Not totally separate but back to to how it was, as a subdivision within Sri Lanka. The current method of splitting the currency in 1972 instead of the country is completely misleading.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "stratocaster"Hello,
This was discussed here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic94917.html
Country name changes are listed as ruling authorities and not separate countries
The case of Ceylon is not merely a name change, but in 1972, Ceylon became a republic under the name of Sri Lanka, which was a major constitutional change.
Between 1796 & 1972, the British monarchs from King George III to Queen Elizabeth II reigned over Ceylon - so they are the ruling authorities.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"The case of Ceylon is not merely a name change, but in 1972, Ceylon became a republic under the name of Sri Lanka, which was a major constitutional change.
If you take off your colonial glasses and read on the actualy Ceylon coins, you'll notice that it actually say "Lanka"/"Sri Lanka" in the Tamil and Sinhala scripts all along. The "name change" was that the colonial western name changed to its original local name, which it always had.
British Ceylon in Tamil is பிரித்தானிய இலங்கை (Pirittaniya Ilaṅkai) Dominion of Ceylon in Tamil is இலங்கை மேலாட்சி (Ilaṅkai melatci)
Dutch Ceylon in Sinhala is ලන්දේසි ලංකාව (Landēsi Laṁkava) British Ceylon in Sinhala is බ්රිතාන්ය ලංකාව (Britanya Laṁkava) Dominion of Ceylon in Sinhala is ලංකා ඩොමීනියන් රාජ්යය (Laṁka ḍominiyan rajyaya)
Let's compare it to "today's" name; Sri Lanka:
Tamil: இலங்கை (Ilaṅkai)
Sinhala: ශ්රී ලංකාව (Śri Laṁkava)
This means, that in reality, there really wasn't a name change.
Cita: "ngdawa"
This means, that in reality, there really wasn't a name change.
I agree that colonial glasses must be removed. This isn't about national symbols or membership to international organizations, it's about names. However, you've just proven that there was a name change in at least one of the local languages, with the addition of the word "Sri".
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ngdawa"This means, that in reality, there really wasn't a name change.
I agree that colonial glasses must be removed. This isn't about national symbols or membership to international organizations, it's about names. However, you've just proven that there was a name change in at least one of the local languages, with the addition of the word "Sri".
Yes, but "Śri" means like "beauty" or "prosperous".
On the other hand, we haven't split Nepal, which changed from being a kingdom to a federal republic in 2008, and, of course, had a name change, from former Kingdom of Nepal – नेपाल अधिराज्य (Nepal Adhirajya)
to the new Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र नेपाल (Saṅghiya Loktantrik Gaṇatantra Nepal).
Oh, they also changed their Coat of Arms, obviously.
Careful, let's not overcomplicate things. Nepal's name didn't change, it's title changed (ruling authority in Numista terminology). "Sri" is not a title, it's part of the name, added in 1972 and used in English from that point on.
Furthermore, Sri Lanka's title did change in 1978 and that change is currently given here as the original title from 1972. Whoever's behind this is quite willing to hide Ceylon but unwilling to correct this error.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Sri Lanka
Change of state: Yes, Dominion --> Republic
Change of CoA: Yes
Change of name: English - Yes, Sinhala - Yes, Tamil - No
Change in borders: No
The split is required purely on the basis of the third line. Only in Tamil did the name stay the same.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"A few corrections are needed.
Sri Lanka
Change of state: Yes, Dominion --> Republic
Change of CoA: Yes
Change of name: English - Yes, Sinhala - Yes, Tamil - No
Change in borders: No
The split is required purely on the basis of the third line. Only in Tamil did the name stay the same.
But we haven't split Swaziland-Eswatini or FYR Macedonia-North Macedonia, so splitting just because of an extra "Sri" or "the" in one if the local names can't be the only reason for a split. If so, we will see a lot of new countries/issuers in the near future.
Cita: "ceh2019"You're right, we haven't but we should.
But if we don't split colonies from the independent states, we really shouldn't split because of a name change. And now seems to be a time of merging, so yo suddenly split Eswatini from Swaziland seems very unlikely.
I agree the present current of flow is in the wrong direction but names matter. If a state gains independence and doesn't change it's name, fine, but if it does, or a state changes its name for some other reason, for us to act as if the earlier name never existed is to misrepresent the very information we are supposed to be cataloguing.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"I agree the present current of flow is in the wrong direction but names matter. If a state gains independence and doesn't change it's name, fine, but if it does, or a state changes its name for some other reason, for us to act as if the earlier name never existed is to misrepresent the very information we are supposed to be cataloguing.
I actually agree 100% with you.
And to be honest, I too reckon Ceylon should be split, and all other colonies should also be split from its present name and form. But to me consistency is they key, and since everything else is merged together, so should Ceylon. We can just hope the Numista team will change their minds.
Specifically regarding Ceylon/Sri Lanka, I was very happy when this merger happened--not only because I thought this change was overdue, but also because of how much less confused everyone was as a result.
Before the change, on the Banknote side, I was constantly rejecting requests to add dates to the wrong pages--people would see an the pages under Ceylon, see their date was out of the range, and request to add it without realizing their note was from the Sri Lankan period; or, upon seeing a page under Sri Lanka with their date being out of range, they would request to add it without realizing their note was from they Ceylonese period. I would also have to constantly reject requests about adding Bank of Ceylon notes to Ceylon that were actually from the Sri Lankan period.
But since this merger happened, I do not recall a single Sri Lankan request I have had to reject due to a missunderstanding of the addition of a single Tamil word.
Some might not like the change, but it has been very effective. And seeing just how many people were confused before the change, and how I no longer recieve such requests, I am also hoping this change has been educating those who would have previously not understood.
In the aspects Sulfur is mentioning, I totally see the reason for a merge. The banknotes are not as obvious as the coins, but why not just link the two banknotes to each other? This is whag thag feature is for, to link varieties and overprinted issues to eaxh other.
Cita: "Sulfur"
But since this merger happened, I do not recall a single Sri Lankan request I have had to reject due to a missunderstanding of the addition of a single Tamil word.
That could be because no one can follow what's going on in the mess that was created and have given up on this section. Don't forget that we have two rupees for no apparant reason (actually representing Ceylon and Sri Lanka) with very similar notes split between these two without any explanation, not to mention inaccurate ruling authorities for Sri Lanka. A lot of time was spent putting the notes and coins under the correct names, work that has now been undone in a single stroke. Just to show the level of confusion that still exists, it was the Sinhala name that changed, not the Tamil name. If you're worried about having to spend time rejecting move requests, reinstate Ceylon and then appoint a referee who understands what happened to the names of this country and you won't hear any more about it.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Ceylon is listed separately from Sri Lanka itself up on https://www.zeno.ru , considering that even constitutional changes is enough to warrant a separate section.
The same thing applies to Hong Kong - British colonial banknotes & coins are separate from those dated 1 July 1997 & later.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"Ceylon is listed separately from Sri Lanka itself up on https://www.zeno.ru , considering that even constitutional changes is enough to warrant a separate section.
The same thing applies to Hong Kong - British colonial banknotes & coins are separate from those dated 1 July 1997 & later.
Aidan.
Don't spoil it. This is about names, not ruling authorities.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"Ceylon is listed separately from Sri Lanka itself up on https://www.zeno.ru , considering that even constitutional changes is enough to warrant a separate section.
The same thing applies to Hong Kong - British colonial banknotes & coins are separate from those dated 1 July 1997 & later.
Aidan.
Don't spoil it. This is about names, not ruling authorities.
Colonial Hong Kong is not the same as Hong Kong S.A.R..
Cita: "BCNumismatics"
Colonial Hong Kong is not the same as Hong Kong S.A.R..
https://en.ucoin.net also has Ceylon listed under 'Extinct states'.
Aidan.
Colonial Hong Kong and Hong Kong S.A.R. have the same name. Surely you have to concede that? I'm not sure the term extinct is appropriate when a name change has occured.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"
Colonial Hong Kong is not the same as Hong Kong S.A.R..
https://en.ucoin.net also has Ceylon listed under 'Extinct states'.
Aidan.
Colonial Hong Kong and Hong Kong S.A.R. have the same name. Surely you have to concede that? I'm not sure the term extinct is appropriate when a name change has occured.
Not the same name - as Hong Kong was fully named 'Colony of Hong Kong', then 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'.
Cita: "ceh2019"You fail to appreciate the difference between a name and a title.
A country has both a short name & a formal long name title.
For example, The Gambia is fully named 'Republic of The Gambia' - which has been the case since 1970, barring a short period when Yahya Jammeh attempted to impose the name 'Islamic Republic of The Gambia', with the original long name 'Republic of The Gambia' restored after Adama Barrow became President of The Gambia in January 2017.
This is the reason why we are where we are today. We discuss colours, and when we are about to agree what's red and what's yellow, someone starts to talk about shades and then everything falls apart – again – and we're back to square one. Just stay focused on the topic, and take one step at a time.
Cita: "ngdawa"This is the reason why we are where we are today. We discuss colours, and when we are about to agree what's red and what's yellow, someone starts to talk about shades and then everything falls apart – again – and we're back to square one. Just stay focused on the topic, and take one step at a time.
Very well said.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Gold Coast is listed separately from Ghana, therefore, it makes sense to list British Guiana separately from Guyana, & Ceylon separately from Sri Lanka.
Cita: "ceh2019"That could be because no one can follow what's going on in the mess that was created and have given up on this section. Don't forget that we have two rupees for no apparant reason (actually representing Ceylon and Sri Lanka) with very similar notes split between these two without any explanation, not to mention inaccurate ruling authorities for Sri Lanka. A lot of time was spent putting the notes and coins under the correct names, work that has now been undone in a single stroke. Just to show the level of confusion that still exists, it was the Sinhala name that changed, not the Tamil name. If you're worried about having to spend time rejecting move requests, reinstate Ceylon and then appoint a referee who understands what happened to the names of this country and you won't hear any more about it.
No, this is not the case--the section is not a mess, and people aren't that stupid.
All the work spent on those notes is still there because the merger changed nothing about the individual pages or the already existing ruling authorities, so your claim about this section being a mess is solely based on the merger, which, again, can be disputed. And I could not care less about how many requests I must reject because that is my job--I am just pointing out that, because I am rejecting less in that section, that means less people are confused. The only thing re-creating Celyon will do is stop pointless conversations like these, but that, in itself, is not a good reason to split them.
Cita: "ceh2019"Don't spoil it. This is about names, not ruling authorities.
If we aren't talking about ruling authorities, then you have no argument because a name change is a change in ruling authority.
By your arguments, we should be splitting the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes from Yugoslavia, but that is just as much a change in ruling authority as the Kingdom to the Democratic Federal to the Federal People's Republic. By your arguments, we should also be splitting Persia and Iran because the English name changed in 1935, even though that would result in splitting some types by date only. Also by your argument, we could be combining the Republic of China with the People's Republic of China because they have the same name (although I don't think I have to explain why that would be a bad idea).
You say what you are suggesting is simple, but it only appears that way because you are only looking at a small portion of a bigger picture, and considering how we are dealing with the entire history of humanity (that is relevant to numismatics), the bigger picture is important.
This conversation has come up many times before, and I imagine it will continue to keep coming up. While I have continually tried to find compramises to try to make you happier, that definitely all seems to be in vain. All you want is the status quo, and to be blunt: I do not imagine that will happen anytime soon.
"One of the most common reasons for a country changing its name is newly acquired independence. When borders are changed, sometimes due to a country splitting or two countries joining together, the names of the relevant areas can change. This, however, is more the creation of a different entity than an act of geographical renaming."
That is basically what Numista goes by. When something is simply renamed, it is reflected in the ruling authority section because it is the same issuer; when there is a geographical change (which can include a renaming), it can be seen as a new issuer. This is why Demerara and Essequibo will not be merged with Guyana because they united with Berbice, for example.
You make it seem like every merger is arbitrary and that we are trying to hide history; however, there are reasons for each merger, and we are not hiding anything about history--just representing it more consistently (and, arguably, more accurately).
It isn't stupidity that would stop people from engaging but despair.
To answer your questions, yes, we should split the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from Yugoslavia (both listed under Yugoslavia in the main index), no we should not split Iran because the local name didn't change and yes we should combine the various (mainland) Chinas into one because they represent the same country with the same name. Is the logic beginning to become apparent now?
You claim I want to retain the status quo? Nonsense. I want things catalogued properly under the appropriate names. Don't you? This means splitting where not split in some cases and combining where split in others. I haven't seen a shred of compromise on this issue, only a blank refusal to recognise the numerous mistakes that have been made. Hiding old names is inaccurate, plain and simple. It misrepresents reality. A catalogue's job is not to interpret but to record. If you imagine that Wikipedia is a reliable source, perhaps that's why this mess persists.
To reiterate on Ceylon and Sri Lanka, if they are the same, why do we have two currencies? If name change equals ruling authority change, why do we ignore the change that occurred in 1978? That's the mess I'm talking about.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I believe the main problem here is that all reasons why somwthing is done is hidden in to the dark for the everyday user. Of course there must be long conversations and arguments among the Numista team how things should be done, but to the everyday user, just all of a sudden issuers are disappearing with no explanation. Maybe there are some explanations presented, but they easily get lost in the ocean if the forum. Or, they are just too long abd too complicated for people with English as a second, third, forth, or even fifth language to understand. By reading your post now, Sulfur, I'm getting a clearer picture about how you, the Numista Team, argue about issuers and countries, and I agree with many of your points, and I now understand more why issuers are merged.
Cita: "ngdawa"I believe the main problem here is that all reasons why somwthing is done is hidden in to the dark for the everyday user. Of course there must be long conversations and arguments among the Numista team how things should be done, but to the everyday user, just all of a sudden issuers are disappearing with no explanation. Maybe there are some explanations presented, but they easily get lost in the ocean if the forum. Or, they are just too long abd too complicated for people with English as a second, third, forth, or even fifth language to understand. By reading your post now, Sulfur, I'm getting a clearer picture about how you, the Numista Team, argue about issuers and countries, and I agree with many of your points, and I now understand more why issuers are merged.
I am glad I helped you understand more.
When I make requests regarding country modifications, I prefer to do so in the referee forum so random people do not spam me with requests to modify my relevant Google Sheet, which has happened before (wanting to modify it is perfectly fine, but when they give no explaination as to who they are or what they want to, I get worried they might be random trolls who just wants to erase everything).
With that being said, stratocaster did start a thread specifically regarding catalogue modifications, which includes splitting/combining issuers (see here). That was meant to inform the public of any changes. Of course, if you have any questions regarding anything that has been done, just ask, and an answer will (hopefully) be provided.
Sri Lanka's 1972 Constitution provided for a non-executive President as head of state - with the same powers as the Governors-General of the Dominion of Ceylon.
William Gopallawa was that non-executive President of Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka's 1978 Constitution provides for a powerful executive President as head of state - with the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka as basically a less powerful stool pigeon.
J.R. Jayewardene was the first of these.
Sri Lanka's long name title was changed under the 1978 Constitution - but in both cases, the country's short name remains Sri Lanka.
