 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
WHY ?? edit
Why is it dubious?? Did you find anything wrong after reading it ? If so,could you please show us ?Iwazaki 会話。討論 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It is dubious because it presents a very one sided account of standardisation. It claims essentially that Tamil people were not disadvantaged by standardisation which is plainly false.[1] Many Tamil students received scholarships to study abroad but couldn't even get a place at Sri Lankan universities. Particularly problematic is the sentence 'When the policy was implemented, the urban Sinhalese population had reconciled themselves to the fact that the position of privilege they had enjoyed under the British would not last forever, and the situation had to stabilize at the population level.[2] However Tamils saw the policy along communal terms, and strongly opposed the move.[2] This implies two things, firstly that Tamils predominance in education was purely the result of colonial policy which is somewhat dubious. Secondly that Sinhalese elites lost out as significantly from standardisation as Tamils which is patently not true.[2] Furthermore the article fails to place standardisation within the context of wider discrimination against Tamils, including the delegitimisation of Tamil as a national language and the wider politics of ethnic outbidding.[3] Given that standardisation is widely considered a precursor to the Tamil independence movement, for which much blood has been shed at Sinhalese hands, particularly in 1983 this article which portrays Sri Lankan Tamils as colonial stooges who were simply reluctant to surrender their imperial privilege is deeply offensive and biased.
References
- ^ DeVotta, Neil (2004). Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford, California: Stanford. p. 82.
- ^ Devotta. pp. p85.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help); Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ Devotta. pp. 2–21.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
Tags edit
Only one citation is used to make almost all the claims made in this article and gives undue weight to one author who only represent on side of the story. In addition, many claim that are cited by the reference are in fact not backed by the reference and some claims are clearly WP:OR. So I dispute the article's neutrality and factuality. Watchdogb (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to see the other (Sinhalese) side of the story given equal representation, you're welcome to look up your own sources. Personally, I think this issue is cut and dried: i.e. it's a matter of blatantly giving certain people preferential treatment on the basis of race alone at the expense of better-qualified people who happen to be part of a different race, in order to pander to the former's political constituency and promote "equality" to the detriment of the overall quality of education. I am removing the neutrality tag, but keeping the factuality tag to reflect the possibly unverified claims. -- An American ultranationalist 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As you requested , I have presented Sinhalese side by a documentation. It is published on worldbank.org ( The World Bank site)
- clearly this page is biased. The act was presented by 2 bills. in 1971 and 1972. Both of them had reasons. But current article doesn't say correct thing about the bill. Bill was introduced in 1971. Also this article says who lost oppotunities but not talking about who get those opportunities. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Use of racist language edit
I am removing the observation on the assumed intelligence of Sinhalese as I believe that it is racist. Watson Ladd (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)