Talk:Alagakkonara

specifically under the Tamil version of the name. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed nonsense from the article

Wikipedia is not some playground people can try to spread blatant propoganda. This article contained so many factual inaccuracies, intended to shore up racist Tamil myths, it's just ridiculous.

For example I just removed this sentence

By 1390's he also drove out the tax collectors and attacked the encampments of soldiers from Jaffna kingdom in Chilaw and Negombo. Although most Sinhalese sources mention that he was able to defeat the invaders, there is a conflicting epigraph by the Kings of Jaffna known as the Kotagama inscription detailing how the King of Jaffna had prevailed.

My opinion, people who introduce such ridiculous errors into articles shouldn't be allowed to edit similar articles. But anyway, history lesson:

The Cakravarti invaded Gampala and left the inscription at Kotagama during the time of Parakramabahu V, around the 1350s. (Parakramabahu's term ended in 1359). Inscriptions dating to the 3rd year of Vickramabahu III (who was crowned in 1357, and ruled concurrently with Parakramabahu's last 3-4 years) stated that the northern kings had stationed tax collectors in his kingdom. Alakeshwara subsequently built the fort in Kotte, kicked out the tax collecters, and defeated the first Chakravarti invasion in the 12th year of Vickramabahu (1369). Okay?

I've found a slew of such articles with the same nonsense POV, which I'll start going theought when I get the time. First up would be stuff like Jaffna Kingdom (lol), Arya Chakravarti etc. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fist by calling my edits that had citations nonsence you have yet again breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and assuming that my edit was in bad faith you have breached WP:AGF. You have confused number of inscriptions here. I know it is difficult to be focussed with exams an all. What you are discussing here is Medawala inscriptions that has an absolute date assigned to it. But unfortunately Kotagama inscriptions dont have a time frame to it. Hence what you have prefered to leave here is one version of interpretive history by some historians (even de Silva is not sure about the inscriptions date). As Kotagama inscriptions does not have a date so we have go by the letters and language used. According Bell and Rasanayagam it is a very late not medival langauge hence it has assigned to the 15th century not to your 1350's. Hence using WP:NPOV we have to leave both the versions in the article. I also have to say that articles on Kotte kingdom, Gampola kingdom, Sitawaka kingdom all are sorely missing. May be I should start them too ? Yes thanks for your support in developing the Aryacakravarti article after all it is under construction. Also thanks for the lesson in in-civility.Taprobanus (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cakravarti invaded Gampala and left the inscription at Kotagama during the time of Parakramabahu V, around the 1350s. (Parakramabahu's term ended in 1359). who says that and under what circumstances ? If you have RS sources back up your claim then we can include that information to update the entry in this article as well as the Kotagama article so that it is NPOVED.

Alakeshwara subsequently built the fort in Kotte, kicked out the tax collecters, and defeated the first Chakravarti invasion in the 12th year of Vickramabahu (1369). who says that because I have citations that says the invasion did not take place untill 1391 hence the late language of Kotagama inscriptions fit that date. Again if you have RS sources we can include both versions and the fact about confusion about the date as well. Wikipedia is about writing all facts properly attributed not just one fact that fits one own ethnic version of history Taprobanus (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alagakkonara. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106124243/http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/11/05/fea01.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/11/05/fea01.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)