Talk:Kandarodai

Etymology

The current version says that The Sinhalese name Kadurugoḍa is thought to have been derived from Kadiragoda, substituting the Tamil suffix malai with the Sinhalese suffix goḍa, both denoting the meaning of mountain. In Tamil the word malai means the mountain but in Sinhalese it normally means the mound or heap. The second dubious thing is that it says The name Kadiragoḍa is mentioned in the 15th century Sinhalese text Nampota. But in the Nampota under the section Demala Pattanama the vihara name is mentioned as Kadurugoda viharaya not as Kadiragoda. However these both statements have been given with following references

• Asia, International Association of Historians of (1988). Eleventh IAHA Conference: International Association of Historians of Asia, Colombo, 1-5 August 1988. The Association. p. 45,46
• Rasanayagam, C.; Rasanayagam, Mudaliyar C. (1993). Ancient Jaffna: Being a Research Into the History of Jaffna from Very Early Times to the Portuguese Period. Asian Educational Services. p. 59. ISBN 9788120602106.

Now I have a clear dubious situation regarding reliability of aforesaid references.--L Manju (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi L Manju. Could you provide sources supporting your statements regarding the term goda and also Nampota. I also suggest you to read the policies behind the tags that you put on most of the articles. According to WP:DUBIOUS should it be discussed on the talk page before putting on the tags. Just a little reminder for next time. Xenani (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xenani, Thanks for your comment. After putting the tags I started the discussion immediately. However the started discussion was already in the talk page when you removed the DUBIOUS tags again. Is that a Wikipedia policy?

• For the Sinhalese mean for Goda - few Sinhala dictionary results (Sinhala Shabdakosha Karyalaya, Madura online

අ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] පොළෝ තලයේ දියෙන් යට නොවූ බිම; ගොඩබිම. ආ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] වළකින් පිට ඇති බිම; ගොඩැලි බිම් පෙදෙස. ඇ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] වෙරළ හා සම්බන්ධ බිම් පෙදෙස; ඉවුර. ඈ. (කථා.) [නා.ප්‍ර.] ජලයේ නොගැඹුරු පෙදෙස. ඉ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] ගමකට අයත් කුඩා පෙදෙස. ඊ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] නගරයට ඈත ප්‍රදේශය; පිටිසර බද පෙදෙස; නොදියුණු පෙදෙස. උ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] මඩ රහිත භූමිය; ජලාශ්‍රිත නොවූ බිම. ඌ. [නා.ප්‍ර.] එක්තැන් කළ සමූහය; රාශිය. අ. [වි.] ගැමි පරිසරයට අයත්; පිටිසර බද. ආ. (කථා.) [වි.] නියමිත ක්‍රමයක් නැති; ශාස්ත්‍රානුකූල නොවන.)

According to the government given dictionary (Sinhala Dictionary Office) results the word Goda doesn't mean the mountain.

• The Nampota under the section Demala Pattanama the vihara name is mentioned as Kadurugoda viharaya not as Kadiragoda- For the original name read its primary resource (Nampota-නම් පොත හෙවත් විහාර අස්න) It clearly says the name Kadurugoda viharaya. There is no name called Kadiragoda. Few secondary references are given below -
  • Paul E. Pieris (1917). Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic society. p. 13 (quote- This contain a section which begins: In the Demala Pattanama, which is of course, Jaffnapatam. It continues as follows, Naga Kovila, Kadurugoda Viharaya, Telipola, Mallagama...)
  • C.E. Godakumbura (1968). Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic society. p. 70 (quote- With this information before us, there is no difficulty now in identifying the Nagakovila and the Kadurugodaviharaya of the Demalapattanama in the Sinhalese Nampota)
  • Koḷamba Taruṇa Bauddha Saṅgamaya (1971). The Buddhist, Volume 42, Issue 1. p. 10. (quote- This site at which more than 15 small dagobas have been already exposed, is being identified as the ancient Kadurugoda vihara mentioned in the Nampota.)

The name Kadiragoda is not mentioned in the Nampota. It is Kadurugoda viharaya--L Manju (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi L Manju. The WP:DUBIOUS says under "Disputed statement" that the problem should be discussed in the talk page before adding the tag, so it didn't seem constructive when you reverted my removal. You could have put it after we had discussed and didn't find consensus at least. When it comes to the word goda, it seems that you are right and I will make an edit on it. Secondly the Nampota part is indeed confusing. Both references mentioned it as Kadiragoda and the second source is pretty reliable. However your sources mention it as Kadurugoda Viharaya. I will make a note on it on the article. Xenani (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Xenani, Sources are not always correct. The primary reference (Nampota) doesn't say the name Kadiragoda. It i definitely mention the name Kadurugoda viharaya. Didn't you read the Nampotha ref I provided. We can not change the things in the primary source.--L Manju (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Accordig to the page caption of the second source, it says .....modern Kandarodai, a name which he surmises, was originally (Tamil) Kadiramalai, later transformed by the Sinhalee in to Kadiragoda, from which the modern Tamil name is re-derived.... It is seemed that this source has cited someones view/suggestion than making an original statement (a name which he surmises, was originally (Tamil) Kadiramalai). Now the question is who is that person has been denoted here by he?--L Manju (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi L Manju. Yes you are right, the source refer to a statement made by C. Rasanayagam. I think it is safer to just write that Rasanayagam derives the word Kadurugoda from Kadiramalai instead. Xenani (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dubious facts

This is the statement - "Researchers have a favourable opinion that Kantharodai was the capital of the Jaffna kings of the Naga lineage". I have following questions. 1) What is the so called Naga lineage of Jaffna Kings? 2) What are the historical references giving information about these Jaffna Kings? 3) Please give clear archaeological evidences (such as inscriptions, building ruins of the royal capital of Kantharodai of these Naga lineage Kings, reliable literary sources). And also please give some research articles elaborating about this Kantharodai-the capital of the Jaffna kings of the Naga lineage (hope you will provide the complete research articles (not trivial parts) published by mainstream archaeologists or historians) --L Manju (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi L Manju. I have not all answers you are asking as I am not a scholar, I am also not obliged to provide all these information that you asked such as inscription, research articles etc. I only added what the scholar M.D. Raghavan says in his book at page 89,

"Researches on the probable capital of the Naga line of kings of Jaffna, favour the present village of Kantharodai as the site of the Naga capital of Jaffna.".

And before you add a template such as you did here, , please understand that using such templates should be done only if there are some obvious unsourced content or content not supported by the sources, don't use such templates because one or two sentences you are disagreeing with exists. Instead start a discussion here, and if no conclusion or consensus are reached, then add such templates. Thanks. Xenani (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Xenani, As I thought you have tried to escape from the matter. This article contains lot of controversial information including you cited that hypothesis facts. Just depending on one scholar's or author's assumption published in some book we can not put here as real facts. Tagging is justified as "there are some obvious unsourced content or content not supported by the sources". I don't know why you didn't see them. Also it is not necessary to put tags after discussions. I tagged it again.--L Manju (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@L Manju: Here in Wikipedia books count as WP:RS, not inscriptions or ruins. The question we need to answer is whether M.D. Raghavan is reliable or not.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Here I have asked the academic articles depending on archaeological evidences. This is not merely about M.D. Raghavan or ruins. Why it is difficult to provide comprehensive citations/references than trying to escape from the issue?--L Manju (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

M.D. Raghavan is an academic scholar specialized in ethnology, thus he is reliable.

Also, I remove the template put up by L Manju as almost all sources used are reliable. Xenani (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes Xenani I remember that you had added fake citations as reliable sources in several articles such as here--L Manju (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@L Manju: Are you saying that M. D. Raghavan is unreliable or the contents added by Xenani aren't in the source? If it's the former, I think you are are wrong. He has a good citation count on Google scholar. You can download some of his works at Noolaham.

The problem which occurred at Girihandu Seya was an honest mistake by Xenani - we naturally assume Google Books is right. The confusion may have arisen because of K. M. de Silva's links with the later volumes of History of Ceylon - I know he edited volume 3 (I have a copy) and he may have also edited volume 2 though there are conflicting reports about when this was published, some say the 1970s, others 1990s (after volume 2).--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that M. D. Raghavan is unreliable. My questions are at the beginning of the discussion. I wanted to know more reliable sources elaborating this fact. However just we have a single source which mentions it in trivial manner. Is that enough? --L Manju (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@L Manju: Thanks for clarifying. If the source is reliable then one source is generally enough. However, if the content is disputed, you can add opposing views, suitably sourced, and attribute the differing views. So something like "According to historian M. D. Raghavan Kantharodai was the capital of the Jaffna kings of the Naga lineage but according to historian X there is no link".--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References