Talk:Dutch Ceylon

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timbouctou: Dear friend, I suggest Dutch Governorate of Ceylon (as in Governorate of Ambon, Governorate of the Banda Islands) which I believe as more accurate, due to several reasons.

1. It was not a new colony founded by the Dutch explorers.
2. Dutch territory was consisted of three commanderies; Colombo, Jaffna and Galle. They failed bring whole island under their control.
3. Kandyan king was the de jure ruler of the island. Dutch held Colombo and Galle in payment of debt, Jaffna under the right of conquest and eastern forts ″to protect the Kandyan king″.
4. Dutch judicial powers were not enacted by a legislative authority, neither from the dutch mainland nor Batavia.

I know it seems just a minor change to an outsider but I'm trying to look at it from a point of view of a Sri Lankan history student who might see a huge difference.

I would like to know your thoughts.

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for the move is motivated purely by practicality. The term "Dutch Ceylon" is commonly used in sources to refer to the territory and period governed by entities (governorates) subordinated to the Dutch East India Company during their existence (from the 17th up to the late 18th century). It does not imply anything more than that. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timbouctou: I see your point, and I agree with you. I changed my mind. We can elaborate the limitations in the lead or in a relevant section to prevent misunderstandings. Thanks for your input. Nishadhi (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, everything you mentioned above can be further elaborated in article body. This is just about choosing the most convenient title for the topic. Timbouctou (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. By the way, why is there more at this article about the Portuguese than at Portuguese Ceylon? —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: I'm currently researching on the topic. Hopefully by June I would be able to expand Portuguese Ceylon. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a major clean up and addition of sources.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation Just an observation Dutch Governorate of Ceylon does seem to be more common than Dutch Ceylon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search of the phrase "Dutch Governorate of Ceylon" yields 0 results, "Governorate of Ceylon" also gets 0 results and "Ceylon Governorate" as well. On the other hand, "Dutch Ceylon" gets 2,870 hits. Timbouctou (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as per nom plus it would be consistent with similar articles (Portuguese Ceylon, British Ceylon, Dutch East Indies, Dutch Cape Colony).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. "period in" conveys no useful information. Dutch Ceylon seems fine. Dutch Ceylon (1640 - 1796) would be preferable to the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2014 (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.