Talk:Tissamaharama inscription No. 53

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tamil civilization (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil civilizationWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTemplate:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTamil civilization articles

This article is about a potsherd with a legend on it. Some scholars say it is Tamil-Brahmi and some say it is Brahmi. There are no final conclusion among the scholars regrading the scripts of this legend. However, only depending on the interpretations by Mahadevan and Ragupathy, it is not suitable to identify this potsherd as a Tamil Brahmi inscription. The views by other scholars (except Mahadevan and Ragupathy) are also seemed to be very logical to think that this is a Brahmi inscription and not a Tamil-Brahmi. However, this artifact was found from Tissamaharama among the hundred of potsherds with Brahmi legends. Therefore it is not suitable to rename this article name as Tissamaharama Brahmi Inscription. I suggest to change this article as Tissamaharama alleged Tamil Brahmi Inscription.--L Manju (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//The views by other scholars// - Who? Reference? --AntanO 17:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Falk, Raj Somadeva. I have given the refs. Please read the article.

• Somadeva, R. (2010). "තිස්සමහාරාම කුරුටු ලිපියේ ජර්මානු කියැවීම ශාස්ත්‍රීය නොමග යැවීමක්ද? (In Sinhala)". Dinithi. I (Part IV): 2–5.
• Falk, H. (2014). "Owners' Graffiti on Pottery from Tissamaharama". Zeitschrift für Archäologie Aussereuropäischer Kulturen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag: 45–94.

--L Manju (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to add the script in the article. It would easy to understand.

--AntanO 06:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L Manju: There are many things whose factual accuracy is disputed. That doesn't mean we here in Wikipedia add "alleged" in their title (e.g. Shroud of Turin). What we do is mention the dispute in the body of the article, as you have done so. That's sufficient.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe:: The topic of an article is the first and main impression about its content/body. Therefore the topic should be always selected in more specific manner. Here It is clear that this is not a pure Tamil-Brahmi inscription. So why want to still keep the "Tamil-Brahmi" in this topic? It should be corrected.--L Manju (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L Manju: OK, here's a suggestion - how about renaming the article Tissamaharama inscription?--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: That is not suitable. More than hundred of potsherds with legends have been found from Tissamaharama. - L Manju (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L Manju: Sorry, I missed this in your initial comment. How about expanding the article to include these other inscriptions and renaming the article as Tissamaharama inscriptions? Whichever title we settle on, using "alleged" in the title is not neutral and contrary to WP:NDESC.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L Manju:, @Obi2canibe: Please see page 65 here from Falk who was part of the excavations, the potsherd was labelled as No. 53. 'Tissamaharama inscription No.53' could be a better title: https://www.academia.edu/11754083/Owners_graffiti_on_pottery_from_Tissamaharama Metta79 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is seemed to be a good suggestion--L Manju (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]