Talk:Tamil Eelam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tamil Eelam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Treating Tamil Ealam as a state

Tamil Eelam has never been a physical entity. LTTE separasists, listed as a terrorist group by many countries, carried out a campaign but many Sri Lankan Tamils, who aspire to have an Ealam were against LTTE (Read about LTTE and how they killed other Tamil leaders). So what LTTE had was NOT Ealam. LTTE is no longer operate as a tangible organization; alomost all of its recognized leadership is wiped out and it is an ilegal organization to exsist!

Coming back to Tamil Eelam, it has no currency, no population, no land area and no identity (except in minds of some people. Even though many 'believe' and wish for heaven we don't list it as a country or a state. Imaginary 'hoomelands' cannot be treated as a leagal state. Some LTTE sympathizers try to present LTTE flag as the flag of Ealam!!! This is against many peaceful Sri Lankan Tamils. Before supporting a terrorist movement please do some resarch. I will remove all the unsupported such irrelevant sections in this article. Please provide references to support them beofore adding or leave them removed.

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the article never stated that Tamil Eelam was a sovereign state - it is merely an "aspiration", as the introductory paragraph stated before you took it upon yourself to change it and deface the article with your own POV. Secondly, the concept of an independent Tamil Eelam predates the LTTE. The defeat of the LTTE doesn't mean the "aspiration" for an independent Tamil Eelam has gone away. Finally, the inclusion of the infobox, which seems to upset you greatly, doesn't signify that the state is internationally recognised (see State of Palestine, Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Somaliland, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

i second obi2canibe . i want the article unchanged .Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your opinion. Unfortunately your points don't hold:

1. It failis to mention Tamil Eelam is NOT recognized by any other state and has never been physical entity. Mentioning that it is an aspiration does not justify this as almost all the states are in their citizens' aspirations. On ther other hand the exmaples you had given do recognize this explicitly; Nagorno-Karabakh Republic emphasizes on the fact that it is NOT recognized while Republic of China is an official state contrary to your claim. So your first point makes no any important point.

2. I agree the idea that Tamil Eelam an idea tht predate LTTE. Whatever I wrote is to clarify that what LTTE had was NOT the Eelam we are talking about even though LTTE itself used the name 'Tamil Eelam'. I suggest you read this section before simply deleting it. Also it seems you have missed the sentences:

"Starting in early 2009 the Sri Lankan army began an all out assault on Tamil Eelam that resulted in the collapse of LTTE conventional ground forces. The last remaining area of Sri Lanka that was controlled by the LTTE, a small coastal strip just north of Mullaithivu bordering the Nathikandal lagoon, fell on 18 May 2009. Most of the senior civil and military leadership of Tamil Eelam, including their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran"

It is clearly against your statement, with which I agreed, but yet you keep on reverting the aricle back to this!!! This suggest what creataed by LTTE is the so called 'Tamil Eelam' and its leader is Prabhakaran, a terrorist according to many recognized states!!! So your second point has no ground.

3. Fianlly, the box that is there has many item, which have no real meaing: how do you find the population of something that does not exist? Further this box never recognize 'unrecognized states' of Tamil Eelam. I am sorry it looks like a big scam according to what we both agreed: Tamil Eelam does not esists physically.

Please proivde proper reasoning or make necessary modification tahn just reverting back to an erroneous version according to what we have agreed here:Tamil Eelam does not esists physically.

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, I sugest you to discuss before removing the refernce I added to the term Ealam. It seems you simply revert articles without even reading them.

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You're right, the article didn't say that the state was unrecognised. But the way to correct this is to state this in the appropriate place in the introductory paragraph. Having "(This article is about aspiration of a set of people. This is not about a physical entity that exists.)" at the top of the article is, IMO, defacing the article.

2. I didn't agree totally with what was included in the introduction before but it was, again IMO, better than your version.

3. Please see the discussions below (January 2009) about the information included in the infobox. In this article Tamil Eelam refers to the entire Northern and Eastern provinces plus the district of Puttalam. From this we can work out the area, population etc of Tamil Eelam.

I'd like to suggest the introduction be worded as follows:

"Tamil Eelam...is the name given by certain Tamil groups in Sri Lanka to the state which they aspire to create in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for island of Sri Lanka: Eelam. Tamil Eelam has never been recognised as an independent state by any other state or authority.

In 1976 the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) started a violent secessionist campaign that sought to create an independent Tamil state (Tamil Eelam) in the north and east of Sri Lanka. By 1983 this campaign had evolved into the Sri Lankan Civil War. The LTTE ran a de facto state in large parts of the north and east of Sri Lanka until they were militarily defeated by the Sri Lankan Military in May 2009."--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

i wish to know why is the map being removed ?? Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Muththu,

Sorry for not clraifying it. Do we have sufficient sources to support this map? It is an unsourced map with no basis. It seems to be the area LTTE had influence over, which is not the same 'Tamil Eelam' this article is talking about. Many Tamils who supported 'Tamil Eelam', were agaisnt LTTE. It would be appropriate to provide sourced agreeable information and generate a map based on that. Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.231.42 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that, since the end of the war, removal of the map, population, and area information, which is no longer relevant, should be removed, I have a problem with suddenly de-listing it as a state entirely. The independence movement still exists, and independence movements can still vow to create a state. Therefore, we should not altogether discount the idea that Tamil Eelam, if it was ever actualized, would be a state. Furthermore, the removal of the flag is entirely without grounds. That is still the flag used by the independence movement around the world, so it should remain in the infobox to signify its place as Tamil Eelam's flag. mnmazur voicemail

mnmazur, The removal of those information was based on the idea that 'Tamil Eelam' is an idea among Sri Lankan Tamils at large than the terrortary held by a military organization considered as terrorists. It is hard to identify Tamil Eelam physically as the there is sounds basis to draw a borderline. Various groups carry different ideas. LTTE tried to have a separate state they called 'Tamil Eelam'. However, not all Sri Lankan Tamils, who aspire to have Tamil Eelam, accept LTTE. Even though, worldwide LTTE and pro-LTTE movement brought LTTE flag as part of Tamil Eelam campaigns, it is still the LTTE flag, until LTTE is accepted as the sole representative of Sri Lankan Tamils. As we speak, LTTE's official state is a terrorist group, not a representative of a nation. Therefore, we can't treat LTTE terrotary as the generally accepted 'Tamil Eelam' and thier flag as the flag of Tamil Eelam.

Ranil

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is not the flag of the Tamil Tigers (see Talk:Flag of Tamil Eelam). That is the flag of Tamil Eelam, as promulated by the LTTE. That does not mean it is the flag of the LTTE, which is different. mnmazur voicemail

Can you provide credible sources to prove your claim?

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.33.223 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's historical fact. Take the 2009 Tamil diaspora protests. Accross the world, in countries where the LTTE are designated terrorists, people could freely fly the flag of Tamil Eelam because it is not the flag of the LTTE. Sources such as [1] do a good job of summarizing the difference. Now, EelamWeb is a pro-LTTE source, there is no doubt about it, but by Wikipedia's standards their content can be used for reference when there is no incentive for them to be blatantly biased, and I don't see why they'd be lying on [2] where they state that the flag is based off of the LTTE flag, but is different.

Regardless, I have a proposal for compromise. What if we removed the flag from the infobox on the side, and instead put it as a thumbnail further down captioned The [[flag of Tamil Eelam]] is used by many supporters to desginate a national flag or similar? That way, we recognize that some groups that are pro-Tamil Eelam would not use that flag. mnmazur voicemail

I have the following comments for you: 1. Please reffer to wikipedia guidelines for verifiable sources. Blogs and pro-LTTE websites don't qualify according to these and your claim is inaccurate. When groups were protesting carrying LTTE leader Prabakaran, a terrorist as per those countries, they still did not arrest those people. It does not mean Prabakran is not LTTE leader. In fact some groups supporting LTTE used Tamil Eelam concept to support LTTE. I appreciate you accepting that fact. This article should reflect this or else it is not fair for the rest of the Sri Lankan Tamils. Tamil Eelam predates the LTTE led diplomatic movement during past few years. Either this should be explicitly indicated. Just posting LTTE flag as Tamil Eelam flag is spreading flase infomation. 2. I agree we can post LTTE flag with properly describing that LTTE, which tried to create what they called 'Tamil Eelam' had their flag and later during protests involving Tamil Eelam a flag derived from LTTE flag was used. Then I suppose there are verifiable sources to suppoort this.

Ranil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept the idea that not all Tamil Eelam supporters are LTTE supporters, but I reserve that the pro-LTTE website can be used, when it does not precisely depict any bias, as is the case here, under WP:SELFPUB. Regardless, I have added the flag to a section below, as I recommended. mnmazur voicemail

Under WP:SELFPUB pro-LTTE websites don't meet the following guidelines:

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity -

Pro-LTTE websites are not in an agreement with each other on fine details and the editors of those remain hidden, unknown. Pro-LTTE websites are largely being accused for fabricating information. Authenticity of their articles is very doubtful.

the article is not based primarily on such sources -

Many contraversial claims by pro-LTTE are not supported by third party websites. So one has to rely primaraly on pro-LTTE websites.

~~Ranil~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranilb5 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to this, the article itself does not rely solely on such sites (there are many sites listed in the references, most not pro-LTTE), and while the pro-LTTE websites did not always agree on fine details, they all agree that the flags are different. Now, the official Tamil Eelam site also had a page on this, but it has subsequently been taken down by the Sri Lankan Government, and is therefor unusable as a reference. However, TamilNet - labelled by some as pro-LTTE and some as not - also published a page noting the differences: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=16423

Now, as none of the sites I've listed have any incentive to lie about the flags being different, I see no reason to doubt the claim. Tell me: what is one reason why they would lie about the flags? It in no way serves the interests of the LTTE.

Moreover, this debate is starting to get on my nerves, given that the majority of sites referenced on this page are anti-LTTE, but no one points out that bias because the LTTE is widely regarded as a terrorist organization. I think it is rather stupid to be removing or discounting all references to pro-LTTE sites unless we do the exact same with all anti-LTTE sites, at which point we'd have no references, now, would we? mnmazur voicemail

First, who labels TamilNet as "not pro-LTTE"? Any reputable party? Reuters, AP, BBC, AFP, Xinhua all call it pro-LTTE. [3]

Second, there *is* an incentive of disclaiming on surface that a flag is not 'LTTE' flag. it would circumvent many criticism that the bearers will have to face if they openly claimed that they support LTTE, (such as child conscription), not to mention all the legal trouble, while, for all practical purposes, giving out the semantics that they are behind LTTE, especially to the other quarters that don't want to take LTTE in to the book: propaganda isn't necessarily targeted for the anti-LTTE west. If a spectator asks "why do you support a terrorist organization" they'd say "oh no, this flag is a different flag" and if *asked*, say that they "do not condone" LTTE's terrorist activities, just as a token gesture. The flag has a tiger, two guns behind it, and a chain of bullets, only big difference being removing the LTTE name from it. What would you say if a German hegemonist party used a flag of red with a white circle and a black swastika on it and claimed that they have nothing to do with the Nazi and merely used swastika as a sun or cross symbol? Would you think that they don't "have any incentive to lie about the flags being different"? I think they do. They get their message to audience; use symbolism for what they identify with, while dodging the inevitable criticisms about the bad side of the same party. How many groups have you seen donning the so-called TE flag, while acting seriously against LTTE? This is while there are many tamil groups who actively oppose LTTE. Greenleaf (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a supporter of the Tamil Eelam cause, I personally associate with many Tamils, mostly in Canada and the United States, that similarly support the cause of Tamil Eelam. I personally have flown the Tamil Eelam flag at protests, as have many of my acquaintances. Now, is it safe to say that probably some of the people I know do support the LTTE? Sure it is. However, I know that I do not, and neither do many of my acquaintances. This isn't a token to dissociate myself with the LTTE, as I have no problem with those who do support the LTTE and I do support much of what they do. However, as I said, the LTTE has committed some despicable acts - none worse than those carried out by the Government of Sri Lanka - and for this reason, I can't say I support LTTE or GoSL. I do however support the cause for an independent Tamil Eelam, and I wave the Tamil Eelam flag proudly.

As for your comments about TamilNet, I think it's fair to say that your so-called "reputable sources" are all anti-LTTE, and therefor, I personally discount anything they say about the LTTE or TamilNet. Al Jazeera, perhaps the most neutral news source I've ever seen, refers to them as "pro-Tamil." As I say, AP, BBC, etc are all based in countries where the LTTE is a terrorist entity, and therefore have reason to be anti-LTTE and I would never consider their articles as either neutral, credible, or reputable. mnmazur voicemail

Mnmazur, I am afraid your so called 'the most neutral news source' Al Jazeera also calls Tamilnet a Pro-LTTE news source [Ref:http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/20096173150357259.html]. NOw before calling them to be bias why don't we re-think about credibility of Tamilnet? I am some more comments too: I never said 'Tamil Eelam' article is entirly based on pro-LTTE sources. What I have been doing was removing and requesting relible sources for claims fabricated by LTTE. For instance LTTE flag posted as Tail Eelam flag. The link you have given to Tamilnet proves this so called 'Tamil Eelam' flag is something 'designed' by LTTE' [Ref://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=16423]

One good question I have is how do you know who actually maintains this 'Official Tamil Eelam Website', when the webmaster is in hidding? There no any known public leader for Tamil Eelam? We know some consider Prabakaran, the late leader of LTTE (an organization considered terrorist by many countries), as the leader of it. But many, including you don't accpet LTTE (as per your own words). Don't you think we have to clear up these in the article on 'Tamil Eelam'??? --Ranilb5 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Ranil

Mnmazur, Your position of LTTE isn't very different from the position of people I already mentioned: the people who "have no problem with those who do support the LTTE" by your own admission. So are many thousands. And you wonder what the point of a masquerade flag is? It is to give the message to "fellows" like you, while washing hands off in front of the western crowd by saying two flags are "different". For the likes of you (by your own admission) it doesn't matter because you don't care much whether there's a pro-LTTE tone in the flag. One could claim that the flag is a cleaned-up LTTE flag, which pro-LTTE people like, and people like you have no problems with (as you already admitted you don't have problems with pro-LTTE lobby, so you wouldn't mind their message getting piggybacked on yours would you?). With all due respect for your personal opinion, when I asked for examples, I did not ask personal accounts from the very kind of people that I claimed whom LTTE is (at worst) not a big problem. I asked whether you know anyone who 'act seriously against LTTE'. You obviously don't belong in that category by your own admission, it seems.

About news sources, AJ is just one against many I mentioned, and I'm afraid every single one of them are at least as important and accepted as AJ, of not more. And even then all you have is proof by lack of evidence, as even Al Jazeera admits that TamilNet is biased to one side, and that side isn't GOSL. As a 'proof' that this means "Aljazeera says tamilnet is non-pro-LTTE" doesn't hold much water in my books. More so because many media use 'tamil' and 'LTTE' without discrimination, as in 'tamil terrorists' Greenleaf (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are issing my point. I see that there is a difference between the flags, and I don't use the LTTE flag because I don't support the LTTE. But your edits here, as well as those of Ranil, are very biased against the LTTE, while my edits are, to the best of my ability as a human being, neutral. Just because some countries label LTTE as terrorists does not neccesarily make them so, and it is not Wikipedia's place -- nor the place of its editors -- to discrimnate against me, or attempt to undo all of my edits, because of my personal opinions. Nor is it Wikipedia's place to be openly anti-LTTE. How are we supposed to remain neutral when people like you obviously want anyone who supports the LTTE, or uses a flag which is different from - but admittedly remeniscent of - the flag of the LTTE, to be put to death? That definately appears to be your opinion, and after receiving numerous threats from Sinhala and other anti-Tamil forces, I take such things very seriously. mnmazur voicemail

mnmazur, if assertion such as yours amounts to proof, I could equally say that "But your edits here, ..., are very biased towards the LTTE, while my edits are, to the best of my ability as a human being, neutral". But I wouldn't do that because just claiming something is useless when all the edits are transparent for everyone to see and readers have a brain themselves to understand by reading. Just a while ago you just claimed almost every mainstream news source is biased against LTTE, so I won't feel too much of a problem of being painted by you in the same brush. Anyway your perception of "bias" seems to be that "anyone who says anything harmful to LTTE". In that case, let me remind that reporting solid verifiable facts is not a bias however harmful it is to someone. And I'm sorry, I wasn't following your edit wars with Ranil, i just stumbled upon a comment of you here while randomly checking my watch list. However, I'm as human as you are, and certain prejudice isn't unavoidable: You just attributed a death threat to me by saying "people like you obviously want anyone who supports the LTTE ... to be put to death?" which I have mentioned no where. Going by your rather curious claim that two polite paragraphs that disagrees with your opinions amount to a plot on your life, I'm inclined to believe that your claims against Ranil are also similarly unsubstantiated. Let the readers judge themselves. Greenleaf (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

this article has gone too much out of way due to some recent editing's ...while other such similar articles exist's (see State of Palestine, Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Somaliland,Transnistria, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia) i wonder why this article is under an edit attach where a member keep's on removing the map of the area ..... while millions of peope r seen to be holding the flag of the area & the map being published http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&q=eelam+protest+in+canada&sa=N&start=18&ndsp=18 the entire argument isnt being allowed & an edit dispute is beig performed ..... though i dont belong to the ealam still i dont find reason to leave it this way ....i cant keep resuming the original article not i have the time due to time constrain's in recent times ....hope i will have time later so tht i may work on this article .... the member first needs to undrstand the fact tht by including ta map it doesnt get any assurance tht it is a recognised one nor change the articles tone .....Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I already had replied to the list of above articles originally posated by Obi2canibe on 17th of August (see above). I said "1. It fails to mention Tamil Eelam is NOT recognized by any other state and has never been physical entity. Mentioning that it is an aspiration does not justify this as almost all the states are in their citizens' aspirations. On ther other hand the exmaples you had given do recognize this explicitly; Nagorno-Karabakh Republic emphasizes on the fact that it is NOT recognized while Republic of China is an official state contrary to your claim. So your first point makes no any important point." He accepted this and you did not contribute to any productive dialogue than just stating your personal opinion. I did not see you particiapte in any construcitve discussion than commenting on others. Please respond to this than making fruitless comments.

--Ranilb5 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Ranil

first u shld understand tht im not worried who accepts & who does not .....all i concentrate is in the article being of wiki standard .....by removing ta map it has become an article with no proper relevance due to some baseless edits .... therz nothing personal for me to retain tht article ....but wht the recent edits shows a misguiding path ......& ur personal comments wont prove anything good .....when u find fellow member's comment's as fruitless & expecting other's to follow is not going to improve the article in anyway .....Nagorno-Karabakh Republic , Somaliland ...let's see if these help's u ...--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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 09:39, 3 July 2005 (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 government for everything from commodities to electricity to public transport.

The TULF was not barred from the parliament. They boycotted it. Read the history. --SinhalaPOWEr 12:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.59.166 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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. [4]

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. [5]. A report from Decan Herald [6] 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, [7], --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" [8]

"The brigand had contacts with the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA), Tamil Nadu Liberation Front (TNLF) and Tamil Nadu Retrieval Force (TNRF)," [9]

"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]" [10]

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 [11]) 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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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)." [14]. )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 [15], 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"[16], 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velmahiban (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

More Misuse of Wikipedia

Actually, the LTTE controlled 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.16.90 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaupdate (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaupdate (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachein91 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.188.198 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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) [17]:

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: [18]. 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.226.234 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The tamil tigers are banned in the EU?

where it says this, It uses the EU as a example of country's which the organization is banned from. Now clearly the EU is not a nation, It is a union of nations. So it should be removed from the article as examples of nations that have banned the Tamil tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.212.89 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest Reveting of Article Tamil Eelam

{{editprotected}} I saw one user, Pearll's sun had undone without any discussion many previous revisions, which were based on current discussions among many in the discussion page just before the edit protection enforced. Edits he has undon and and are being discussed in talk page have addressed the issues:

1. Not mentioning of unrecognized status of Tamil Eelam compared to similar other articles State of Palestine, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Somaliland,Transnistria, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia). Instead putting up a lay out misleading the reader to think it is an exsisting state. 2. Inclusion of main inforbox, flag and a map based on pure researches of the editor or unverifiable sources (e.g. TamilNet) against WP:VERIFY.

Please look into this and reverse this very last unexplained undoing of dozens of revisions to an early revision.

--Ranilb5 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

✗ Not done I don't see any conclusion in the discussions regarding this matter on this talk page. Also, you'll need to provide reliable sources for this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Treating Tamil Ealam as a state

Puttalam

Currency and calling code

NPOV dispute

Predicted Results of a Referendum

Edit 13:00, 3 Oct 2004 by 220.247.251.211

Eelam

My edits

Reverts by Share Bear

dalitstan.org: imaginary outfits.

Edits by JaffnaBoy and Greenleaf

Eelam, Thamileelam, and Periya Thamil Nadu

Misuse of Wiki pedia

More Misuse of Wikipedia

Sinhala Idiot has deleted the whole topic

Eelam is recognised by me

More Vandalism in the Intro

STAMP is WRONG

Central Issue - Discussion

LTTE logo / Tamil Eelam flag

My last revert

My edits

Disputed

Puttalam

Map Issue

See also

Military

State function

Tag

Development section

SLDR

Declaration of independence

Administrative capital

Ethnic Groups

Area

The tamil tigers are banned in the EU?

Latest Reveting of Article Tamil Eelam