Talk:Tamil Eelam

Puttalam

Puttalam is not in the current Tamil Eelam claim so the map and intro are both inaccurate (as well as any calculations based on this error e.g. the land area.(Nagadeepa 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Currency and calling code

Refrain from using the srilankan currency and calling code (+94) as the official currency and code of TamilEelam. The LTTE does not recognise any of these and since it is a state still in formation it does not have a currency or calling code. Blindly using srilankan rupee and +94 would mean that these areas are still part of SriLanka which it is not. As yet Tamileelam national bank has not offered a offcial currency so state it as so. ~suicidebomber~ 20:18 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Um, lots of countries use the currencies of other countries. The currency used in Tamil Eelam is the Sri Lankan Rupee. Period. The calling code is the same as Sri Lanka. Period. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

umm.. You seem to be very periodic. Periodically POV that is.The currency used in Tamil eelam is not SL rupee. Its the tamil eelam rupee which is still in development. Do not try to twist facts, do not try to make tamil eelam part of SL. PERIOD. And tamil eelam calling code hasn't been established yet as Tamil eelam Telecom is still being planned and doesn't have IDD. +94 is you singala guys code. Don't try twist facts, you know what happens to guys/girls who do that. And like you like to say PERIOD. ~suicidebomber~ 20:18 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

umm you seem to be forgetting that the LTTE are considered a terrorist organisation by 29 countries. Thus they do not have an right to decide the currency or calling code of a land which is not their own. Moreover the 29 countries including the US and the EU would probably not recognise the currency and calling code. Therefore we cannot assume the tamil eelam rupee and the calling code would be used or implemented and how on earth can anyone use a currency that is still in development. Thus are you saying that "tamil eelam" is to be sealed off from the rest of the world until you guys come up with a calling code and currency?

Umm, the usage of cow dung as currency by tamil tigers does not specifically validate the eelam ruppee. How much cow dung do they use to make one hundred eelam rupees?Perhaps leaves taken from the thatched roofs of the tamil eelam bank may be used to increase the value of the eelam ruppee from a rating of "feces" to a rating of "leaves mixed with feces". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.49.150 (talk) 18:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Could someone, for example User:Node_ue, please outline the disputed points in this article?

Predicted Results of a Referendum

The article states that "A referendum on this issue is expected to be held in the north-east and the results are predicted to be 85% in favour of session from Sri Lanka". However, no references have been provided for this claim. It appears to be the author's POV.

Without being perfectly current in this topic, I'd say the formulations are reasonably balanced, and after all it links to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, both articles giving more details and don't having a NPOV dispute.

Pjacobi 19:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was a while ago so I don't recall my specific issue with the page, but looking at it now... although it does seem to have a slight tinge of Sinhalese viewpoints, it seems mostly neutral except for the first paragraph which says "Tamils want" and things such as that - Tamil Eelam has "de facto" independence (although not recognized as an independent nation by the UN, they certainly are the only ones who excercise real power over the region as is the case in Taiwan with the exception that Taiwan is recognized as an independent nation by a few external nations); Tamil Eelam is more than a simple "proposal", the usage of the term "militant" (one man's militant is another man's freedom fighter)... I honestly remember it being worse than this, but... hmm. Node 20:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To go ahead, I suggest you doing some minor edits if still deemed necessary, and then we wait a bit for other voices.Pjacobi 21:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As part of the POV backlog cleanup I am removing the {{POV}} tag from this article. If anyone disagrees please replace the tag and leave a reason in this section -- TrevMrgn 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit 13:00, 3 Oct 2004 by 220.247.251.211

The anon inserted following at the top of the article:

Tamil Eelam is the name given to a separate Tamil state, Tamil rebels are fighting to create in northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. Some parts of Northern and eastern provinces are controlled by terrorist group LTTE. There is no de-facto independent nation as such since LTTE terrorist controlled areas dependent on the Sri Lankan currencies, food supplies, electricity, water, telecommunications and trade etc.

I removed most of it, because I'm under the impression that essentially all of it is already the article, and in more NPOV terms.

As this already already has been accused of being pro-Sinhalese and now implicitely as being too pro-Tamil, it seems to me of acceptable NPOV.

Of couse, I'm only a distant observer and we can work together to resolve remaining issues.

Pjacobi 23:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pjacobi

As a (relatively) neutral observer, I must say that Tamil Eelam is indeed a de facto independent state. The anon must not understand the meaning of de facto independence... Tamil Eelam does indeed depend almost exclusively on Sri Lanka proper for currency and trade, and largely for food, electricity, water, and telecommunications, though they also make those on their own. However, they have an independent military, are governed by an independent government, and everything else about them operates independently of Sri Lanka, at least on a political level, with the exception of most foreign relations since no other nation recognises TE. --Node 3 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Eelam

Where did the word "Eelam" come from?

It might be worth while looking at how the word "Eelam" came in to being. Many pro Eelamists think that the word has Tamil roots. However a closer look suggests that the word is actually of Singhalese origin. "Hela Diva" is a singhelese word that was used as an alternative to Sri Lanka. It meanse "The Land of the People with Lions Blood". The word "Hela" came from the words "Singha Le". Which simply means lions blood. Sri Lanka was often referred to simply as "Hela" by Singhelese people.Tamil speaking people had difficulty pronouncing the "H" in front of the word "Hela". Tamil speakers also usually add an "m" at the end of words ending with a vowel. Thus, Tamil speakers refined the word "Hela" and used the word "Elam". This later was transormed in to the word "Eelam".

It is actually transliterated as "iizham" (please look at this chart for the corresponding IPA notation). If you can cite any credible sources for your claim above, please do so and then change it accordingly. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The entry for Eelam explains ut all216.95.23.206 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits

It is not an independent nation. The LTTE certainly does not have exclusive control over the designated area either. The East is controlled by the government and the Karuna faction. The Jaffna peninsula is also annexed by the army. The LTTE only has control over parts in Vanni and some patches in the east.

At best it is a state, not a nation. Areas in Iraq held by insurgents would not have been called a nation seperate from Iraq. To qualify to be a de facto independent nation it should be an independent in every sense except for international acknowledgement. It is not independent at all and depends on the Sri Lankan govern--SinhalaPOWEr 12:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)ment for everything from commodities to electricity to public transport.

The TULF was not barred from the parliament. They boycotted it. Read the history.

Please do not argue with Tamil Elam. It is a separate state in Srilanka for the Tamil people. All have to regonise as a state and live happy life.

Reverts by Share Bear

Share Bear, with all due attention to spelling of your name, I observed that you have been reverting several SL-related articles, not always with reasons cited. If you don't agree with a portion of the edit, please don't revert: edit instead. Reverting is not the best way of editing. In this article, for instance, you reverted an edit of SinhalaPOWEr to Alexanderj over an edit of 203.217.57.218. Are you opposed to that edit as well? If so, explain reasons. Your reasons for the edit, "Factual changes? No sources cited.", do not seem to apply for 203.217.57.218's edit.

In a silimar revert in Sri Lanka, your edit summary is "Revert edits by SinhalaPOWEr." That does not provide a reason for doing so, and if the reasons were too complex, you should have mentioned them in the talk page.

Please read explain reverts as well. It says, specifically,

"Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page"

Greenleaf 06:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

dalitstan.org: imaginary outfits.

I reverted Soman's edit, because the very paragraph he deleted acknowledged the imaginary nature of the concept, saying 'proposed'. I do not see the site being a host to imaginary outfits as a compelling reason; Dalistan.org, for whatever it's worth, yields 18,000 google hits and is listed in google directoy under Asian human rights groups. I admit I might not be aware of their true nature, but if you want to delete that part, could you please provide some clarification on what you meant? There's a mention on flat earth society in wikipedia, so I guess being a host to imaginary outfits in itself is not a reason to delete the mentions. Greenleaf 07:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

dalitstan.org is a typical webera phenomena. It is widely references on other sites, since no-one seems interested in checking up the actual facts. A typical example is the Hezb-e-Mughalstan (http://www.dalitstan.org/mughalstan/index.html, http://www.dalitstan.org/mughalstan/laden/targetin.html), a party that never existed. Similarly, can anyone provide facts that a group called TNLF actually exists?

Now, a group called 'Tamil Nadu Liberation Army' certainly exists. It strives for separation from India. Whether it, or any other group, actually wants a unification with Tamil Eelam is out of my knowledge. TNLA has no relation to dalitstan.org. --Soman 07:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Soman for the clarification. :-) Greenleaf

Have to agree with Soma. Dalistan is neither neutral nor credible. It has no physical presence in India and is limited to spreading propaganda over the internet. However, the Periya Tamil Nadu concept (although it is only a concept) is not baseless. Tamils in South India and Sri Lanka are one and the same and it has been accused by Indian/Lankan (JVP,Janata daal) politicians that LTTE is being used by a hidden hand to break up India. The Church of South India actively supports this movement and wants to unite Sri Lanka's Northeast with Tamil Nadu. LTTE's approach to this issue is twofold. On one hand it tries to empathise with the Tamil Nadu seperatists (who, from an objective POV deserve a seperate state more than SL Tamils) but it also tries to distance itself in order not to antagonize India. Many analysts believe that the creation of Eelam will inevitably lead to the seperation of TN. But the possibility that they will link up to create a unitary super Tamil state is low. SinhalaPOWEr 23:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• TNLF is a Tamil militant group fighting for seperation. It is not just a hypothetical entity. Please refer to the report from The Hindu. [1]

• It is incorrect to say TNLA has no relation to the TNLF web site hosted as a virtual directory at dalitstan.org. TNLF is said to be the military wing of TNLA. Please refer to Lok Sabha proceedins. [2]. A report from Decan Herald [3] also states the relationship between TNLF and TNLA. (and LTTE)

• Eelam is the second largest landmass of The Greater Tamil Nadu. Thus, reference to Greater Tamil Nadu has relevence to this article, therefore, I am readding what was reverted.

-FriendOfPanda 08:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But two of those articles (Hindu, Lok Sabha) only refers to the dalitstan.org website. The mentions about TNLF in Lok Sabha is made by an anti-DMK MP in an attempt to smear DMK. It is not a serious comment. It only develops its argument concerning TNLA. The DH article mentions the name of the group, but don't specify anything about it. See

TNLA is the armed wing of Tamil Nadu Marxist-Leninist Party, a splinter-group from People's War Group led by Maraan.

See times of india, [4], --Soman 09:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, confusion over the names TNLF and TNLA cannot be ruled out, and could explain several mentions of TNLF in newsarticles. BTW, isn't interesting that the "TNLF" website has not a single line written in Tamil? --Soman 09:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Soman, it is not encyclopediac to claim one party is trying to smear another party, and remove their representations. TNLF is refered in the media. As above, The Hindhu reports TNLF going online at dalistan.org. Reports on TNLF is also carried in following sources:

"Veerappan’s initial demands included release of the five militants belonging to the TNLF and the TNRF held in Tamil Nadu jail" [5]

"The brigand had contacts with the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA), Tamil Nadu Liberation Front (TNLF) and Tamil Nadu Retrieval Force (TNRF)," [6]

"AIADMK today demanded an immediate ban on pro-LTTE militant outfits Tamil National Liberation Army, Tamil National Retrival Troops and Tamil Nadu Liberation Front [TNLF]" [7]

So, it is not justifable to remove reference to TNLF and Greater Tamil Nadu. Please discuss before deleting. -FriendOfPanda 10:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Is is encyclopediac to smallow any nonsense posted on the web? Do you seriously believe that there is a Tamil political faction embracing "Pan-Negroism"? Do you seriously believe there is a movement for the creation of Mughalstan out of Pakistan, North India and Bangladesh?

A short description of how this situation can be explained:

1. some freak in USA, who sees the modern state of India as an aryan fascist construct, launches a website. The site promotes the idea of a common agenda against India by Dalits, Muslims and Dravidians, and that India be divided into Mughalstan, Dalitstan, Rajputana and Dravida Nadu. It presents a number of imaginary outfits such as Hezb-e-Mughalstan and TNLF as parts of this tactical alliance.

2. People who never set their foot on the subcontinent sees the site, and sees no reason in questioning its accuracy. It gets listed in directories, refered to in wiki and fotw, etc. Google-hits get multiplied and multiplied.

3. People in India sees the site. Some journalists are shocked and outraged, and give the group attention in the media. Since it mentions both TNLF and TNLA in the same site, people come to see the groups as related. Most probably several media references to TNLF (such as [8]) in fact deal with TNLA.

4.Some shrewd politicians sees an opportunity to utilize the phenomena for their own purpose. They (AIADMK) to claim that TNLF is linked to their rival party (DMK). Thus the Lok Sabha debate and [9]. Thus the tautology is completed. An imaginary outfits gets official recognition as demands for its illegalization are presented.

It would be interesting if one, instead of building arguments from dalitstan.org, would look at for example the early Dravidianist movement of Periyar looked at cross-strait Tamil relations. Any references to concepts of a pan-Tamil nation form serious sources would be highly appreciated. --Soman 11:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Soman, TNLF is referred in the media, and on occasions, some fighthers captured have been linked to TNLF [10]. On what basis do you claim the author in fact meant TNLA and it was a mistake? Certainly the author hasn't later said so. TNLF is refered in the media many times. (just another one: "Officials say they belong to the second rung of the TNLF.", "...and its social wing, the Tamil Nadu Liberation Force (TNLF)." [11]. )It is not an isolated reference that we should ignore.

As TNLF is reported in the media, it can be reported in Wikipedia. For instance, accusations not proven in the courts are mentioned in wikipedia. An encylopedia author should not remove reference to an entity solely based on one's own perception, when the mentioned entity is referred in the media.

In summary, TNLF was reported in media, political circles, lok Sabha many times and has a web site. So, it has a presense, thus, it should not be removed from an encylopedia based on one author's perception. If you wish to cast doubt about the existance of TNLF, please add that information to the article. FriendOfPanda 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But even an outfit would exist with such a name, is there any (at all) proof that there is any link between them and the person behind the website? And if you read the article youself referred to [12], it appears that TNLF mentioned is the 'Tamil Nadu Liberation Force', not the 'Tamil Nadu Liberation Front'. TNLForce seems to be an outfit of TNLA. Thus the thesis I previously mentioned seems correct, i.e. that TNLA and TNLForce is the same. Thus the TNLF mentioned in regards to the prisoners mentioned by Veerappan etc. would refer to TNLA/TNLF and not the imaginary 'TNLFront'.

Of course we can conclude that at least one person advocates the creation of 'Greater Tamil Nadu', i.e. the webmaster of dalitstan.org. But since that person (by 99,99%) is not him/herself Tamil, that opinion somehow becomes irrelevant in the context.

I will delete the passage, again. It would be highly interesting to develop a serious discussion on concepts of Tamil nationalism, and about the national liberation project of TNLA and others, but that would need some original sources and not based upon pure fiction. --Soman 13:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Soman, you haven't disputed that TNLF is refered in the media and political circles.
• 2. The deletion of TNLF related material is justified by your personal knowledge.
• 3. Your choosing of wording, ( some freak in USA) to refer to the creator of TNLF web site, shows your personal POV against him. It is not encyclopediac to delete information, which was reported in the media, claiming you know the truth.

• There is a difference between the articles and the talk pages. I think I can clearly express my opinion here. If anyone can convince me that the creator of dalitstan.org is not a 'freak', then I'm willing to listen. However the whole idea of the grand alliance of Bin Ladin-Veerappan-Dalits against 'Hindia' seem quite freakish to me.
• My point regarding the media attention of TNLFront is that those people talking about it only refers back to the website. The politicians who brought it up did it consiously to spread misinformation and to smear their political opponents (not unusual in Tamil politics. Everyone accuses everyone of having relations to LTTE).--Soman 13:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Soman, your personal point of view (freak, as you admit) towards TNLF (or its creater) is not a justifiable reason to delete info related to TNLF. TNLF received media attention and it deserves to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Even if TNLF does not exist, that fact that it was reported in media justifies its presense in Wikipedia. Claiming "media got it wrong" & "politicians got it wrong" and deleting TNLF related is imposing censorship based on your prejudice. Some may think ECHELON is freaky, others may argue its existance is not proven, but that does not make it right for them to delete it.

Edits by JaffnaBoy and Greenleaf

User JaffnaBoy What is this, a Sinhalese propaganda page?? It looks like Sinhalese nationalists have hijacked all the pages relating to Tamil Eelam, Sri Lanka and the peace process. They're not content to just harass us in Eelam, they harass us here too. The church of South India has NOTHING to do with Eelam, stop creating false rumours, show factual evidence before making such claims, and mainstream references! Noone in Sri Lanka makes this claim, so why are you talking rubbish in an encyclopedia. This is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, it should follow neutral point of view norms. Keep this clean. And the stuff about Tamil Nadu and Tamil Eelam wanting to join together is Sinhalese government propaganda (show actual LTTE evidence! That's right..there isn't any!), like saying that Sinhalese invented civilization, space travel and buddhism. Give me a break!

I came here to learn, not to get irritated by Sri Lankan government propaganda. Stay out of the Tamil Eelam page if you don't want to be academic, us Tamils and Westerners can fill it up fine on our own, stick to the "Sri Lanka"/"Sinhala" pages if you can't be objective.

Please be specific about what you talk about. What parts do you see as "sinhalese propaganda"? And "They're not content to just harass us in Eelam, they harass us here too" is clearly your PoV. That you think so is no reason to delete whole blocks of material that has been previously discussed in detail. Please discuss your deletions on the respective topic under talk page rather than calling them "sinhalese propaganda", "created by SL government" and "patently false" and deleting them straightaway. Do you have any proof, say, better than those provided by the people who contributed the things you deleted point-blank, for inclusion of that material, for your own allegations and deletions? Then provide those "factual evidence", in your own words, rather than calling them names. Also what was the reason to delete all the entries to other political parties and Karuna faction? Are EPRLF, PLOTE and Karuna Faction also "Sinhalese propaganda"? I revert your edit. If you want to remove stuff, do it part by part, giving reasons, rather than deleting whole blocks for a sentence or two you think are wrong.

And If you meant to "sign" the post with jaffnaBoy, please don't do that again. If you did not log in, sign with your IP, which appears to be from Canada. Or else, log in before you post.

It's very interesting how you preach others to be objective, and come up with a load of accusations none of which you give evidence for. For one, what was your factual evidence for your allusion of Sinhalese claiming "that Sinhalese invented civilization, space travel and buddhism"? Greenleaf 08:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greenleaf,

I apologize for losing my cool, I normally don't delete comments from wikipedia sites, and this was the first time I removed anything. It was because it seemed like an attempt by certain people to spread rumours (the contents of this page sound more like an "opinion" piece as opposed to a factual "encyclopedic" piece). Only comments which can be proved should be added, especially concerning such sensitive matters. I would take great offence if someone stated "Canada is a terrorist state" for example as I love this country. If they can prove it then they are free to post comments on it in Wikipedia, likewise if i see it as maliscious I don't see why I can't respond in kind (which is why I deleted those comments).

Here are the sections I took objection to:

1) [The beginning of the 2nd paragraph where they say that Eelam has its own "church"--> linked to the Church of South India.] -The Church of South India is based in South India, and it has some believers in Eelam, sure, as it does throughout Sri Lanka/South Asia. The wording implied that it was either the religion of the defacto state or had LTTE support. 75% of Eelam is Hindu, the majority of the rest are Catholic with the church of south india and other protestant denominations accounting for about 10%. The LTTE is a secular organization, and the comment was one I had heard numerous times from the S.Lankan perspective in trying to imply the LTTE was "backed up" by the church, in doing so they are trying to encourage the paranoia of India (in the hope that it will encourage them to go against the LTTE/Eelam).

2) The statement that the Karuna faction controls parts of the East is factually incorrect. Granted, members of that paramilitary section do carry out attacks in the East (there is debate as to whether it is the Karuna faction or SL operatives), however they don't control any land, unless you consider the Sri Lankan army bases as Karuna camps.

As you can read above, my question was regarding your deletion which included PLOTE, EPRLF and of course Karuna faction. Answering only for Karuna faction and conveniently forgetting others is, at best, a Straw man argument. I wanted to point out that labelling everything against LTTE as sinhalese propaganda was baseless, because there are others who are against LTTE as well. You did not have any basis in claimining that the existance of those people are part of Sinhalese Propaganda. Read what I said again and what you actually deleted. Greenleaf

The LTTE has carried out attacks in Colombo and Kandy, does this mean the LTTE controls parts of Colombo and Kandy? Instead of asking me, now, if I have evidence to support my claim, the question should be "do they have evidence to support their claim?" (since they're the ones who posted it up). I had no wish to go on here to post "pro-LTTE propaganda". I came here merely to read and learn, but found comments like this which are thoroughly unprofessional and hurtful.

3) There was a statement that "the actual Tamil Eelam concept...included the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala in India". This was never the claim by any Sri Lankan Tamil groups! This was a piece of SL propaganda to try to get India to fight the LTTE.

This fact has been discussed by Soman and someone else already. The quotes cited, as I remember were from Dalistan, whch has nothing to do with Sinhalese propaganda. In fact, one editor who was being accused as a Sinhalese racist, sinhalapower, did talk against Dalistan in that talk. Read the history. When you delete something that was under debate, discuss it rather than saying "ah, Sinhala propaganda, so let's delete it."

Also, in my humble opinion, India knows better than to go to war against tamils reading some website. That is not the typical way governments of big countries act. They have their own diplomatic/defense sources to decide whom they should go against. Your opinion on this may be different. But, if you remember a person called Rajiv Gandhi, you'll probably understand that India does not really need web site posts by "racist sinhalese" to keep their current stand against LTTE. Greenleaf

India's IPKF intervention had nothing to do with this, it had to do with the 1987 indo-lanka accord and the disarming of LTTE cadres.

this, i agree. I'll edit it myself. Greenleaf

They fought only after the suicide of LTTE cadres in IPKF custody after they were turned over to the SL army. You can read the Rediff Specials to find out more about this (I'm not sure the exact page, but the exact scenario mentioned above): http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/23lanka.htm Using Dalitstan as a reference source for Tamil Eelam is akin to using a Neo-Nazi site as a reference source for European History. The TNLA is an extremist group with no support in Eelam and Tamil Nadu (none of the political parties there have supported it, and it has only a handful of members..if it was so popular, popular enough to get more than a hundred members, then it would have been able to carry out major attacks or major propaganda, all it has to show for itself is one site, and it's only known because it is so far fetched and extreme).

These are just the first 3 examples. If the above is no reason to remove those references then it seems any rumour taken from any source on the web can be used to put information on this page. Al-Qaeda websites get a huge quantity of hits, but are they considered a good source just because of that?

this was the original argument as well, and although I wasn't involved in the argument, I believe the relevent editor provided counter-arguments and he and Soman came in to a concensus. So going back again and start the same argument will be a waste of time of everyone. Read what has been written, and if you have any new point, start the argument from there onwards. Then other people would possibly contribute - or we can accept your idea as concensus.

otherwise, citing Al-qaeda does not mean anything in itself because that argument can be made against inclusion of any arbritary website, however relevent. Greenleaf

I can put tons of information that shows the SL government and those who support it's perspective in poor light (all the hateful racist things which are said about christianity, norwegians, americans and tamils in sri lankan media/which which I can find reference to).

Well, if somebody really DOES that, someone else will revert it. There's no point talking with angry adverbs about "SL government and those who support it's perspective in poor light (all the hateful racist things" for something you ponder you could do. And in my humble opinion, you could have some restraint in your anger if you (considering the fact that you are well aware of the situation) remember that LTTE also had not-so-humane behavior:

"he described how he had held a child by the legs and bashed its head against a wall and how he enjoyed hearing the mother’s screaming"[13], not to mention Sri Maha Bodhi and Arantalava massacre of unarmed worshippers and monks.

When there is a war, hate etc. is there, and it would be childish to assume that one party was as pure as a Pope and other party was all out to get the innocent. Your anger shows when you take one-sided examples as if LTTE were saints in their whole life. Similarly in Wikipedia, there are vandals in both sides, and Similar behavior has been shown by presumably pro-LTTE vandals as well. If you check out the recent history in LTTE page, you'll see enough vandalism which replaced the whole page with content directly out of pro-LTTE web sites. Many editors were involved reverting it, and he did not stop until he was blocked by an admin. Greenleaf

However, is this what we want to degenerate to? Both sides putting slanderous material about each other on this site backed up by shoddy references? I could do it, I could take the time, register a name and do so, but that would make for very uninformative ignorant reading. I come to Wikipedia to see a genuine attempt at making a universal encyclopedia. Why not just stick with the "facts" and stop using this as an opinion/editorial piece.

your ideology is great, it would be excellent if your own editing, like deleting references to all other tamil groups, followed your own theory. Greenleaf

In professional bibliographic/journalistic circles in the West, they use quality references only. Does any source claiming to be an independent news media count as a source? Most quality pages on Wikipedia use a higher level of editing standards. I'm disappointed, and would rather have less information (but that which is quality and accurate) than have a great deal of heresay backed up by low quality references. Thank you.

Well, most editors are sort of more or less aware of these ideological principals, problem is that most of them don't practise them when their own preferences get hurt, and "degenerate" to hasty editing and name-calling. Greenleaf

-JaffnaBoy Oct.15, 2005. (where do I go about registering?)

There's a tiny link that the very top of the page. :o) Cheers, and happy editing. Greenleaf 06:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Eelam, Thamileelam, and Periya Thamil Nadu

The article is not distinguishing properly between the three different concepts of Eelam, Thamileelam and Periya Thamil Nadu:

• Nowadays the words Eelam and Thamileelam are used as if they were the same, but they were different originally. Eelam is the ancient Thamil name for the whole island. Thamileelam is the name given to the area which is claimed as the traditional homeland of the Thamils. This was very significant in the early days of the struggle. The Thamileelam militant groups only fought for the traditional homelands in the north and east. The Eelam groups - EPRLF particularly - fought for all parts of Eelam where Thamils lived. EPRLF therefore wanted the lands of the Plantation Thamils to also be included in independent Eelam with a corridor connecting them to Amparai. This difference is important, because it explains why the LTTE always talks about Thamileelam, not just Eelam.
• Both these are completely different from the idea of Periya Thamil Nadu. Only Periya Thamil Nadu includes Thamil Nadu and Kerala. Thamileelam only includes the north and east of Sri Lanka.
• The Thamils of Eelam have not sought independent union with Thamil Nadu after Kamaraj and other leaders from TN rejected the proposal in the 1950s. Even a man like Sabaratnam only said that India and Thamil Nadu could be means through which an independent Thamileelam was created. People like Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam did talk in 1922 about uniting the Thamils of India and Ceylon, but he called the union Thamilakam, not Thamil Eelam. In fact, he specifically said that Thamil Eelam should see itself as a part of Thamilakam. Chelvanayagam also used the words in the same way.

So the article is completely wrong to say that Thamileelam concept originally includes Thamil Nadu and Kerala. It also does not differentiate between Eelam and Thamileelam, but maybe this is less important since it is about Thamileelam not Eelam. -- Ponnampalam 01:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

One more point is that the LTTE only controls a part of what is claimed as Thamileelam. So it is also not correct to say that Thamileelam is a de facto quasi-independent state. Only the LTTE-controlled area is quasi-independent. Maybe the article should say that Thamileelam has two meanings, the first being the wider concept of the Thamil homeland within Sri Lanka for which independence is claimed, and the second being the narrower concept of the area which has already achieved quasi-independence? -- Ponnampalam 01:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of Wiki pedia

In this article, the author mentioned that "The Karuna faction, which broke away from the mainstream LTTE in 2004, controls parts of the East."

Could you please provide a solid evidence where "The Karuna" faction control area?

Moreover, LTTE controls 70 % of Tamil Eelam. Most part of the Tamil Eelam control by Srilankan government is not true.

It is too bad try to twist obvious facts.

More Misuse of Wikipedia

Actually, the LTTE controls less than 50% of the North and Eastern provinces (in the so called Tamil Ealam), most parts, especially coastal parts are controlled by Srilankan government.

Sinhala Idiot has deleted the whole topic

This is typical Sri Lankan style.

Wipeing out of a nation.

Net-Genocide?

Some moron is trying to do on Wikipedia what the Sinhala governmnets have been trying to do for past 50 years,

Dear readers,

Please note that this is the sort of immature acts of sabotage the Tamil people have to put up with

Eelam is recognised by me

Eelam is recognised by me and I am not a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Therefore it is wrong to say that only the LTTE recognises Eelam

That is true Tamil Eelam is recognized by every Tamilian. LTTE went one step further because they could take it they were being discriminated. People I am not supporting LTTE. Don't link Tamil Eelam with LTTE for example LTTE only recognize Tamil Eelam. Other Tamils recognize Tamil Eelam.

More Vandalism in the Intro

Well it seems this article has sure had its share of ups and downs, but there is another case of blatant vandalism by user Rational134 please see diff below:

Rational134

I propose just a revert back to the old version, since 'Eelam' was called that before the LTTE even existed so that claim is false. The LTTE does control more than just jungle, they control several towns and ex military bases, including costal towns, so that is false as well.--Realstarslayer 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

LTTE controls entire Kilinochchi district including Kilinochchi Town. They control entire Mulaiteevu district including Puthukudiyiripu Town and Mulaiteevu Town. LTTE controls mroe than 80% of Mannar district including the Madhu Church area. LTTE controls more than 50% of vavuniya district including the town of Mankulam. LTTE controls 20% of Jaffna district including all towns south of Muhamalai. LTTE controls over 60% of Batticaloa district including Vaharai Town. LTTE controls 50% of Trincomalee and a further 40% of Amparai.

Wikipedia cannot be a base for ignorant Sinhalese to spread their false propaganda. Perhaps they should leave such absurd claims as “LTTE controls just the jungles” to the Sri Lankan Government’s official websites.

STAMP is WRONG

Teh picture displaid as a stamp issued by LTTE is false.

LTTE never issued such a stamp.

There are inaccuracies on it.

a. No Puttalam district - Thats EPDP's Tamil Eelam

b. It says Eelam, which is the name used for entire island, including Sinhala land. LTTE stamps always say Tamil Eelam.

Someone seems to have good photoshop skills, but unfortunetly the stamp was not published by LTTE.

Central Issue - Discussion

I believe the call for an independent Tamil homeland or 'eelam' was heard long before the TULF even before Sri Lanka itself had obtained independence from Britain. So this section should be updated with this earlier history? Some excerpts from Sri Lanka: The Untold Story (chapter 10) [14]:

Already in 1918, Dr Visuvalingham, a leading Tamil from Jaffna, in a memorial to Whitehall, urged for the claim of a the basis of the former Tamil kingdom, as the only acceptable form of constitutional reform.

Sir Ponnampalam Arunachalam, after founding the Tamil League in 1921, in his prefatory address, had declared, "The Committee and those responsible for the Tamil League consider that our aims should be to keep alive and propagate the Tamil ideals, which have through ages past made the Tamils what they are. We should keep alive and propagate those ideals throughout Ceylon and promote the solidarity of what we have been proud to call - Tamil Eelam." - Ramanathan of Ceylon - The Life of Sir Ponnampalam Ramanathan by M Vythilingham, Volume II - page 540.

Jane Russell, too, confirms that Sir Ponnampalam Arunachalam advocated a Tamil state. "Ponnampalam Arunachalam, who had turned his bitterness from the ideal of a United Lanka to the concept of a Tamil Nad or Pan Tamilian state, in his last years." Communal Politics under the Donoughmore Constitution - pages 321-22

--Realstarslayer 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE logo / Tamil Eelam flag

I'd like to make an svg version of the flag but I need a much larger logo to start from than is available anywhere online. If there are any Tamils (or anyone, for that matter) who have a printed copy of the logo that they can scan in high resolution for me, it would be greatly appreciated. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i think i can do it

Excellent. Let me know when you've got the image. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My last revert

a) Obviously there are Sinhalese speaking people in Tamil Eelam

b) The time zones between Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka are now harmonized as Sri Lanka went back to its old time zone (which Tamil Eelam never changed)

c) Muslims are not an ethnic group

d) The Sri Lankan currency is used--nothing is unknown about it

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ACtually dude, I think that Muslims are considered an Ethnic group in Sri Lanka.

It's irrelevant, ethnicity has been removed from the infobox. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits

It is at a time zone of 6:00 GMT,different from the rest of the country! Also,the races include Tamils of Sri Lankan as well as Indian origin and some Muslims,Singalese numbers are few if not none. Donnyt 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. First, as I said, Tamil Eelam was +5:30 while Sri Lanka was +6:00. However, Sri Lanka recently went back to +5:30, so all of the island is now the same time zone. This link explains: [15]. As for your second sentence, it doesn't make any sense. There are certainly significant numbers of Sinhalese in the areas claimed by the LTTE, and as for Muslims, like I said, that's a religion, not an ethnicity. of course, since we have no numbers for any of them, we might as well remove the section altogether. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

According to sri lankan demographics,SL muslims or Moors are considered,BY LAW another race,and not as tamils,even though they speak a dialect of Tamil,Arwi.

Indian tamil Donnyt

I'd hate to sound belligerent, but you should of included "BY LAW of the Sri Lankan Government", I and many others, don't adhear to the laws of the Sri Lankan Government, and they certainly do not govern Wikipedia. Muslims (P.S Scientific data substantiating this claim of Muslims in Sri Lanka is non-existant, though if there is, please link me, this claim is very new to me), in Sri Lanka however do have distinct cultural religous beliefs seperate to that of other Tamil speaking people, however, it must be remembered that Tamils are Muslims Christians and Hindus and thus not a religiously based affiliation. --Sharz 10:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Among a host of other errors, the article claims Tamil militant groups were created post 1977. Totally untrue. The article needs more citations. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Puttalam

Puttalam is not part of the proposed Tamil Eelam claim. The LTTE's ISGA proposals only cover the Northern and eastern provinces. So the map (including the LTTE's one) is wrong!. Nagadeepa (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Map Issue

Should there be a map on this page showing the actual ares effectively controlled by the LTTE? I think I saw one earlier but it got deleted. 68.147.42.173 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Eelam is something claimed by the Tamil people who are also LTTE. However, LTTE alone did not ask for Eelam. In fact, the notion of Eelam was only adapted by LTTE. There is no need to connect Eelam to LTTE alone. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See also

The addition of Attacks attributed to LTTE in see also is not warranted. The article is not related to anything attacks that LTTE undertake. In fact, the only reason that LTTE is at all mentioned in this article is because it is the only organization that has made substantial efforts to achieve Tamil Eelam. Furthermore, LTTE is the only organization who claim they are administrating Tamil Eelam at this point in time. If LTTE does not control any land, for which they name Tamil Eelam, then LTTE would not even be mentioned in this article. It is because of this that addition of "attacks attributed to LTTE" in see also is not warranted. The attacks that LTTE undertake does not relate, in any way, shape or form, to Tamil Eelam and there is not even a single claim that all the attacks that the LTTE does is to achieve Tamil Eelam. Now "Black July" and "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" are directly related to Tamil Eelam article - Black July is the the claim for Tamil Eelam was strengthen and the Allegation of State Terrorism is the reason that Tamil Eelam (a seperate state concept) was even introduced to Sri Lankan politics. Watchdogb (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, since the LTTE as archived the area they gained via these acts, it must be added. If these attacker's were not for Tamil Eelam what were they for? If Black July" and "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" are claim and reason for Tamil Eelam, the LTTE attacks are the reason for the existence of Tamil Eelam which they (LTTE) claim to administer. Its like adding the destination and the reason for going there without adding the road taken to get there. The other reason is as you stated if the LTTE is "the only organization that has made substantial efforts to achieve Tamil Eelam" these substantial efforts, which includes "attacks attributed to LTTE" must be given. Please dont try to whitewash the LTTE, there should be a balanced point of view here.Nitraven (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. LTTE is neither the sole representative of Tamil Eelam or in control of Tamil Eelam. The notion of Eelam came before much much earlier before any political violence or any other progom. Eelam was the name for the Tamil inhabited areas of Ceylon. After 1974 the "Tamil Eelam" concept came along. It was actually claimed by the political TULF at that time and the concept was directly the result of political unjust done to the Tamils by the Sinhala majority government. The fact that the indepandent Tamil Eelam started to gain support was because of 1983 black july and the ongoing allegations for State terrorism by the Sri Lankan state. Currently parts of Tamil Eelam is controlled by the LTTE but parts are also controlled by the Government. The concept of Tamil Eelam has nothing to do with military action let alone attacks on civilian, military or economical targets. While LTTE claims to be fighting for Tamil Eelam there is no connections between Tamil Eelam and military actions that are taken by LTTE. Saying that Tamil Eelam is somehow related to attacks taken by LTTE is like saying that religious violence is somehow related (and thus belongs in see also) of the particular religion - which is unacceptable. Watchdogb (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look the 30 odd Tamil militant groups (and later the top 5 militant group) they all fought for Tamil Eelam. Later five groups, namely Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization, People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam, Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students, Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, took center stage and became the most powerful militant organizations. The similarities between them is that they were all fighting for the liberation of the Tamil people from Sri Lanka and fighting for Tamil Eelam. Maybe you may not know but in the end these groups turned against each other and today all the groups, besides LTTE, have chosen to give up their armed struggle and engage in other activities. So there is no relation ship or connection between Tamil Eelam and militarism or any type of violence. So stop giving undue weight to LTTE's part of the Tamil Eelam struggle over the other groups! Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view that the LTTE is not the sole representative of Tamil Eelam. However as you say currently parts of Tamil Eelam is controlled by the LTTE which they and you have to claim to be Tamil Eelam, and this article also discusses the form of governance implemented in the Tamil Eelam by the LTTE. It should be noted that the area under SL government control which are claimed by Tamil Eelam are referred to as Sri Lanka and not Tamil Eelam, only the area control by the LTTE is referred to as Tamil Eelam by them. Therefore this is not an article solely on the concept of Tamil Eelam, but also it current manifestations and efforts that have been taken to create Tamil Eelam it including listing of state funtions carried out by the LTTE for the Tamil Eelam. In archiving the current statuses of the Tamil Eelam (area controlled by the LTTE), as you have said "the only reason that LTTE is at all mentioned in this article is because it is the only organization that has made substantial efforts to achieve Tamil Eelam " and due to the reason that LTTE elements (courts, police, etc) are used to justify some form of tangible existence of Tamil Eelam, instead of it being a concept, it is therefor equally fair and necessary (for this article to be a balanced one) action taken to gain the land mass which the LTTE controls at present. Nitraven (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even a single citation is given that says that Tamil Eelam concept was in militarism. I am going to give citation that says that Tamil Eelam was a concept that was called upon for a achievement of a separate state through political means and not military means. That would clearly mean that the current adaptation by the group is not in accord with the actual claim of Tamil Eelam. Watchdogb (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim of Tamil Eelam came from TULF and was adapted by other Tamil groups. The TULF, as a political, party still remains in the political mainstream of Sri Lanka and this group is seen as opposing LTTE. There is no point in adding LTTE attacks to Tamil Eelam article as the very political party who introduced Tamil Eelam oppose LTTE's concepts! Watchdogb (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Military

If there is need for citation for the claim that LTTE has a Military wing, then please ask. I will be more than happy to provide reference that LTTE has a military wing. Watchdogb (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not to do with citation, and I dont say that the LTTE has no a combat element. It is the meaning the word Military has on the this article, I'm not trying to deny its existence, but since this article is about a state which the LTTE is trying to create, using the word Military in context is misleading. The tern Military its article in wiki stats; "Military refers to the people of an organisation authorised by its nation to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its independence by repulsing actual or perceived threats. "

Although citation you may give claim that it is a Military, that contradicts to the definition given in wiki. A Military is a combat element of a independent state, that is recognized by the Geneva Convention. Of cause the term Military is now used to describe or denoting someone that is skilled in use of weapons, or engaged in military service or in warfare. However in terms of the LTTE I believe the term Military as inaccurate as it is part of an organization, not a state and is not recognized by the Geneva Convention. Therefore that is why i add paramilitary and militant coz these are used to describe combat wings of similar groups such as the IRA and Hamas in the individual articles (paramilitary and militant). I believe the most suitable is militant in stead of Military. Nitraven (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What is written in the wiki article does not mean it is the correct meaning let alone the only meaning. The citation given are clearly WP:RS. So if you remove this claim, then you will be breaking wikipedia rules and WP:CENSOR wikipedia . I have given two reference for the Military claim. If you want some anti-rebel websites claiming LTTE military wing you don't have to look further than here, if you want npov citation then this should suffice. Watchdogb (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe the the definition of Military written in the wiki is not true then, don't link to it. This is not an argument about the military capabilities of the LTTE, but defining it as a legitimate military, a statuses reserved for a military of a sovereign state. Please use the right words when writing for a encyclopedic article . Nitraven (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So what is the comment for the two other citation that I gave ? Are you also saying that they are all wrong and only your own opinion, without any citation whatsoever, is correct ? I am sorry but this is wikipedia and there is no room for WP:OR here. We in wikipedia only say what others say and we certainly do not try to put our own views against what WP:RS says. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

State function

The claim that the LTTE preforms state function is also referenced. Next time if there is a concern about an edit please discuss on the talk page rather than removing material that can easily be cited. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Policing, HR organizations and Courts are not state functions, they are administrative. Nitraven (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go and tell that to the WP:RS author. There is no point in discussing this with me. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless these are the personal opinions of author you claim to be WP:RS. However no International body of country has recognized legitimacy of these so called State function such as courts or police. Nitraven (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This claim is made by an author of reputable standards published in a online academic peer reviewed and respected journal in the author's field of expertise. The second is a WP:RS book. So stop acting like 1) you are smarter than the author and 2) you know better English than the author and peer reviewers - both of which is highly doubted. Your claim that this is an opinion of an author is correct but same goes to any news website and any other WP:RS! So in essence you are contesting WP:RS altogether and this problem needs to be taken to other talk pages not this. Watchdogb (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so adamant in using this word based on the writings of the authors of the refs you gave, let us add them to clarify exactly who states what and thereby preventing the reader from assuming it is the general consensus. I hope this is exceptable by you.Nitraven (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't do that in wikipedia. The only reason for explicit attribution is if the references are POV. In this case neither is true and in fact these sources are highly regarded and prestigious sources. Watchdogb (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is POV, since its from individual authors.Nitraven (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If the item is referenced with a reliable source and is applicable to the article it can be included. I see no other wiki policy this violates. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Would you consider this, a journal from Cambridge university (Cambridge Review of International Affairs) published by Routledge and is a peer reviewed online academic journal, a reliable source ?

Would you consider this, another online peer reviewed journal published by Routledge - a respected publishing company, reliable source ?

Would you also consider this, another online peer reviewed journal published by Routledge and in the well respected journal Third World Quarterly, a relaible source ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very! Now I shall just edit and make the article better. Watchdogb (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what form of government is it claimed that the LTTE possess? Nitraven (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference is given so if you want to read more go ahead and read the journals. Watchdogb (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The refs claim there is a gov but, what I wanted to know what type it is, eg: Anarchy, Democracy (direct democracy, representative democracy), Despotism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Oligarchy.Nitraven (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is still going through re-write and I am trying to make it as neutral as possible. I am yet to get to the governance section but once I will include what type of government they run. I will also include the SL run area sections too (like the East). Watchdogb (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but please add it, small point, shouldn't the Political status in the inforbox be Proposed country instead of Unrecognized state ? Nitraven (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the last point. No, the status of the State of Tamil Eelam is actually de-facto and most popularly referred to as de-facto which is exactly "un-recognized" and not proposed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say de-facto stateNitraven (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. A certain president of a certain country clearly claimed that "de facto separate State" during their period as a president of that country. Watchdogb (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you can't use it to define the "de facto separate State" coz its a WP:PRIMARY Primary source, a source (this person) very close to the origin of a particular topic. Nitraven (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely can! WP:PRIMARY applies to the source that is cited in this article. In this case the source that is used to cite the claim is "The Hindu" a WP:RS online newspaper and it quotes a notable (at least at that time) person- making the source a secondary source and therefore not violating WP:PRIMARY. Watchdogb (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No you can not, she is/was not an expert on the matter and hence can not be considered a secondary source, and also due to the fact that "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Nitraven (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Go read WP:PRIMARY carefully before arguing points that are totally false. Now if you want experts all you need to do is to go through at least half of the citations given in this article as they are clear to point out that Tamil Eelam is a defacto state. Watchdogb (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these experts say that the LTTE has a land area under its control and argue that some of the stuff they do are in their opinion are state functions. Be that as it may, the fact that it is called by some a de-factor state done not mean that it is a "un-recognized" state. For the state to be un-recognized it has to be a state that has been proclaimed or declared and is in turn un-recognized by the international community. A de-factor state is a mealy a form of existence, which it unclear, hence we are forced to look at opinions of experts to find out were it really stands. But then only thing we end up is a de-factor state. But no links has been proven that a de-factor state = "un-recognized" state hence you'll have to class this article as a proposed state until such time that the Tamil eelam is declared. Nitraven (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem calling Tamil Eelam a "Unrecognized state" then the only alternative is "De facto state". The original notion of "unrecognized state" was only written to be clear but if you want to say what the references say, then we can settle on "defacto state". There most popular view is that Tamil Eelam is a defacto state and these are backed by the reference and this is what we are allowed to say and not make synthesis/OR claim and say that this is a proposed state. Watchdogb (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag

Due to the controversial nature of the concept of Tamil Eelam and the fact that the current state of the article is a result of the recent editing carried out by a single editor, I believe that this article should be reviewed by an administrator. Therefore please dont remove the tag unless it is done so. Thank you. Nitraven (talk)

Controversial nature of an article does not mean that the article is biased. The current article is well cited and almost all aspect of the article is made with care as not to violate WP:NPOV. On a side note, saying that an article is biased because one editor has edited the article is totally unacceptable per WP:NPA. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Watchdogb (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember the tags are only added to help improve the article. So if you feel something is pov or controversial about this article, then say what the concern is so that it can be taken care of. 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Development section

The current section of Development may seem to be POV to some users but if read with a open mind it will be clear that the section is NPOV. I had some concern about adding the state terrorism and genocide section, but the fact still remains that there is still a major view (expressed by WP:RS) that backs this paragraph. The sentence does not claim that these claims are true. Watchdogb (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To this section it should be added the Eelam wars also and all the groups involved in its both past and present.Nitraven (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the Eelam wars articles are of bad quality and very minimally referenced with many important claims that are not cited. I will try and see if there is any good journal or book that covers the Eelam wars and if so, then we can add a paragraph or two to the article. We do have to add the groups that have part taken in militancy for a separate state. Watchdogb (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SLDR

This article was overlooked and was not included in the original SLDR covered article. Since the subject of this article is clearly one of the aspirations for the civil war this article should have been included in the original SLDR. Does anyone object this ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Put the tags on. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done tagging article and talk page. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

The infobox presently says that there is "no official declaration" of independence of Tamil Eelam. The situation is actually a little more complex. The LTTE has never declared independence, nor does it recognise any declaration of independence issued by any other group, but there actually was a declaration of independence in 1990, issued by the EPRLF and endorsed - if I remember correctly - by the Northeastern Provincial Council (which was mostly the EPRLF, anyway). Given that this article is about the claim for Tamil Eelam by all groups, shouldn't that merit a mention in the infobox? One possibility would be to add a footnote which says something along the lines of "A Declaration of Independence was made on 1 March 1990 by the EPRLF and endorsed by the North Eastern Provincial Council, but was not recognised by other Tamil groups or the international community." -- Arvind (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think a footnote would be a great idea. Since I am not too familiar with the footnote editing can you do the edit ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I'll just need to find a source to check that I remember the dates right. -- Arvind (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Sri Lankan Army are the best. Its been thirty years since they fought those terrorists. It will come to an end before this year like the Sri Lankan Prime Minster said. Seriously it will take other countries like USA, United Kingdom longer. Probably 100 years or longer. From a real Sinhalese blood. Love you Sri Lankan Army. All tamils are terrorists in Sri Lanka, They should be killed, not a single trace of them should be on that Island. Long Live Sri Lanka.xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.61.104 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative capital

Tharmapuram has been captured (http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090115_08). Therefore it no longer is the administrative capital of the Tyranny of Tamil Eelam. This should be updated but I have got no idea what is their current "capital". --88.195.101.216 (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed. I had a look at those pictures and what was really shocking was that the ICRC office in dharmapuram is a tin hut. Throughout this war, what comes as a immense surprise to me is where the hell all of money given by the NGO's, the diASSpora etc for developement to the LTTE went? There has been no developement with little more than tin sheds added to the existing government infrastructure by the LTTE. From the pic's of kilinochchi the only good looking buidling was the white one where prabhakaran was supposed to have stayed. Hopefully once the LTTE is finished off the tamil people will be finally able to enjoy the fruits of developement instead of living in cadjan and tin huts as they have been all this time. The LTTE has a lot to account for as to where the diASSpora's hard earned money went.Kerr avon (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

In the ethnic groups tab in the info box all the ethnicities are mentioned, whereas in reality only tamils were living at the time the defacto state was present. The LTTE chased the muslims, and of course no sinhalese would have been found, hence i would like the opinion on updating it that with "tamil" as the only ethnicity. After all it is "Tamil" eelam.Kerr avon (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please follow proper SLDR procedures in an article under SLDR protection. Add the Fact tags on the articles and then if there is no reference provided in a reasonable time, then remove the incidents. Also if you remember, LTTE has formally apologized for the expulsion of the Muslims and has asked them to return many years ago. In fact, there were a floating population of muslims under the LTTE control when the cease fire was still functional. Watchdogb (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kerr, I think the fact is, this article is about the "proposed state" of Tamil Eelam, not the de facto state previously run by the LTTE. I updated the infobox to indicate that. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally some sence, yes this article is not about LTTE's version of TE, just what TE means, an encylopedic attemopt at covering it without any propaganda. That ltte tried ethnic cleanzing is another matter. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Area

Area according to the infobox: "19,509 ?UNIQ453,026ba6d14b917-ref-000,000B3-QINU? km2"

The text "UNIQ453,026ba6d14b917-ref-000,000B3-QINU" should probably be something else instead.