File talk:Location Tamil Eelam territorial claim.png

Puttalam is a part of Tamil Eelam

Simply LTTE formed the main Part of Tamil Eelam and its claim. Puttalam is a part of Tamil Eelam- Source[[1]] PDF Dokument of the AU.Gov. Most Tamil Organization which are based on Tamil Nationalism. E.G TGTE.

Puttalam is not a part of Tamil Eelam

Please discuss the matter here or at File talk:Tamil eelam map.svg. That's the reason why we have file talk pages. With proves and evidence, facts. I don't know anything about this topic so please don't ask me. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have, as it is common practice on Commons in case of disputes, reverted to the original file. If you don't find consensus, you'll have to upload this file under a new name. But hopefully you find some trusted, knowledgeable editors/ reliable sources. -- RE rillke questions? 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for Puttalam not being part of Tamil Eelam territorial claim

I'm not even using Sinhala sources here. All of the sources I cite are TAMIL sources.

Vatukottai resoultion which was the original document that drew the lines of Tamil Eelam only includes the Northern Province and the Eastern Province http://www.tamilunitedfront.org/articles/Vattukottai.html NOTE: THEY CLAIM ONLY NORTHERN AND EASTERN PROVINCE. Puttalam is neither. Anything besides what they claim does not matter to territorial claim. This resolution also supersedes anything said while campaigning i.e. a manifesto.

• Document from 1692 that doesn't include Puttalam as part of tamil country: [[2]]

• A stamp from 1983 by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: [[3]] <---- no Puttalam

LTTE Major in Front of the Tamil Eelam Map - [[4]]

[[5]] <--- last peace talks and TNA demands do not include Puttalam (Tamil National Alliance is the leading Tamil party INSIDE the country and actually interact with people there).

[6] <--- The Tamil diaspora organization never mentions Puttalam. They refer to the Vatukottai resolution and the NORTH AND EASTERN people.

[[7]] <--- "I aspire for the formation of the independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east territory of the island of Sri Lanka on the basis that the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka make a distinct nation, have a traditional homeland and have the right to self-determination." <--- this is their recent referendum for independence where they only claim North and East

Straight from the Tamils themselves. North and East. For whatever reason (perhaps due to their lack of familiarity with Sri Lanka personally) the Tamil diaspora often has inaccurate maps that seem to include Puttalam which may be a result of this inaccurate image on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very influential in shaping ideas. Still, by their words they only claim North and East.

Plus, Puttalam is a Sinhala majority area thus it would be illogical to include it as part of the Tamil aspired state. BlueLotusLK (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This map and File:Tamil eelam map.svg are trying to portray the area that is generally claimed for Tamil Eelam. They are not trying to portray the contents of one particular document. Nor are they trying to portray the realties on the ground i.e. who lives where, who controls what.

As I have mentioned on the discussion on English Wikipedia, the territorial claim has evolved over the decades. In the 1990s'/2000's the LTTE started publishing maps of Tamil Eelam with Puttalam District included. It is their version of the map of Tamil Eelam that has become generally accepted as the territorial cliam for Tamil Eelam. That's why when User:QuartierLatin1968 uploaded the file in August 2005 with Puttalam District included in Tamil Eelam no-one questioned it. It wasn't until December 2011, more than six years later, User:BlueLotusLK started removing Puttalam District. User:BlueLotusLK (and their alter-egos) have been active on Wikimedia for many years, so why start tampering now? They seem intent on holding this image, which is used by a number of articles, as hostage.

Currently most Tamil organisations which want Tamil Eelam include Puttalam in their maps: TGTE, Sangam, Tamil Canadian, TYO Switzerland, TYO Germany.

A Google search for "Tamil Eelam map" for reveals that most maps of Tamil Eelam include Puttalam: Eric Olason, Salem News, Pictures from History, BBC, NDTV, FAS.

(P.S. Could the File:Tamil eelam map.svg be reverted back to the last one uploaded by the original uploader User:Mugilan?)--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[quote]It wasn't until December 2011, more than six years later, User:BlueLotusLK started removing Puttalam District. User:BlueLotusLK (and their alter-egos) have been active on Wikimedia for many years, so why start tampering now? They seem intent on holding this image, which is used by a number of articles, as hostage.[/quote]

It wasn't until December 2011 I noticed the image. And their is no "they". It's just me reverting the image.

I have no idea what you mean by holding it hostage. Perhaps reflecting reality seems hostage to you. You were claiming a historical basis which having rung false has lead you to claim it's a newly evolved image!

[quote]Currently most Tamil organisations which want Tamil Eelam include Puttalam in their map[/quote]

Yet they do not mention it in their documents. There seems to be a weird disconnect between their words and their maps. The referenda mentioned above was sponsored by most of these groups and claim the Northern and Eastern portions only. If the image of Tamil Eelam has evolved they could perhaps address this new evolution in their many spurious declarations issued each year.

[quote]A Google search for "Tamil Eelam map" for reveals that most maps of Tamil Eelam include Puttalam:[/quote]

Extended inaccuracy does not change the original meaning of things (especially by non-credible user generated images| I could not see a map of Tamil Eelam on either BBC or NDTV as you claimed). The inaccurate use of "begs the question" all over the internet has not lead the main portion of the article in reference to this term to reflect this inaccurate use.

(P.S. Could the File:Location_Tamil_Eelam_territorial_claim.png be reverted back to the last one uploaded by me which reflects historical claims, claims made by word and reality?)--BlueLotusLK

I would ask for a neutral party to judge the strength of the arguments made. I don't see an agreement being reached between Obi and me. BlueLotusLK (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

With that I'm going to defer to whoever admin wants to handle this and step out of this discussion. I will not reply any further. BlueLotusLK (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

BlueLotusLK what are you going to defend? I don't see why you change the Map all the Time. Just Google it or look at the Dokuments of the defacto Tamil Eelam - you can see that Puttalam was all the time part of Tamil Eelam. In this Discussion there are so many Points against your view. You ask for a neutral party? This person will also show you that Puttalam was always declared as part of Tamil Eelam (Don't take my mistake that the first version was without) - Obi has good arguments--Mugilan (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, okay. You guys can have this. I have no interest in this anymore. BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading most of the provided text, I came to the conclusion that there are sources supporting both representations.

Therefore I suggest, you put it exactly this way into the Wikipedia article. It is not Wikipedia's task to judge about such cases, instead just mention that it is controversial / was different in the past proving with your sources and describing the development. Edit warring is no solution.

What should be done on Wikimedia Commons?

1. The files should be reverted back to the state including Puttalam.
2. The claims should be proven on the file description pages and sources should be added.
3. New files could be uploaded not including Puttalam as claimed territory for Tamil Eelam, if required (but there are already some, like the stamp or the historic map (or a derivative work of those) that could be used)
4. 2. for the new files.

Then, you can edit the Wikipedia articles accordingly.

I strongly discourage such actions during an ongoing discussion. They are simply disruptive.

Sorry for that. But the Picture was created by me and is connected with my name. I don't wanted, that my mistake is beeing the reason on the one hand and on the other I don't wanted to distribute false information. That is also the reason i asked you to delete my Version. Just visit the TGTE Website: http://www.tgte-us.org/ After this prove my version was a mistake at the beginning and sorry for that--Mugilan (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There was enough war in this area, we don't need another one on Wikipedia or Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 20:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying earlier. I agree to your suggestions as to what should be done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)