Talk:Policy of standardisation
Add topic | 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 The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn.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)
LKW quote
[edit]Actually LKW is talking about the Jaffna Tamils doing well educationally, which includes the disproportionate university entries, and that resulted in them getting penalized by the majority Sinhalese government and voters. So it's not just the one line about the 2 quotas which is related to standardization. I will revert back to status quo in the meantime. Oz346 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's more likely a reference to Sinhala Only. I believe a number of civil service jobs required passing of the SSC rather than a university degree, hence why standardization came in 1972 and not 1956. And I'm still confused on why LKY is a subject-matter authority. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- "One-man one-vote led to the domination of the Sinhalese majority over the minority Tamils who were the active and intelligent fellows who worked hard and got themselves penalised."
- Here he is talking about certain Tamils working hard to get better opportunities, but being penalized by Sinhalese elites for this educational success. This covers Jaffna Tamils' general success in education, and is very relevant to standardization.
- "And English was out. They were educated in English. Sinhalese was in."
- This one line almost as an after thought is talking specifically about Sinhala Only.
- "They got quotas in two universities and now they have become fanatical Tigers. And the country will never be put together again"
- This line explicitly talks about standardisation, and its effect (which is correct, the militant groups were most aggrieved by the educational discrimination).
- LKY is very relevant to quote, as this well known academic and political scientist has quoted him and written extensively on his views and analysis of Sri Lanka. So it also a reliable source with scholarly opinion. Oz346 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- "One-man one-vote led to the domination of the Sinhalese majority over the minority Tamils who were the active and intelligent fellows who worked hard and got themselves penalised."
- It's a general statement which could cover standardization. However, it feels too vague to include as a critique of standardization specifically.
- I agree with your interpretation of the rest of his quote.
- As for the rest, the academic in question, Dayan Jayatilleka, is just summarizing the views of a political figure he personally respects. That doesn't make LKY's two cents Wikipedia-worthy. LKY isn't a scholar of Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. He's just a former head of a country (however respectable - and how much respect he deserves is debatable). If you feel Jayatilleka is Wikipedia-worthy, why not cite his views on standardization? Preferably from an academic work and not an opinion column. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)