Talk:British Sri Lankans

Immigration in the 1800s.

I think in the History sections needs to include the Sri Lankan colonial immigration more. I have seen articles of a Sri Lankan person who travelled to England in the 1810s but It doesn't say that he was the first Sri Lankan migrant and there maybe could be Sri Lankans who came to the UK before that like the Indians. The 19th century sailors (lascars) also included some Ceylonese too.

I have found the link : https://scroll.in/article/875840/photos-when-two-19th-century-sinhalese-buddhist-monks-travelled-to-england-to-join-the-church

TheCeylon24 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

=Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I do not think merging British Tamils with British Indian or British Sri Lankans, because Tamils are ethnic group based on their linguistic origin, British Sikhs often identified themselves as Sikhs rather than Indian or Pakistani or Afghani, similiarly Tamils always identified themselves as British Tamils. Also Tamils include Tamils from India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Fiji and other countries too.. so in order to merging the article with other articles, is going to disappear the presence of this article and hasn't got any NPOV. So I am opposong strongly for this kind of act.--Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Migration to the United Kingdom should not be based on ethnic group but on nationality and the British Tamil article is the only one based on ethnicity in the Asia section. The information in the British Tamil article is already in both the Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom and British Indian articles of where Tamil People come from therefore the British Tamil article is not needed.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. The material at British Tamils is not very informative and the statistics references there are actually about Sri Lankans, not just Tamils (and not Tamils from India). Then again, there are plenty of sources that suggest that there is a "British Tamil" community:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I guess my view at the moment is that British Tamil should be made a disambiguation page stating that Tamils in the UK may originate from India or Sri Lanka, but not to rule out the possibility of developing it as a proper, sourced article should someone wish to do so in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

British Tamil is very distinct from British Sri Lankan. Not all Tamils are of Sri Lankan descent - up to one third of British Tamils are actually of Indian descent. Of the Tamils who are of Sri Lankan descent, many were born in Britain and have therefore never had Sri Lankan nationality. Of those who were born in Sri Lanka many have become British nationals. And of those who remain officially Sri Lankan nationals, most would not consider themselves as Sri Lankan. Nationality is changeable, ethnicity isn't. There are a number of ethnicity based diaspora articles such as British Jews, British Arabs, British Kurds, Māori in the United Kingdom, Assyrians in the United Kingdom, Pashtun British. British Tamil society is distinct from other British Sri Lankan (i.e. Sinhalese) society. There is very little interaction between the two groups and they have little in common. Their language, religion, culture are all different. The majority of British Tamils have migrated Britain in the past 25 years as refugees from the civil war but the majority of British Sinhalese are economic migrants who come to Britain steadily over the last 50 years. The term "British Tamil" is widely used in Britain, including in the media. The British Tamil article does need to be beefed up but it shouldn't be merged.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

British Tamil is formed as one ethnic group though they come from Sri Lanka or India becuase of their share same culture language and religion. Likewise Chinese communities whom may hailed from China or Taiwan consider as Chinese diaspora, so British Tamil is needed. Dont spread your ethnic hegemonicsm in Wikipedia.--Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

British Tamil should be seen as same article merging them with British Sri Lankan or British Indian is step by some people to absorb the article and it is a move to prevent the word TAMIL. Tamils from Sri Lanka or India they formed a society as British Tamils. So it should be there as British Tamil rather than merging with other articles.--Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Tamils from Sri Lanka don not consider them as Sri Lankans but stick with term TAMIL because of the various political reasons. Merging the British Tamil article with British Sri Lankans going to be a sensitve issue. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with improving the British Tamil article. The statistics there about Sri Lankans need to go since they don't only apply to Sri Lankan Tamils, but as I indicated above there is space for a British Tamils article if people are willing to put the effort it, which it seems they might be. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The British Tamil article can stand on its own and has rnough Notability and Reliable resources to one day be better than what it is today. Taprobanus (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image copyright problem with File:Anton Balasingham1.jpg

The image File:Anton Balasingham1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Seperation of Nationality, Ethno-Linguistic Group, Culture, and Race?

I think this is a prime example of somewhere where everything needs to be seperated.

Sri Lanka is a political entity, and therefore Sri Lankan is a nationality.

Tamil is an ethno-lingustic group, peoples connected by a native language. Tamils are an ethnolinguistic group who are 'home' to Southern India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore.

Dravidian is a culture, but is found throughout Southern India, Sri Lanka, and South East Asia.

I think the race is different too.

In the same way a black rapper would be racially "black" but nationally "british", I think a "British Sri Lankan Tamil" would be:

Race: Indian/South Indian ??? (I believe it's a Caucasian, Asian, Austroloid mix)

Ethno-Linguistic Group: Tamil

Citizenship: British

Native Sub-Culture: Hindu/Dravidian

While I'm against stereotyping cultures onto races, one has to admit that 'British Sri Lankan Tamil' is more cultural/political and racial.

TimothyBaker2 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBaker2. One of the features of the official classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom is that it mixes race, ethnicity and nationality (e.g. "Black British", "British Indian"), which is perhaps what has inspired this article (even though "British Sri Lankan" is not one of the census categories). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps by "British Sri Lankan", what the article really means is "Sri Lankan migration to the United Kingdom". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Sri Lankans. 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/20110605023016/http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/30/fea02.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/30/fea02.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008115311/http://www.qcda.gov.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-05-1752-11321_sri_lanka.pdf to http://www.qcda.gov.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-05-1752-11321_sri_lanka.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111224805/http://www.sripola.co.uk/ to http://www.sripola.co.uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111224805/http://www.sripola.co.uk/ to http://www.sripola.co.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Sri Lankans. 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/20110726185302/http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_SRI%20LANKA.pdf to http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_SRI%20LANKA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726185302/http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_SRI%20LANKA.pdf to http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_SRI%20LANKA.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sripola.co.uk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with British Sri Lankan Tamil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The majority of British Sri Lankans are Tamils. We currently have articles on British Sri Lankans, British Sri Lankan Tamils and British Tamils, with significant overlaps in content. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. @Cordess Larry has a history of advancing racist viewpoints while defending left-wing and pro-muslim viewpoints. I'd also point out that this situation requires Sri Lankan Tamils to be associated with: British Sri Lankan, British Tamil, and British Indian. A large number of SLT refuse to identify as Sri Lankan, and conversely a large number of SLT identify as Indian including Sinhalese. If anything, the divide between Muslims and Hindus is far more substantial and requires its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankandude2017 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please either substantiate or delete that accusation, Lankandude2017? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lankandude2017: I have struck out your personal attack against Cordless Larry. Please never repeat this per WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lankandude2017: Your accusation is not simply a personal attack, but falls under WP:Aspersions. While a strike through by another editor was thoroughly justified, the only acceptable course of action is for you to retract with an apology to Cordless Larry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have come across several occasions where he has attacked edits that try to turn a left-leaning bias into an unbias. I notice that he tends to pop up especially on points that are either detrimental to the left-wing or perceived to be negative towards Muslims (Islamophobic). But either way, the accusations he makes about this article seem to be based on certain points advancing views that stray from the "liberal narrative", despite the fact that they hold true in relation to the community. I suggest that someone in the first generation adds more information about the left-wing of the community. Lankandude2017 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how this is relevant to the proposed merge, Lankandude2017, and you have still not provided evidence to substantiate your claim that I have "a history of advancing racist viewpoints". If you want to accuse me of bias, please report me at WP:AN/I, which is the correct venue for making such complaints. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I presume that your comment about material that strays from the "liberal narrative" refers to this edit, where I removed material about British Sri Lankan Tamils voting Conservative? The reason I removed that was explained in my edit summary - the source you cited is not about British Sri Lankan Tamils! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - If this merger proposal is still relevant I would prefer if British Sri Lankan Tamil were merged with British Tamil as a lot of content has been copied from British Tamil to British Sri Lankan Tamil.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's certainly still relevant, Obi2canibe, and that's a good alternative suggestion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Wasn't sure with all of Lankandude2017's shenanigans.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The copying was done with attribution, too, it seems, so I will leave Lankandude2017 a message about that. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you realise that I actually wrote the information that was "copied over" myself? Lankandude2017 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that Lankandude2017 has now been blocked indefinitely. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support some form of merger. I like Obi2canibe suggestion, put it all in British Tamil. If need be, create a section on "Sri Landkan Tamils" in British Tamil article. What about Sinhalese diaspora who are not Tamils then? Answer: We have this section for now. Let folks expand it if appropriate, and when the section gets big, one can consider if SPINOFF would be the right thing to do. For now, so little content, too much CFORK issues. Some sort of merge is justified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obi2canibe, given the above, would you be happy for me to go ahead with merging British Sri Lankan Tamil with British Tamil? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Sorry for the late response, yes, please go ahead with the merge.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Since, as Obi2canibe notes in the discussion above, a lot of the article's content was already included in British Tamil, I have simply redirected British Sri Lankan Tamil there (any additional content, I wasn't confident enough about the quality of the sourcing, given Lankandude2017's penchant for original research and synthesis, to merge, but it's there in the history if anyone wants to recover it). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Shri Lankikayan"

I really doubt that the Sinhalese language uses "Shri Lankikayan" considering the second word is a transliteration of Lankan that's used as an adjective in the English language. I presume than Sinhalese has different grammar rules to form adjectives...Sweatisoftheessence (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Removal

The demographic group is well discussed in academia, more so than the British Tamil group, and therefore requires a page. If you disagree with the concept then this should be explained within the article. Current media discussion provides that British Sri Lankan Tamil is the demographic grouping. Sweatisoftheessence (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This was agreed above, at #Proposed merge with British Sri Lankan Tamil. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry is a troll. He reverted edits to other articles despite being sourced correctly. Do not listen to such an editor.Sweatisoftheessence (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Fish and karate, Ms Sarah Welch, Iryna Harpy and Obi2canibe, who participated in the discussion above and might have views on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Given no policy-based reasons with RS links on offer, let us stick with the old decision. Sweatisoftheessence: please do not call Cordless Larry or anyone a troll on wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since Sweatisoftheessence appears to be alone in opposition here, I am going to restore the redirect. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with what you've done. Sweatisoftheessence is late to the party and is ignoring the previous discussion.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions from people not involved in the original discussion are always welcome, but they cannot insist on overriding previous consensus without discussion. Sweatisoftheessence is now blocked, so we will have to see whether they are able to behave better when that block expires. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)