accept the hypothetical arguement of "Sinhala Kingdom or Sinhala monarchy". The period, in which whole island of Sri Lanka was ruled under a single crown is diminutive, if at all. Sinhalese Kingdom is obviously a group of rulers who combated even within themselves. And it is crystal clear that Kingdoms of Kandy, Kotte, Gampola (as well as Sitawaka and Raigama) were once existed side by side and they are NOT subsequent realms where the sovereignty of so called "Sinhala monarchy" was handed over one by one.
If so, what is the place allocated in this Sinhala Kingdom to Moggalana, father of Vijayabahu I, and his Ruhunu predecessors during Chola rule hitherto? Wait, what? Was the Raigama Kingdom totally erased from the history of Sinhalese Kingdom, just because it was founded and runned by supposed "South Indian" aristocrats? (See where Raigama redirects!) Where is the place for Alagakkon who built Abhinava Sri Jayawardanapura Kottai, current Capital of Sri Lanka? Are there any blanks left in professed "Sinhala Kingdom" for his Alagakkon family which was powerful to be ended by Zheng He around 1400s?
According to the writer of this page, If the term "Sinhalese" doesn't refer ethnically Sinhalese kings, it is evidently related to Sinhaladwipa, present island of Sri Lanka. (if not, please clarify accurately. What does "Sinhala" means here since Sinhala is not an ethnic term at the moment!) So, Sinhaladwipa geographically includes Jaffna and Vanni land and eventually, this page should include Aryachakravartis as well as Portuguese and Dutch governors. Or does the author accept Jaffna and Vanni land are belongs to a "different" country from the beginning of history and they were somehow merged to Sinhala kingdom by chance?
I wonder what prevent these people from just replacing the word "Sinhalese" with "Sri Lankan". --5anan27 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy recently, I will reply soon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not state the whole island of Sri Lanka was ruled under a single crown. Yes two kingdoms did exist side by side for a few years, Kotte and Sitawaka. This was after the event called the Wijayaba Kollaya when the kingdom split between three brothers. At this point in time there were multiple kingdoms, yet they both descended from the same traditions of kingship and lineage, and are included in the traditional lists found in the historical texts. There was no Kingdom of Ruhunu or of Raigama, these were principalities, Princes of the Sinhalese monarchy. Moreover Ruhunu and Raigama refer to regions, not cities like the kingdoms do. Alagakkonara is also included in the list. I have clarified what Sinhala means many times before. Please read the many preceding texts. Jaffna and the Chiefdom of Vanni did exist on the island of Sri Lanka but are different political entities from the Sinhala Kingdoms.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
\\I have clarified what Sinhala means many times before.\\ Where? Was it from reliable source or own POV? --AntanO 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackknight12: Thank you for the reply. But,
1. If Ruhunu and Raigama are just principalities, what are their historical role in "Sinhalese kingdoms"? Because Dutugamunu was originally from Ruhuna while Mahinda V fled and ruled at Ruhuna and there was Jayabahu I who ruled in parell Polonnaruwa and Ruhuna . Surprisingly, Alagakkonar from Raigama (See here, here and here) founded Kotte kingdom!
2. Yes. Wijayaba Kollaya caused the kingdom to split between three brothers. But why was Wijayabahu's third son Raigama Bandara and his so called principality "Raigama Kingdom" omitted here? If Sitawaka of Mayadunne and Kotte of Bhuvanekabahu are two "Sinhalese kingdoms" to be considered, Why Raigama Kingdom is not?
3. Yes every kingdom covers a large region. But, they all have specific capitals. Raigama had Bandaragama as well as Ruhuna had Tissa. Is it ok to eliminate them from SL kingdoms reasoning they ain't cities?
4. Finally, see. "Sinhalese" is the term only denotes ethnicity nowadays and it is nothing to do with this directory. So, we should move or relist this page considering Sri Lankan kingdoms." This is the argument. But again and again the counter argument is "Sinhalese is not ethnicity here. We explained so many times. Go and read" Please stop begging the question and clearly define what does "Sinhalese" mean here. --5anan27 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The Sinhalese monarchy was ruled by people who were not ethnically Sinhalese, such as South Indian invaders and Kandy Nayakkars, for comparatively shorter periods in the history. But the vast majority of the rulers listed here are ethnic Sinhalese. SWR2.9 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Give valid reference for The Sinhalese monarchy was ruled by people who were not ethnically Sinhalese.--AntanO 01:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Huh? The last nayak of Kandy was overthrown in 1815 and Sri Lanka has only existed since 1972. —  AjaxSmack  01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, and yet I'm curious exactly why it is thought that "Sri Lanka" cannot be used just because the name has only existed since 1972? Seems to me that if there were an article on the "History of Sri Lanka", editors would not restrict that article to just the last 45 years or so. Wait, there is just such an article, and it begins "The earliest human remains found on the island of Sri Lanka date to about 35,000 years ago (Balangoda Man)." Then it continues with the beginnings of the "proto-historical period", and so on. The name "Sri Lanka" is used more as a commonly recognized name rather than historical itself – or am I mistaken? Forgive me, but it almost seems as if we editors are trying to confuse readers when we choose names like "Sinhalese monarchs" over the more commonly recognized "Sri Lankan monarchs" (or "monarchs of Sri Lanka"), aren't we? Isn't that what WP:COMMONNAME and its community consensus is meant to cover?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    History of Sri Lanka is shorthand for "the History of the area that is now Sri Lanka" but its existence does not require the adoption of inaccurate titles for subtopics. Cf. History of Iran but List of monarchs of Persia. If there is a really problem, List of Sri Lankan monarchs is better than the current proposal. —  AjaxSmack  01:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The current list failed in various level and you can see the followings. As per your Persian example, why can't you include Portuguese like Persian monarchs included Greek? Does this list try to baptize non-Sinhalese as Sinhalese?--AntanO 02:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AjaxSmack. Especially in controversial topics or lesser known histories such as this, it is more important we are accurate rather than go with the word of mouth direction, WP:COMMONNAME and community consensus should work most of the time, but I'm afraid it doesn't work here as many of the participants have either failed to recognise the scope of this article, due to their, and many people's lack of knowledge of the history of Sri Lankan or have alternate agendas in mind for this page. Sri Lanka as a name, as do all names, refer to a time and place in history. That time and place is not always consistent and do change, and we have to account for this. Sri Lanka was named Ceylon previously and before that it was the Sinhalese Kingdom. But the land and people that these names are referring to remain the same. Other political entities also existed on the island, Jaffna, the Portuguese and the Dutch. History is not simple so we can not whitewash it by being inaccurate, anachronistic or wrong with a single term, just because it is convenient or common or democratic.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore the article List of Sri Lankan monarchs already exists. It explain that three lines of different monarchies have existed during the history of Sri Lanka. A Sri Lankan monarch could specifically refer to any one of those people who held the title of Sinhalese monarch, Jaffna monarch or the British Monarch from 1815. Calling just one of those lines Sri Lankan and not the others would create confusion and inaccuracies. The Sri Lankan monarchs article is also the parent article to this one.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think accuracy is important, too; however, looking through this debate it seems that neither the present title nor "Sri Lankan" proposals are very accurate. And there is no article titled List of Sri Lankan monarchs. You've said this before, but it's just not true. That title redirects to Sri Lankan monarchs, which is a rather wanting "broad concept" article or disambiguation page – not quite sure which. At any rate, the present title of this article must be changed to something else, because it really does imply that monarchs of other ethnicities somehow magically turn into something else just because they reigned over the area that is now Sri Lanka. That is completely non-neutral POV and unacceptable in any reference work. So please let people know what your second choice of titles is.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Maybe something like List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom (see Sinhala Kingdom) would be better than either the present title or other proposals? PS left by  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't ask whether Tamil people and Telugu people ruled Sri Lanka or not. They ask face to face proof for Singhalese Kingdom. In which aspect you define that "Singhalese kingdom" apart from your Singhalese ethnicity? Please answer it. How brilliantly you all divert the main point.

POV and Original research[edit]

I have taken the following lines from the intro.

  • The Sinhalese monarch was the head of state of the Sinhala Kingdom. – How Tamils suits here as you included Tamil dynasty?
  • The monarchy comprised the reigning monarch, his or her family, and the royal household. – Where Tamils part of family, and the royal household?
  • The Sinhala Kingdom concerns the political states of the Sinhalese people and their ancestors – Did Tamil dynasty (included in this list) concerns the political states of the Sinhalese people, and what about Tamils?
  • This article is a list of monarchs that have reigned over the nine successive kingdoms under the Sinhalese monarchy. – How does Tamil, especially Chola Empire, Pandyan Dynasty, Ganga dynasty and Madurai Nayak dynasty fit in the list?

Answer with reliable source. Don't remove the tags unless Template:POV#When_to_remove. It was removed several times without consensus. --AntanO 10:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why List of Jaffna monarchs is not included in this list while other non-Sinhalese ruler included? List of Sinhalese monarchs by reign is too questionable. --AntanO 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The short of it is, at times the Sinhalese Kingdom was ruled by non-Sinhalese, such as the Five Dravidians, the Six Dravidians or the others. That doesn't mean it stopped being the Sinhalese Kingdom during those times. Those non-Sinhalese rulers didn't bring their own population with them or turn all their subjects into non-Sinhalese until the ruler of the kingdom became a Sinhalese again. On the other hand, the Jaffna Kingdom was culturally non-Sinhalese. There you didn't just have a Tamil ruling over a Sinhalese population but a decidedly Tamil population, too.
Reliable sources for some of the above:
I hope that suffices. More specific sources exist, but in general the availability of accessible English-language sources on medieval Sri Lankan history is not the best. Huon (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
// Those non-Sinhalese rulers didn't bring their own population with them or turn all their subjects into non-Sinhalese until the ruler of the kingdom became a Sinhalese again.// Portuguese, Dutch and British too non-Sinhalese rulers and they didn't bring their own population with them or turn all their subjects into non-Sinhalese. Therefore, are we going add them too? In Tamils case, they did bring people from Southern India and spread culture, language and religions. Meantime, there is controversy theory suggest the native of the island were Tamils or Southern Indian tribes.
The island was part of Chola empire, other powers were none.

// Jaffna Kingdom was culturally non-Sinhalese// Under Ellalan and Chola dynasty rule, they were non-Sinhalese too. They built famous Hindu temple and promote their culture, religion and language. And, you cannot say Ellalan and Chola dynasty rulers were culturally Sinhalese.

Your first link (mentioned as Reliable sources) says "In 993 AD Cholas attacked the Sinhalese kingdom, because of its alliance with Pandyas and annexed it, as a province of the Chola Empire". It does not say province of the Sinhalese Kingdom, but province of the Chola Empire.

Under Roman Empire, other kingdoms and dynasties were none, and became Rome.

Ellalan, a Tamil Prince of the Chola Dynasty. Rajendra Chola I, a Chola emperor of India. Philip II of Spain, a king of Portugal. Can we mention them like Ellalan, a king of Sinhalese Kingdom, Philip II of Spain, a king of Sinhalese Kingdom? If you can say, Rajendra Chola I, a Chola emperor of India, was ruler of Sinhalese Kingdom, why can’t you say Philip II of Spain, a king of Portugal, was ruler of Sinhalese Kingdom? The island is ruled by various actors and power was transform here and there. Therefore, you cannot conclude that all rulers were under Sinhalese Kingdom. When a kingdom lost its power, it became to another power / part of power. It can be Chola or Portgugal. Eg: When Roman Empire conquers countries, they annexed them as part of Rome, and all were called Roman Empire regardless of culture and other facts. The same idea is applicable to Rajendra Chola I or Philip II of Spain. --AntanO 11:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Singhalese rule, at least we can accept Singhalese monarchy since it culturally connects with culture, religion, language, ethnicity, etc. See the differences below:

Facts Singhalese monarchy Chola monarchy Portuguese monarchy
Religion Buddhism Hindu Christianity
Culture Singhalese Tamil / Southern Indian Portuguese
Language Singhalese Tamil / Southern Indian Portuguese
Ethnicity Singhalese Tamil / Southern Indian Portuguese
Support/Power Singhalese Chola Empire Portuguese Empire

Give me an example of kingdom or monarchy that did not connect with culture, religion, language and ethnicity. Singhalese kingdom is an ideology that connects different regional powers as it listed in Sinhala Kingdom. The worst part is that baptizing non-Singhalese into Singhalese. --AntanO 12:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that the Tamils are ethnically different and yet ask why the Tamil Jaffna kingdom is not included here - you gave the answer yourself. The Sihalese Kingdom under Chola rule still was Buddhist, culturally Sinhalese, people spoke Sinhalese and were ethnically Sinhalese. If you want a more unambiguous source, try Ethnicity Versus Nationalism: The Devolution Discourse in Sri Lanka which on page 40 says: "Under Rajaraja the Great (983-1014) the Cholas consolidated their gains and brought the Sinhala kingdom under their direct control." So the Cholas directly controlled the Sinhala kingdom. If you disagree, provide reliable sources that states the opposite.
As for an "example of kingdom or monarchy that did not connect with culture, religion, language and ethnicity", easy: Great Britain in 1714 acquired the prince-elector of Hanover, George I of Great Britain, as its new monarch and didn't become culturally, linguistically or ethnically German; religiously it remained Anglican and didn't convert to the Lutheran branch of Christianity. The Romans are another great example; their empire contained many, many provinces that didn't adopt Latin and continued to follow their own religions. There also were various client kingdoms, for example Judaea under Herod, that were Roman suzerains but not formally annexed. Since you're bringing up Spain and Portugal, those two kingdoms for some time also were ruled by the same monarchs in a personal union until they broke apart again. No cultural or linguistic conversion took place. I could go on and on. Huon (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored some of my points and do counter logic for the rest. Anyway, do yo agree to add Portuguese in this list per your point? Do you deny tthe above reference that gave by you? It says "In 993 AD Cholas attacked the Sinhalese kingdom, because of its alliance with Pandyas and annexed it, as a province of the Chola Empire". Read Chola rule in Sri Lanka, Hindu influence. If you llike, I can give more sources in Tamil too. --AntanO 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
//The Sihalese Kingdom under Chola rule still was Buddhist, culturally Sinhalese, people spoke Sinhalese and were ethnically Sinhalese.// - I need reliable source for this. Do you know Hinduism was in Sri Lanka before Buddhism. Read HINDUISM IN SRI LANKA BTW, I am not Hindu to promote. --AntanO 02:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To solution[edit]

Here are points to solution.

  1. Move the page to List of monarchs of Sri Lanka and add all rulers and include all before Vijaya and Portuguese arrival.
  2. Keep the title as it and removed non-Sinhalese monarchy, those are highlighted in blue. Therefore I/we can create/expand List of monarchs of Sri Lanka.
  3. If not, I/we can create/expand List of monarchs of Sri Lanka and the list will rely with POV and other issues.

Any idea or beating around the bush or Circular reasoning? --AntanO 12:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Second option sounds good since current list seems focused on ethnically Sinhalese kings. --5anan27 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editors AntanO and 5anan27: what do you think about retitling this article to List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom? (See Sinhala Kingdom.) Is that an acceptable solution?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if we remove non-Sinhalese monarchy from the list. If so, I could start List of monarchs of Sri Lanka.--AntanO 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I literally wish to rename this title comprising Sri Lankan. If it is otherwise, please remove ethnically non - Sinhalese kings from this list. --5anan27 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist break[edit]

Please feel free to respond in the above sections; however, editors are asked to place new rationales that are after the third relist at 19:30 on 24 January 2018 (UTC), along with their choices to support or oppose this proposal, here in this subsection. A gentle reminder that page-move debates are not !votes, so the reason/argument/rationale you give for your decision is most important.
  • Comment. I'm going to go out on hopefully a fairly strong limb and participate in this debate. Since I am but a lowly page mover and not a community-vetted admin, I'm hopeful that editors won't have any problem with my doing so. My objective here is only to help in garnering consensus to agree on the best title for this "List of" article. Having said that...
  • Support renaming this article almost as proposed to List of monarchs of Sri Lanka, which was the title of this page for the first four years it was on Wikipedia. That's about eight months longer than the present title has been in place, and when that original title was changed in 2009 it became List of Sri Lankan monarchs for an additional five years (this is my close second choice for renaming, since Sri Lankan is a demonym for the people of Sri Lanka). So for nine years or so, this article's title contained "Sri Lanka" in one form or another. Since "Sri Lanka" appears to be more commonly recognized than "Sinhalese", I believe that my choice is supported by the community consensus at WP:COMMONNAME.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on SWR2.9's rationale below, List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom (see Sinhala Kingdom) is the title that I support most.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving the list of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom to the proposed inaccurate title, only satisfies the propaganda of some users who are working hard to achieve it here. Refer this example (taken from a book written by a Tamil author), it clealy states that the "Sinhala Kingdom was ruled by Tamil monarchs". (IMO the most accurate title that should be used for this list is List of monarchs of the Sinhalese Kingdom, to avoid a misleading title.) SWR2.9 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and since you are repeating this sentiment again, allow me to repeat mine. I think giving this article the more general title may open it up for additional monarchs. Throughout the history of the area, weren't there other monarchs who would not be thought of as Sinhalese? This article began as an informative piece on Sri Lankan monarchs. And it remained that way for nine years up until a little over three years ago. Why then are non-Sinhalese monarchs being excluded now? Who are the real bearers of propaganda, the inclusionists or the exclusionists?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Sri Lanka exist before 1972 ? Actually the title was corrected few years ago by a user who had a better understanding about the things. If you are going to open it up by giving a general title, then it should be an accurate one. I am afraid it is not the case with the proposed title. SWR2.9 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, History of Sri Lanka should start from 1972. Are you going to rename Prehistory of Sri Lanka since it says before 1972?--AntanO 20:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Sri Lanka under one name or another has existed for a long, long time. History of India tells history of the Indian subcontinent long before it was called "India". Such names are used merely because they are the names people know them by TODAY, not because the names themselves are prehistoric or even (in the case of Sri Lanka) historic in and of themselves. Obviously, some think that the present title is a corrected name for the article, and others think not. That is what we are trying to resolve so as to come to a consensus. The present title is not nearly as well known as the original title, and there seems to be plenty of dispute over whether or not it even applies to this entire article. Any and all confusion may be dispelled by returning the title to its more general, more commonly recognized original title, "List of monarchs of Sri Lanka" or its second title, "List of Sri Lankan monarchs". According to some here, "Sinhalese" does not accurately portray all the monarchs here; however "Sri Lankan" does accurately portray all the monarchs listed and then some. Why continue to confuse and confound readers of Wikipedia? That makes no sense – no sense at all.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like--AntanO 01:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @User: Paine Ellsworth:Renaming the list of monarchs of ancient Sinhala Kingdom by using the present country name of its' geographical area, is a violation of WP:SYNTH. At-least you don't have a clear majority consensus to overrule it here. SWR2.9 (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no violation of SYNTH nor anything else. If anything, it is a violation to name it an UNCOMMON name like "Sinhalese", a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. And a "clear majority" of supporters is not needed, because as I said, a "no consensus" decision should mean reverting back to either List of monarchs of Sri Lanka or List of Sri Lankan monarchs. "Sri Lanka" was a part of this article's title for nine years. The uncommon "Sinhalese" was a part of this title for a little over three years. So the "Sri Lankan" was much more stable than the "Sinhalese". It will therefore require a consensus to NOT MOVE in order to keep this article at its present title.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Paine Ellsworth. The scope of this article has changed as it has been expanded with more detailed content and historical accuracy. This article did not begin as an informative piece on Sri Lankan monarchs, quite the contrary in fact. Previously this article was just a list of all the somebodies who held some power in the history of Sri Lanka. It was a simple list, poorly written with no detail and the only criteria being they were recognised as holding some political power, to what ever degree, during this long history. It was so disorganised it grouped colonial European office holders with "Sri Lankan" (native, or what ever you want to call them) office holders. It grouped the "office" of Kings with the offices of Captains, Captain-majors, Governors, Governor-generals and Presidents, as well as foreign monarchs. Since then, as more detail has been added to this list, each of those offices have been spun off into its own and more detailed article. For example List of captain-majors of Portuguese Ceylon, List of governors of Dutch Ceylon, Governor-General of Ceylon etc. The Jaffna Kingdom has its own list of monarchs too. List of Jaffna monarchs, which is more organised and detailed than before. Non-Sinhalese monarchs are not being excluded, it just so happens that the Sinhalese monarchs have lasted the longest in power and were the last article to be spun off, which left this article to become the list of Sinhalese monarchs. With all these more detailed list of offices having their own article, why should we open this article up for additional monarchs? Is there no place for a list of monarch who reigned in the Sinhalese Kingdom?
    I think you have diverted from the scope of the debate a little bit here. The issue is here that some editors don't like the idea of Tamils who ruled the Sinhalese kingdom are being called a Sinhalese monarch. See the nominators rationale: How do they (Tamils) fit into "Sinhalese monarchs"? The fact of the matter is that there were times when foreigners did rule the Sinhalese kingdom. It does not mean that they became ethnically Sinhalese, it just means they were the monarch of the Sinhalese Kingdom. This has been addressed many times in this talk page and in the lead of the article. But these few editor refuse to accept the reality. --Blackknight12 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover if this request were to close on a no consensus and you move the title "List of monarchs of Sri Lanka", as you have said you would do, I think that would be doing this article a disservice, as we are just replacing one inaccuracy with another. And as I explained before the article List of Sri Lankan monarchs already exists. It explain that three lines of different monarchies have existed during the history of Sri Lanka. A Sri Lankan monarch could specifically refer to any one of those people who held the title of Sinhalese monarch, Jaffna monarch or the British Monarch from 1815. The article this list used to be is very different from what it is now, and just changing the name back to what it was before isnt taking into consideration the development that has been done in the mean time, in this article and related articles. This is now a list of monarch who reigned specifically in the Sinhalese Kingdom, and I ask once again is there no place for a list of monarch who reigned in the Sinhalese Kingdom?--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your descriptions are compelling; however, there must still be something left wanting for there to be so much disagreement with your position. Perhaps this means that it would be better to rename this article back to the most stable title that contains "Sri Lanka" in it. This will not be up to me at this point. Since I have decided to participate in this debate, it will be up to an "uninvolved" editor to close this discussion. In order to reach a consensus for the highest and best title for this article, I ask you to consider that perhaps the present name is inadequate and confusing – and renaming it to its most stable title with "Sri Lanka" in it may give editors a new starting point from which to either find a better title or keep the Sri Lanka title and improve the article under that title. If indeed some editors don't like the idea of Tamils who ruled the Sinhalese kingdom being called Sinhalese monarchs, then what should we do to make that better?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Frankly saying Sinhala Kingdom is a myth as you stated. The introduction part ending with Those highlighted in blue are illegitimate foreign monarchs is foremost questionable. If the "usurpers" from South India are illegitimate monarchs, how will become Prince Vijaya, the first king of Sinhala Kingdom, as well as a foreign prince, legitimate for Sinhala throne since he was a supplanter of Yakkha rule from Tambapanni?
While Chola kings invaded Sri Lanka, they made it separate province of Chola empire and called this island Mummuṭiccōḻamaṇṭalam. It never mentioned anywhere they stayed in Sri Lanka and ruled in accordance with the regulations of "Sinhala Kingdom".
Referring another wiki article, opponents state that there were three different royal lines in Sri Lanka - Jaffna, colonial and Sinhala and if we indicate Sinhala kingdom by the name Sri Lanka, it would be inaccurate. They unwittingly exposed here their actual purpose in this article. Apart from the rule of Kandy Nayaks, Sinhala Kingdoms continued during colonial rule are ethnically Sinhalese kingdoms. It evidently means that the previous kingdoms they talking about also were ethnically Sinhalese kingdoms. Then what is the use of the bold sentence in the article - It is not a list of ethnically Sinhalese monarchs? Again and again the unanswered question here is "How does non - ethnically Sinhalese monarchs fit within the scope of Sinhala Kingdom?"
As a Wikipedian, my final point here is history can't be misused. There was never ever a Sinhala Kingdom existed. If it was, there were ethnically Sinhala kingdoms and yes, they had a glorious past. There were no evidences to describe South Indian usurpers can be included here since they observed distinct rules and obligations of Sinhala Kingdom and Jaffna Kings should be excluded for the same. The opponents arguing for an ideal Sinhala monarchy still fail to provide acceptable references and lack clear explanations. Nothing proved historically. I second the relisting idea of replacing term Sinhala with Sri Lankan in the title. That is it. --5anan27 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If some users do not like the inclusion of non Sinhalese monarchs of the Sinhala kingdom in this list with the current title, then the best solution is moving this list to the more accurate List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, as I have mentioned earlier. No one can deny the existence of the ancient Sinhalese or Sinhala Kingdom and no one called the ancient Sinhala kingdom as the Sri Lankan kingdom. You can find many reliable sources which uses the name of Sinhala/Sinhalese kingdom if you search in Google books. Some examples are given below.
    SWR2.9 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom (see Sinhala Kingdom) is a more than good idea as a title for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: it should be mentioned that editor tahc also mentioned List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom as a suggested title early on in this debate. That may very well be the highest and best title for this article. The Tamil and other-ethnicity monarchs were not members of the group called Sinhalese people, so it is incorrect to call them "Sinhalese monarchs". Instead, they are "monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom".  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like SWR2.9 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a book says we cannot accept unless it is reliable source. Anyone who wanted to promote ideology can write a book. It does not mean that the book is Holy grail. Do you know Mahavamsa too questionable historic source since it as an "epic" and written by particular sect? Also, you have missed some of my points and never gave answers. If I say X is wrong, you come with Y. It is better analysis X then move on Y. --AntanO 23:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you refer books, I give you some examples: This book says Tamil kingdom existed on Sri Lanka. It says Ellalan tried to unite both ethnic people. this book says Tamil kingdom (NOT Sinhala Kingdom under his rule) existed by Ellalan.--AntanO 23:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask users who reject the rename, show me "valid references" that state non-Sinhalese ruled under Sinhalese monarchs/Sinhalese kingdom. --AntanO 00:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have already given a example from a reliable source (written by a Tamil author), for non Sinhalese monarchs of Sinhala kingdom in a previous comment. If you didn't see that follow these links.
ex1
ex2
SWR2.9 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have given link about Tamil kingdom. --AntanO 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non of the usurpers from South India managed to convert majority of the people lived Sinhalese kingdom to follow them or their religions and non of them ruled for so long. Anyone with common sense can understand that those few violent usurper monarch periods are not sufficient to call a Tamil kingdom . It is generally accepted that the list of monarchs given here ruled the kingdom known as Sinhalese or Sinhala Kingdom. SWR2.9 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that they managed to convert majority of the people and Tamil monarch periods are not sufficient. How goes your common sense fail to add Portuguese under Sinhalese monarch?--AntanO 01:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is the same reason why my self and many other users have opposed this proposed title. From 1505 onwards until 1815, both the Sinhala kingdom and part of the Portuguese, Dutch and British kingdoms existed on the geographical area currently belongs to Sri Lanka. In 1815 when finally Britishes manage to capture the city of Kandy, Sinhala Kingdom came to its end. For an example during the 17th and 18th centuries current capital of Sri Lanka, Colombo was not a part of Sinhala kingdom, but Kandy was. These kind of questions only stretches this discussion unnecessarily. Whether you or any other accounts that supports you like it or not, the Sinhala Kingdom existed and this list is about the rulers of that kingdom. SWR2.9 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No answer to my question? If Portuguese ruled Sinhala Kingdom, why can't you add them? --AntanO 23:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to reiterate this ? Portuguese never ruled the Sinhala kingdom, they captured coastal areas of Ceylon that were earlier belonged to the Sinhala and Jaffna kingdoms and controlled those areas as part of their own kingdom until 1658. They never managed to overthrow the presiding monarch of Kandyan kingdom and the Sinhalese kingdom never ended due to their invasion of coastal areas. SWR2.9 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This would appear to be what the page now is. List of Sri Lankan monarchs or List of rulers on Sri Lanka might avoid the question whether all of these kings ruled the whole island. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If new proposal of put'r there, I cannot support. It is another version, not solution. --AntanO 03:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do agree that List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom is a better alternative than list of Sri Lankan monarchs or List of monarchs of Sri Lanka. It is the best second choice. I still think the current name is the best. There have been many instances of when the monarch has been of different ethnicity to that of monarchy that he/she has held, yet continues to be the of that monarchy. It is a common occurrence and should not be an exception here. The British monarchs have English, Scottish and German Ethnicities, the current Swedish monarchs are of French ethnicity, the Spanish monarchs have been predominantly German/Austrian and French ethnicity and the Portuguese monarchs have also had German/Austrian ethnicity, yet all are recognised by the office they hold not the ethnicity or country they were born in.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though the current title is much more accurate than the proposed title (which is not compatible with SYNTH imo), List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom seems to be the most accurate one. SWR2.9 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while there is still some resistance to tahc's and SWR2.9's proposal of List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, it seems to be the title that most accurately depicts the list of monarchs in this article. And again, calling non-Sinhalese rulers "Sinhalese monarchs" is the fly in the ointment that started this controversial move request in the first place.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, non-Sinhalese or especially Tamil monarch or Tamil kings should not have any business in this list. Does anyone want to forcibly baptize? --AntanO 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if some editors dont really care for, and have ignored, the points that have been presented here and are just single-mindedly intent on removing Tamils from this list. Even if it means they are historically recognised to be a legitimate part of this list, these editors are much happier to distort the list than to group Tamils with Sinhalese. What a shame.--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is something that I have not understood from the beginning. I don't understand how editors could argue that the Tamil rulers of the kingdom are not "Sinhalese", and yet they reject calling them rulers of the Sinhala Kingdom. They don't seem to understand the need for compromise when editors are seeking consensus/agreement. Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions, which just means that one or two editors with their own agenda who do not strive for community consensus will seldom if ever get what they want. And if they do manage to change things, those things are just changed to something else before long. Editors are compelled on Wikipedia to work (work hard sometimes) together toward finding the highest and best article titles, even for list pages.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame to include Tamils into your ideology! How could I say it? Single-minded? I have given reference that says them as ruler of Tamil kingdom. Sinhala Kingdom is ideology of collection of epochs. I have given more links and explanation, but you ignore all and come to say XYZ logic. When reference refer them as Tamil kingdom, you add them into Sinhala Kingdom. Isn't shame? Why your logic failed in European rulers? Didn't they ruled Sinhala Kingdom as invaders like Tamil did? Answer to this question and move for next question. --AntanO 02:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose we will have to let the closer decide. The next proposed title, List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, does not refer to the Tamil rulers nor other monarchs of other backgrounds as "Sinhalese". That proposed title refers to the Tamils and others as "monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom". And this list article shows that the Sinhala kingdom was ruled by the Sinhalese, by Tamils, and by others during its existence as the Sinhala Kingdom. These facts have been presented here and have also been disputed. I see nothing wrong in noting disputed facts in the lead of this article as long as both sides of the dispute are solidly represented by reliable secondary sources. However, that is outside the venue of this requested move debate. What you need to try to understand is that this debate is ONLY over what should be the highest and best title for this list article as it is now. So please consider that List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom is a much better title than it has now, and might even be better than stepping back into the past to use one of the old Sri Lankan titles. It seems to me that if any modern Tamil person were to learn that the Tamil people produced monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom on what is now Sri Lanka, why wouldn't they feel personal high esteem and respect for that?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you see better title, this will be fine and no need for move. But the title change is proposed with POV issue. I request to see under "To Solution". If you all are not ready to move the page as per my proposal, let it as it. However, POV issues will remain. I will start "List of monarchs of Sri Lanka" to include all rullers. BTW, I don't have any idea of how Tamils feels. Maybe, a Tamil could answer. --AntanO 04:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I read your POV issue incorrectly? Your questions in this RM were:
Why does this list of Sinhalese monarchs include Tamil kings? How do they (Tamils) fit into "Sinhalese monarchs"?
My answers are that the Tamils were not "Sinhalese people", therefore it is incorrect to call them "Sinhalese monarchs". However, this list includes the Tamils because they were rulers of the kingdom, of the "Sinhala Kingdom". That is how they "fit in" to the list. They ruled the land, and the land was then called the Sinhala Kingdom. What I saw as misrepresented was that the Tamils were not Sinhalese. Isn't that what you meant?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil ruled the land under their monarch. As per your explanation, why can't you add European rulers? And, Sinhala Kingdom is an ideology and it developed by some authors. Before Sinhalese, there were people in this island, and the ruling power changed time to time. I don't know how much you aware of Sri Lankan history and manipulation. But, I have much aware and I don't belong to these ethnic community and I am free to express my concern than others. --AntanO 01:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a complicated situation and I'm no expert on Sri Lanka. The key here I think is using reliable sources to unravel the knots. If and when those reliable sources are in conflict, then that can be noted in the lead-in for this list. If List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom is not the highest and best title for this list, then it is hopefully at the least a step forward, and better than stepping backward to the outdated "Sri Lankan" titles. If we can close this debate with a consensus to retitle to that name, then editors can work with that title in improving this list. The situation can then be revisited in six months or a year. To your way of thinking, is that at least an acceptable outcome for the moment?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not complicated, but imo some users are deliberately trying to make it complicated by trying to push their agenda here. No one needs to add European rulers to this list as Sinhala Kingdom independently existed separately on a part of a present day Sri Lanka, while colonial rulers controlled the other areas of the island until 1815. See History of British Ceylon. SWR2.9 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If others have agenda, what is your agenda? I repeat; if Portuguese ruled Sinhala Kingdom, why can't you add them in this list? Just give straight answer to my question. --AntanO 23:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any agenda here, I am just trying to get the correct title for this list as a Sri Lankan wikipedian. And more importantly I am not afraid to hide my nationality here. fyi, Portuguese never ruled the Sinhala kingdom rather than invading coastal parts of it, and controlling those areas for around 150 years. So there is absolutely no requirement to add their names to this list as monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom. See Portuguese Ceylon for more information. SWR2.9 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your agenda question is for another editor, allow me to answer your other question. In the third paragraph of the lead it is explained:
During the two millennia in which the Kingdom existed, other political entities also existed on the island, including the Jaffna Kingdom,[9] Vanni chieftaincies and the Portuguese and Dutch colonies.[10] However, these political entities were not part of the Sinhala Kingdom.
Along with that are two reference citations, 9 and 10, to support the statements. If you know of reliable sources that dispute these "facts", then they can be added into the paragraph to support that aspect of history.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed those references failed to cite statements, but (only refer) Jaffna Kingdom and other rulers? Also, there is no citations for However, these political entities were not part of the Sinhala Kingdom. (I added {{cn}} now) Therefore, I ask anyone to clarify how does this list include and exclude some rulers. What are the criteria? --AntanO 03:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope if anyone list criteria without too many rationalization/justification, we could easily move for solution. --AntanO 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns about this list are noted and notable. All we are trying to do in this debate is choose a title for this list. As involved and concerned editors, we must try to form a consensus for a better name for this list. When we settle the list-title issue, then other concerns about content can be addressed separately. I hope we can stay focused on the list-title issue.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sri Lankan monarchs would be meaningful, and already I have told why. Another suggestion; List of Sinhalese monarchs & Tamil monarchs in Sri Lanka. --AntanO 01:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about non-Sinhalese who were also non-Tamil monarchs? They were all monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, but they weren't all Sinhalese people nor Tamil people, so it seems the best title is still List of monarchs of the Sinhala Kingdom, isn't it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sri Lankan monarchs is right. Already I have given reason. Do not force something like Sinhala Only Act. --AntanO 19:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't necessarily Sri Lankan, either, and the scope of this article seems to go beyond just the culture and people of Sri Lanka, doesn't it? It seems that you not only contest the inclusion of Tamil monarchs, you also contest calling the area the Sinhala Kingdom during the date range given in this list article. When do you think the Sinhala Kingdom existed? or don't you think it existed at all?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why some are not included in this list?[edit]

I am adding few refs explaining why several political entities such as rulers of Jaffna Kingdom are not considered as a part of the Sri Lankan/Sinhalese monarch.L Manju (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srimal Ranawella, a Professor of history submitting papers at the Sansoni Commission has made the following statement on the Jaffna Kingdom "It appears that taking the advantage of the political disturbances, caused by the invasion of Magha of Kalinga, some of the local leaders, both Sinhala and Tamil living in the Jaffna peninsula and its outskirts and some South Indian political adventurers who came fishing in troubled waters forcibly began to rule in their respective areas and refused to acknowledge the authority of the kings of Dambadeniya and the Gampola kingdoms. In the same way Aryachkravartis of Jaffna also seems to have refused to acknowledge the authority of the Sinhala kings and began to rule as rebel kings. These self-appointed local rulers are referred to as Vannin (Vanniyars) in the Culavamsa and in the Pujavaliya" - Reference: Dias, M.; Koralage, S.B.; Asanga, K. (2016). The archaeological heritage of Jaffna peninsula. Colombo: Department of Archaeology (Sri Lanka). p.183.

Through the YVM claims the existence of the kingdom in the Jaffna peninsula in the North, the Sinhalese Overlords considered it to be a rebel state that refused to honour the levies and the Arya Cakravartis of Jaffna as recusants. This has been stated by Srimal Ranawella, a Professor of History when giving evidence at the Sansoni Commission (Op. Cit.). Most of the Sinhala kings reigning from Dambadeniya, Yapahuwa, Kurunegala and Gampola were weak rulers but they claimed that they were, Trisimhaladhishvaras or the lords of the three Sinhalese (the three territories of Ruhunu, Maya and Pihiti) though they could not have the full authority over the whole island. But it has been accepted internationally, that kings of the three Sinhalese were the kings of the whole island, for Ibn Batuta, calls the Sinhala king, the emperor and the Arya Cakravarti, the Sultan (Ibn Batuta:217 and 219). This narration can be compared to some extent with the evidence found in a few inscriptions that have been discovered so far relating to the period of Arya Cakravartis of Jaffna - Reference: Dias, M.; Koralage, S.B.; Asanga, K. (2016). The archaeological heritage of Jaffna peninsula. Colombo: Department of Archaeology (Sri Lank). p.186. here YVM denotes Yalpanavaipavamalai(a book written in 1736 and shaped 19th century)

The theory of kingship appears to have been the same during during the Dambadeni as it was in the Polonnaru period, but the regal titles became more and more magniloquent with the diminishing of the actual power wielded by the rulers. The title Trisimhaladhisvara (the Supreme Overlord of the Three Simhalas) was borne by Parakramabahu II, and Navaratnadhipati (Lord of Nine Treasures) is first met with as a title of Parakramabahu IV. The use of the title Trisimhaladhisvara by the kings of Dambadeni and later periods indicates that through their effective authority did not extend to some parts of Ceylon, for example, Jaffna, they claimed to be rulers of the whole island, The Arya Cakravartis would accordingly have been considered as rebels who did not obey their lawful overlords. This position seems to have been admitted internationally, for Ibn Batuta, while referring to the Arya Cakravarti as Sultan of Ceylon, calls the potenate as Konakar the emperor [(sultan-ul-kabir) Ibn B.., pp. 217 and 219] - Reference : University of Ceylon, History of Ceylon: Volume I (From the earliest time to 1505): Part II (From the Cola conquest in 1017 to the arrival of the Portuguese in 1505). Ray, H.C.(Editor in chief); Attygalle, N. (Chairman); Labrooy, W.J.F.; Natesan, S.; Nicholas, C.W.; Paranavitana, S. (1960). Ceylon University Press. Colombo. p.726

It is List of Sri Lankan monarchs, not Sinhalese monarch. --AntanO 18:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that founded by you or scholars--L Manju (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref. I think it is unnecessary to convince that these political entities were not part of the country's royal monarch--L Manju (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A noteworthy point in the Madavala inscription is that Marttandam, the Arya-cakravarti is referred to as a perumal only, while Vikramabahu is styled cakravartti-swamin. This indicate that the Arya-cakravarti, through he was powerful enough to dictate terms to the Gampola monarch, had not assumed regal titles. The de jure right of Vikramabahu to the sovereignty over the whole island is recognized by the treaty.- Reference : Paranavithana, S. 1961. The Arya Kingdom in North Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.p.213

You can read the title and know. --AntanO 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

title[edit]

I know there was big debates on the title. But the current title is really not fitting. A list of Sri Lankan monarchs should included the Jaffna Kingdom. Also the text in the main body and info box refers to 'Sinhala kingdoms', so there is a mismatch between the text and title. The other alternative is to rename this to 'Monarchs of the Sinhala kingdoms'. This is also anachronistic to some degree, as we do not know if all the kingdoms in the early historic period referred to themselves as such. It is also not universally accepted that there was only one Sinhala kingdom in the centuries BCE. The earliest inscriptions show evidence of several regional rulers taking the title raja. However, what united them was state support to Buddhism and other symbols of traditional 'Sinhala' kingship. Again this is a later construct that historians have created to organise the past royalties on the island. We also do not know for sure when the word Sinhala was first used to describe a kingdom (Ashoka refers to Tambapanni). One could argue that Elara or Sena and Guttaka, although Tamils, ruled the same basic administrative structures as their Sinhala counterparts (and even supported Buddhism), and therefore could be included under monarchs of a Sinhala kingdom. I personally think that 'List of Sri Lankan monarchs' which includes all the monarchs is the best and most objective choice, fitting for an encyclopaedia, as it avoids these controversies. But this article would then need to be rewritten to reflect this, with a lead mentioning the main 'Sinhala' kingdoms and the Jaffna kingdom, and perhaps even the European empires rule. This would give us a more comprehensive article with all the documented rulers throughout history.Metta79 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Sri_Lankan_monarchs&oldid=1212533011"