Talk:Rajarata

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I believe this article is a hoax and have nominated it for deletion here.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You believe ? What do you say about the page you create ( Rajarata )

Rajarata (Raja = king, rata = country, or preferably land, thus the Land of Kings) is the name given to the region of

Roman Empire was divided into Western Roman empire , Eastern Roman empire. Who cares about divisions. still all of the names are used.

This is what I get from the Roman empire wiki page about duration of the empire:

27 BC–476 AD (West);

1453 (East)

I think since you live in western country you should correct it before raising concerns why Sri Lanka use several names.

Revering your bias edit--Himesh84 (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check your facts please. I did not create the Rajarata article. It was created by Sri Lankan (Sinhalese) editors long before I joined Wikipedia.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse for may bad English. Please check your edits. You are the one who made it as a single kingdom combining Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&diff=497921759&oldid=497920989

Also please refer this edit by you. What have you wrote on that edit ? You say it is a kingdom not an area. If it is area no needs to mentioned about kings. kingdoms doesn't lasted for ever but areas does. Rajarata area was lasted until sri lanka made districts. So why it is ended in 13th century in your version ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&diff=521390189&oldid=520734383--Himesh84 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the

RS to verfiy your additions have confirmed this. This article is, at best, wishful thinking on your part, or, at worst, a complete hoax.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Himesh84, please don't remove the hoax tag until all the issues have been addressed. And don't remove the AfD tag until the discussion is closed.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided lot of references in the AFD page. Please find it there rather looking it in the talk page.

http://www.island.lk/2002/01/27/featur01.html

http://www.island.lk/2010/05/11/news29.html

http://www.island.lk/2003/02/22/satmag04.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/10/13/artscop12.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/07/16/fea03.asp

You can find lot of books in here

https://www.google.com/search?q=mahawamsa+rajarata+king&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=rajarata+%2B+kingdom&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=WgKmUNnBEOaLjAKAs4HQBQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=f316b7445f503d95&bpcl=38625945&biw=1356&bih=583

Kind request to Obi2canibe

I haven't say it was latest 18 centuries. Anyway if it is not true please correct it rather asking to delete the page.--Himesh84 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kingdom of Rajarata is the name given to the kingdom that ruled the Sri Lanka from northern part of Sri Lanka from approximately the 5th Century BCE to the early 13th Century CE." Isn't that 18 centuries?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. it is not 18 centuries. I will provide sources for 5th century of BCE and 13th century. But not for 18 centuries. It is only your mental projection. I know if it directly said that whole Sri Lanka was ruled by Sinhalese from northern part of Sri Lanka under kingdom of Rajarata for 18 centuries or approximately 2000 years it will conflicted and destroy all the logic of Ealam separatist who claiming the northern heritage of Sri Lanka. I will leave it readers to think --Himesh84 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of

Funny. Thousands of references have given to prove there was a kingdom called "Rajarata".

http://www.island.lk/2002/01/27/featur01.html

http://www.island.lk/2010/05/11/news29.html

http://www.island.lk/2003/02/22/satmag04.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/10/13/artscop12.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/07/16/fea03.asp

How long it was lasted is a minor fact. You better for politics. You are not an expert on this. Please let expert to comment instead of showing your opinion. This is not the only place. Look Roman empire, Western Roman empire , Eastern Roman empire. According to your logic either Roman empire or (Eastern+ Western) can be presented after Constantine.

Also Chola occupation of Sri Lanka is not consider as a kingdom. It is a forceful rule. Kingdom is a broader concept with harmony and acceptance. Also Chola occupation didn't changed the royal blood line. --Himesh84 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of references"?! And none which verify that this kingdom lasted 18 centuries. This isn't a minor fact. It is the crux of argument. The fact that you cannot proof that this kingdom lasted 18 centuries supports my belief that when your thousands of references talk about "Kingdom of Rajarata" they are in fact referring to Anuradhapura Kingdom or Kingdom of Polonnaruwa etc.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are out side of SL context. It is not or. It is and. Anuradhapura + polonnaruwa. --Himesh84 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obi2canibe asked references for start of kingdom (5th BCE), end of kingdom(13th century of BCE). references for capitals (tambapanni,upatissa nuwara,Anuradhapura,...). Those are provided but Qworty has removed references and make citations required tags again for the references he deleted. Vijaya ruled for 38 years (543-505 B.C) - http://www.sundaytimes.lk/040725/funday/2.html This was around 1255 - http://www.island.lk/2002/01/27/featur01.html Tambapanni, Upatissa Nuwara,Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa - http://www.sundaytimes.lk/040725/funday/2.html,http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/10/13/artscop12.html. Also I have provided references for requested cites by obi2canibe. Qworty has no right to delete references and make citation required tags unless he can read mind of obi2canibe--Himesh84 03:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Qworty with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, DVdm (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read the revision in question? Qworty noted that the references do not support claims made in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read. It was plain citation required citation without any reason. He should add a reason. I referenced to what obi2canibe has been raised. Not what's on mind of this user. You should ask how Qworty read the mind of obi2canibe. Qworty should not delete references asked by someone else.

What obi2canibe asked was give citations for start of kingdom (5th BCE), end of kingdom(13th century of BCE). references for capitals (tambapanni,upatissa nuwara,Anuradhapura,...). Those are provided but Qworty has removed references and make citations again without specifying the reason. --Himesh84 14:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• So you didn't read the revision, because it says: "reason=Neither of the two given refs state that this kingdom lasted for 18 centuries". (I don't know about the removal of the rest of the references. You should ask Qworty - and this time without vandalizing his talk page and accusing him of vandalism.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have I said it lasted for 18 centuries ? I can't find such a sentence in my edit. I have referenced to what I have told. Not somethings derivative or projected or something in someones mind--Himesh84 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • From 5th century BCE to 13th cenury CE. That's 18 centuries. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good you showed that. But when reference saying it is from 5th century BCE to 13th century how long references are describing? --Himesh84 15:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The problem is exactly that the references don't support the claim. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • How long claim says and how long references saying ? --Himesh84 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You are currently engaged in a

• I recently find that you don't act as an administrator. You biased to some users. Why don't you at least see the talk page or why don't you asked it from Qworty ? I checked Qworty's page and find that you haven't left any message for him. Actually I am in the talk page and he is not. But biasly you have message me and not the who don't in the talk page. Who give you administrator post ?--Himesh84 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)