Talk:Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] RSS/HAF

The HAF is helped by the RSS perhaps but not part of the RSS. Look at who opposes them: Mullahs, Marxists, and Missionaries. This is about the beginnings of Hinduism, before the advent of caste and other socio-economic problems. Borntorebel is inserting POV and making the HAF looking like villains. FOSA is an extremely anti-Hindu organization, so is Ram Puniyani.Bakaman%% 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamils

FeTNA does not represent all Tamils, just like the RSS (supposedly) does not represent all Hindus. Many RSS leaders are Tamil, and many are of lower caste. The FOSA, Dalit Missionary Council are out to smear Hinduism's history. The HAF also does not believe in Aryan Invasion.Bakaman%% 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position on Californian Hindu textbook controversy, etc.

I suggest briefly discussing any specific FeTNA positions of the Californian Hindu textbook controversy in this article, and discussing larger non-FeTNA-specific issues in Californian Hindu textbook controversy and related articles. Discussion of specific FeTNA positions should draw on their own letters, position statements, etc.

Here's my suggested NPOV replacement for the entire section:

FeTNA was actively involved in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, in which it joined a number of other groups in successfully petitioning California's Curriculum Commission to reject allegedly revisionist edits to California's textbook curriculum on Hinduism and India, as suggested by two American Hindu organizations. FeTNA raised several specific objections about the proposed textbook revisions, which they felt sidelined the role of South Indian and Dravidian culture (history, language, and religious traditions), and whitewashed caste and gender discrimination in India.[1] (See main article Californian Hindu textbook controversy for details.)

Larger shared critiques of the proposed textbook revisions can be discussed in context in the main Californian Hindu textbook controversy article, where they'll be more useful and better contextualized.

Other suggested changes to NPOV and clarify the article:

  • Rewrite the first para to read:
The Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America (FeTNA, established 1987, nonprofit status 1986) is an umbrella organization of North American Tamil diaspora organizations. As of 2006, the group represents 42 local organizations, with a combined constituency of about 20,000 Tamil families, mostly Indian American (from Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lankan American.
  • Flesh out the "Convention" section. FeTNA is best known for its annual conventions (several dozen media mentions, perhaps 100+ since the 1970s), and it's a bit ridiculous to not have more detail there.
  • In the membership section, delete the line "The group has further expanded by including 40 local Tamil groups. 'Ilankai Tamil Sangam', the nuclear group was formed in 1977. Its members represent Tamils from Sri Lanka."; it's redundant (the number of groups will change over time, and it's easier to keep it in one place; as it stands, the intro mentions 42 groups, and this line mentions 40), misleading (Ilankai Tamil Sangam was one of the 5 founding groups, but to call it "nuclear" implies to the reader that it has an ongoing leadership role within FeTNA), and just plain wrong (its members represent Tamils both from India and Sri Lanka).
  • Rewrite the "Position on ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" section, basing it on FeTNA's actual stances, rather than solely on its position re: LTTE, which is currently named in every one of the 5 paras in the section; there's more to Sri Lanka than the LTTE. I don't have a lot of details here, so it might be useful for someone to look at a few FeTNA position statements / resolutions, and distill a general sense of their stance.
  • Under the "US civil rights lawsuits" section, combine the "In 1997" and "In 1998" sentences into a single paragraph, to make the text less choppy, and offer some continuity.
  • Remove the LTTE link from the "See Also" section; the LTTE's already linked in context several times in the text.

--Anirvan 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The BorntoRebel dude was spitting CPI(M) garbage on this page that was needed on FOSA's website not an encyclopedia page. People do need to know about FeTNA's connection to LTTE though. I live in the US and my Tamil Sangam is NOT a member of FeTNA so its important to note that it does not represent all Tamils.Bakaman%% 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Three questions -- do you have externally verifiable information about (1) the history of FeTNA's position on the conflict in Sri Lanka, (2) FeTNA's concrete connections with or published stances re: the LTTE, and (3) FeTNA's reach, e.g. what proportion of North American Tamil sangams are affiliated with with it? It should be entirely possible to write about FeTNA and its political stances in a neutral manner, in ways that both its supporters and opponents can agree on. --Anirvan 18:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Borntorebel though is quoting anti-Hindu people like Ravan Puniyani in his crusade against "Hindutva". I will try to find connections between FeTNA(LTTE), but on the proportion subject many Sangams are definitely not in the FeTNA framework.Bakaman%% 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My 2 cents on the current text

Blnguyen, Thanks for protecting the page and marking it disputed. Readers would take what is written with a pinch of salt, when the content is marked disputed.

Anirvan, Thanks for trying to bring some sanity into this revert war. I agree with you in principle on writing neutral text.

Preamble

My main objection to the text stems from the fact that this page was created with the sole intention of maligning FeTNA, when the fundies lost their court battle in their attempts to introduce doctored Indian history in California textbooks. As you can see on the Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy pages, the fundies are trying to paint everyone who opposed their textbook edits as non-Hindu and non-Indian [well-known MO of Jan Sanghis]. They are obviously irked by FeTNA joining hands with other organizations in opposing their edits and they are hell-bent on portraying FeTNA as a Sri Lankan organization that supports LTTE. This is the reason the text is very much one-sided and extremely biased. More detailed comments on each section below:

Membership

The text says:

FeTNA was formed in 1987 as an expansion of 'Ilankai Tamil Sangam' by including Tamil groups (called "Sangam" from Sanskrit/Prakrit Sangha) from Delaware Valley, Washington & Baltimore, New York, and Harrisburg. The group has further expanded by including 40 local Tamil groups. 'Ilankai Tamil Sangam', the nuclear group was formed in 1977. Its members represent Tamils from Sri Lanka.

This is clear nonsense and factually incorrect. The only intention seems to be to somehow portray FeTNA as primarily a Sri Lankan organization, which is farther from the truth. The comment on the word "Sangam" coming from Sanskrit is not only disputed, but also irrelevant to the membership discussion. The whole text is unecessary and factually incorrect. FeTNA was not an 'expansion" of one group, instead formed with four groups as memebers and has grown since to include many more. In any case, there is no reference or justification to leave this text as is.

Position on ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

The whole section seem to have been included only to malign FeTNA and somehow show that it is connected to LTTE. The first sentence says:

FeTNA' political critics have sometimes linked it with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, the primary secessionist Sri Lankan Tamil organization). In 2003, an article in The Times of India labeled FeTNA "one of LTTE's front organisations."

This is grossly unfair. The TOI article in question quotes "The Island" news paper from Sri Lanka that apparently claimed FeTNA was a front organization of LTTE. While I do not know the history of this newspaper, it is not unreasonable for a neutral observer not to take this seriously. Without any other independent evidence, given that the island nation has been in civil war, the opinion of a single newspaper from that island should be considered biased. This link seems to be the basis of the rest of assertions and innuendos on LTTE/FeTNA.

Most of the text in this section and the next section on civil rights is orthogonal to FeTNA's primary activities and extremely biased. The only intention seems to be to invoke "LTTE" in every sentence written.

California Hindu textbook controversy

While the word "LTTE" is liberally used, mostly out of context, to malign FeTNA, the fundies are allergic to use their own fundamentalist organizations' names when it comes to VF and HEF. If you like, I can detail all the evidence available in this regard with references. Of course, there are 100s of news articles on the links between VF/HEF and Hindu fundamentalist groups such as RSS and VHP. RSS/VHP does not represent all Hindus just as KKK does not represent all White Americans. If some irrelevant details from a couple of documents signed by FeTNA can be quoted to malign FeTNA, the links to the quotes of VF on Hinduism being older than Big Bang must also be included.

It is also not fair to describe these groups as Hindu groups. If they claim to be Hindu groups, it should be stated as such, but not as a fact. The fact that many organizations, including FeTNA, have shown sufficient evidence to prove that these two groups were in fact setup by RSS/VHP should be included. It looks like fundies just don't want people to know this piece of information. If you look at the FeTNA letter on the textbook controversy, FeTNA itself was very generous in calling these groups "religious extremist groups".

The text on Thillai Kumaran's statement is in very bad taste and is not relevant to the core discussion. I don't know what the intention is.

There should be some minimal neutral text showing both sides of the story (i.e., one side claiming that they are representing Hindus, while the other side is accusing them of inserting fundamentalist edits), rather than saying "they were irked by". The 5 items somewhat accurately capture why FeTNA was opposed to the edits, though they can be expanded; the rest can be deleted.

Categories

The fundies don't seem to like including India here. Again, the intention seems to be only to show FeTNA is primarily Sri Lankan. This is untrue and very much biased. No one is claiming FeTNA represents all Tamils, but the majority of Tamils live in India. As far as I know most of the Tamil sangams that are part of FeTNA, have members mostly from Tamil Nadu. This is just another attempt by the fundies to dismiss anyone who criticizes to their ideology as anti-Hindu and anti/non-Indian.

Borntorebel 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Borntorebel, would you be ok with my suggested edits, particularly if the phrase "two American Hindu organizations" were replaced with "the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation"?
Anirvan, this should be fine. It is OK to leave as above and not talk about who is behind these organizations or calling them Hindu or fundamentalist in this article, as long as as LTTE is not brought into this page on flimsy grounds.

Again, the best way to address the California textbook issues is by fixing the California textbook controversy article, rather than by refighting the same edit wars on the pages of every single participating organization.

I agree. Any discussion on pro/anti textbook edits should go to the textbook article.

I agree that the misleading sentence in the membership para should be deleted, and that both India- and Sri Lanka related categories should be included.

I don't know enough about the FeTNA's stances on Sri Lankan politics to have an opinion on that section; I certainly agree that the current version is LTTE-obsessed, and appears to link FeTNA to the LTTE in ways that appear difficult to support based on externally verifiable sources.
FeTNA is not a political organization and as far as I know it has no "Position on ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, not to mention there is no evidence to support the claim "FeTNA has been a prominent and vocal supporter of LTTE". FeTNA is primarily a cultural organization. A one or two sentence description of each (including the textbook controversy) should be sufficient. If details are included, it is only fair to include FeTNA's reasoning on their involvement in each of these activities. As per FeTNA, their primary objective [2] is "... the preservation and growth of Tamil Language, Culture, and Community". It got involved in the textbook controvery only because the edits explicitly denied the existence of any non-Vedic culture, religion or language in India. As I said earlier, any reference to LTTE is unjustified without proper evidence/reference and details on who is making these allegations (i.e, "The Island" newspaper and the Hindu fundamentalists in the context of the textbook controversy). We are on a slippery slope if we take this route.
I researched and wrote the "US civil rights" section, based substantially on TamilNet's extended coverage. I believe it's written from a neutral and fact-based POV, and goes much further in discussing the facts than the ridiculous "FeTNA went to court defending the LTTE!!!" allegations I've seen online.
If you're familiar with FeTNA and it's work, can you add to the Activities section? The article is clearly unbalanced towards discussion of the political, while FeTNA appears to be primarily known as a cultural organization.
Sure, that's exactly my point, i.e., the cultural activities should be the primary focus. As far as I can see FeTNA's activities are limited to annual conventions and some cultural activities. I'm aware of at least the following activities that I can write about in detail later:
  • Invites various Tamil scholars to North America on the average of two per-year
  • Played a major role in supporting the creation of a Tamil department in UC Berkeley, with Prof George Hart as Chair
  • Supports groups such as as NTYO
Borntorebel 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
--Anirvan 09:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Borntorebel, (unless he reformed) does nothing but portray concerned Hindu parents as fundamentalists. He says they deny the Aryan Invasion. If you want to know, there are no "two races" in India, there's one and the Aryan Invasion is just used to keep Tamils (and other Soth Indians) down. It doesn't exist. FeTNA then turned into another mouthpiece of Marxist orgs like FOSA, ACHA, and AID.Bakaman%% 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jan Sanghis care more about Hindu History than a bunch of "Secular" organizations (FOSA, IMC, Baptist Church). If you read the textbooks you might find that they don't give any useful information on Hinduism just Karma, Cows, and Caste. Bakaman%% 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my dear friend Bakaman, we can discuss ad infinitum your comments such as secularism is evil or anyone who opposes the Hindu fundamentalists must be a Marxist/Church, etc. I don't think that's going to help the discussion here. The discussion here is on the FeTNA article, which is biased, incorrect and one-sided, which is what prompted me to include the material on fundies. I'm not dodging the issue. Let's discuss these issues under a relevant article's talk page, such as the textbook controversy or the AIT
Borntorebel 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Balancing POV is not adding POV to counterbalance POV. It is neutralizing the tone of the work. Two wrongs don't make a right. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FETNA and LTTE

FETNA's connection with LTTE is obvious. FETNA has gone well beyond what a purely cultural organization would do for a political/separationist group.

LTTE has been able to waged a long war againt a country. It has assasinated major politicians in Sri Lanka and India. LTTE apparently has access to enormous financial resources, enough to fight a conventional Sri Lankan army. I don't know where these resources come from, I would guess a part of it comes from Tamil diaspora through feeder organizations. LTTE apparently was not afraid of the might of Indian army as well. It should not surprize anyone to find a large network of LTTE-connected organizations among the Tamils.

FeTNA has never been shy about signing documents supporting LTTE.

It is true that FETNA does not represent all Tamils, and not all Tamils support LTTE. However they have been successful in in making all other Tamil groups insignificant. In case of LTTE, they have taken care of rival Tamil organizations like PLOTE the old fashioned way.

Wikipedia should present facts, and all the facts. Just because an organization calls it self a "cultural" organization, does not mean its connections should be not be discussed.--Cardreader 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I am not going to be an arbiter of what belongs in the article, but am happy to moderate the forum and give pointers if they are wanted. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


I've researched and written a suggested NPOV revision of the article at User:Anirvan/Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America. The revision includes the following improvements:

  • More details on FeTNA's primary ongoing activities (the convention and fundraising)
  • Details on membership, and how power is shared among member groups
  • NPOV discussion of FeTNA's position on the conflict in Sri Lanka. I've referenced and excerpted every single relevant FeTNA statement I could find. Readers can decide for themselves whether they agree or not.
  • Added a subsection referencing criticism of FeTNA's stance on Sri Lankan politics, as well as the Times of India accusation of LTTE linkage
  • Included a succinct, NPOV, description of the California Hindu textbook controversy, and FeTNA's stance on it, directing readers to look at the main article for more details on the larger issue
  • Added more specific, neutral, article categories

The proposed article is backed up by 25 external references, to help get all the hearsay and personal opinions out of the article; every fact in the text is footnoted.

I'd appreciate feedback, both from FeTNA supporters and critics. Thanks!

--Anirvan 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Anirvan,

Thanks for talking time to write this.

While I do wish there were more material on the cultural and social activities (the primary focus of FeTNA) than the political ones, I do have a couple of specific comments:


Some Indian and Indian-American critics consider FeTNA overly sympathetic toward or supportive of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the primary Sri Lankan Tamil secessionist organization

Do you have any additional references for this statement. As far as I know, only the Hindu fundamentalists have used this type of criticsm, not "Indians and Indian-American", which is a more general term. Moreover, the Hindu fundamentalists have used this tactics only in the context of the textbook controversy, though I could be wrong and it is entirely possible these two groups have had past run-ins.

FeTNA was accused of being "one of LTTE's front organisations" in a July 2003 article in the Times of India.[20] The accusation appears not to have been repeated in subsequent media coverage, and mainstream Indian political figures (e.g. Indian President Abdul Kalam) have continued to participate in FeTNA events.[3]

If you look at the TOI article, it merely and repeatedly quotes the "The Island" paper, e.g., "....according to a report in The Island on Wednesday.", "..., the paper said.", "Quoting posters published for the event, the paper said ...", and " The Island also quoted a Fetna communiqué...". Since we cannot seem to find the original "The Island" article, the source of the article deserves a mention here.

Borntorebel 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Borntorebel. If you know more about FeTNA's cultural or educational activities, you should obviously reference and contribute that. All I knew about FeTNA before working on this article was what I'd seen in newspaper reports about their annual convention.
There are two criticisms here. My sense is that most critics of FeTNA's Sri Lanka stance are critical of the LTTE, and feel that FeTNA is overly sympathetic toward or supportive of them...without necessarily believing that FeTNA is secretly smuggling money to the Tamil Tigers. A subset of those critics seem to be accusing FeTNA of doing just that.
Perhaps some of the FeTNA critics reading this can help out here -- just who has accused FeTNA of being linked to the LTTE? And what does "linked" mean in this context? Are there particular named critics we can cite? The conspiracy theory, in particular, appears to be a relatively minority position, so it would be helpful to get more facts from Bakaman, Cardreader, and other Wikipedians who have expressed their personal dislike for FeTNA on this talk page.
Like you, I have not seen any specifics or references for the accusation of a few on connecting FeTNA and LTTE. So far, all these accusations seem to be based on mere hearsay or blind hatred for anyone opposing the textbook edits.
As for the Times of India mention, the accusation may be original to the ToI. They say that The Island quoted a "communique", but the "communique" they refer to appears to be a press release for the then-upcoming 2003 FeTNA convention. There are two possibilities here: (1) The Island received a FeTNA convention press release, and labeled it the communique of an LTTE front group (a story reprinted in the ToI), or (2) The Island wrote a general article about the upcoming FeTNA convention, and someone at the the ToI used it as the basis for their slam piece or expose (based on one's position). I can see it happening both ways. Does someone know about The Island's editorial stance toward the LTTE, or have other information to help deduce the content of the original article? It would be helpful to get the facts of the accusation straight.
I did a little bit of a research. Needless to say, The Island and LTTE do not like each other, with constant namecalling on both sides. A brief look at their web site [3] or a google search would provide some clues. e.g., see [4], [5]
While going through the site, I did find quite a few articles or editorials from The Island accusing various organizations as LTTE front organizations, though I could not find the FeTNA article/editorial, e.g., see [6]
The Asian Human Rights Commission has also accused the "The Island" newspaper of bias, e.g., see [7]


--Anirvan 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Borntorebel. Given your research, it seems quite likely that the original charge originated with The Island, and not with The Times of India. I've made changes at User:Anirvan/Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America to add more context. Bakaman, Cardreader, and other anti-FeTNA Wikipedians -- can you please read the suggested revision of the article, and offer comments here? I'd like to ask Blnguyen to unprotect the article and replace it with this edit if there are no major objections from anyone concerned with the subject.
- Anirvan 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not anti-Fetna, I'm a Tamil myself. Cardreader merely reps the facts. I would also prefer pro-Hindu over anti-FeTNA. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing of my query aside (I apologize for calling you an "anti-FeTNA Wikipedian"), as a contributor to the article, and as someone familiar with FeTNA, do you have any feedback about my suggested revision of the article, located at User:Anirvan/Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America? I'd appreciate your comments. Thank you. - Anirvan 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the discussion part of the userpage you created. Good job :). Bakaman Bakatalk 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments

I thank Anirvan for his efforts, however I would like to say the following. I should mention I have known many Tamils, from India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia, I have also known some Sri Lankan Singalese.

- The only reason LTTE can claim to be the only organization representing Sri Lankan Tamils is that they have killed most of competing Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka. They have won, using terror. BTW, I believe LTTE invented suicide attacks.

- LTTE is confidentally fighting an entire formally organize army. They are better equipped than Sri Lankan army. Where are they getting funds? From front organizations they have set up among the Tamil diaspora.

- FeTNA's predecessor is 'Ilankai Tamil Sangam'. Through careful planning they have managed to capture most Tamil organizations. However FeTNA does not represent all Tamils, and does not represent all Tamil groups. However it is the best organized. You should know about how organizations are captured in North America, rival Sikh group have been doing it for years.

- If FeTNA were a purely social Tamil group, it would have refrained in getting involved in political (international and national) and religious issues. They have other things on their agenda. They collaborate with Dravidianists (they are in fact Dravidianists), missionaries and the like, for the shared aims. FeTNA has not only been involved in the Textbook controversy, they are involved in OBC reservation issue.

I am an admirer of the classic Tamil heritage, including the classic Tamil literature. I find it so crude and ironic that a supporters of a violent organization run by a megalomaniac would organize a conference on Thirukkural. I am sorry to have to say that.--Vikramsingh 23:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vikramsingh. From your comments, I presume that you're basically ok with the suggested edit of the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America article, as your feedback focuses primarily on your political disagreements with FeTNA and the LTTE, rather than on textual issues. You write that "If FeTNA were a purely social Tamil group, it would have refrained in getting involved in political (international and national) and religious issues." Just to make it clear, my suggested edit doesn't state that FeTNA is purely a social group, and I think it's unlikely a reader would come to that conclusion, given that over half of the article is devoted to FeTNA's political stances. (Which is a problem -- I think coverage of the group's social activities is relatively lacking.) Thanks for your feedback. --Anirvan 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does FeTNA want?

Anyone who wants to know what FeTNA (and thus LTTE) wants to achieve, go to "Ilankai Tamil Sangam" (the mother group of FeTNA) website http://sangam.org/taraki/links/ , click on "Tamil Tribune". Read the articles there. That is what FeTNA wants to achieve.--Vikramsingh 23:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I'm seeking unprotection for this article, so it can be replaced with the edit at User:Anirvan/Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America. The text of that edit seems to have general consensus from four editors who have previously worked on this article: Anirvan, Bakaman, Borntorebel, and Vikramsingh. (I also asked Cardreader and Subhash bose for comments, but neither offered any feedback.) --Anirvan 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Anirvan.Bakaman Bakatalk

[edit] Vikramsingh's slew of NPOV edits

I'm stunned at Vikramsingh's slew of bad faith POV edits to this article -- many of them contested, none of them referenced. I'm disappointed that he'd jump back into a ridiculous POV edit war as soon as the article was unprotected, instead of engaging in dialogue when asked to contribute.

Please take a look at his edits. I think they speak for themselves.

Some of Vikramsingh's edits:

  1. Labeling Ilankai Tamil Sangam the "nuclear group" in the Federation, when they're just one of five co-founders, and one of forty-two members. As discussed in the article, FeTNA members' votes are proportional to membership, so singling out one of 42 member groups for special attention is misleading.
  2. Adding biased and baseless glosses of FeTNA's politics like "The Federation supports Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)," "It has issued a number of statements supporting LTTE...and an independent Tamil nation" -- statements that appear to be patently false, and not supported by any of the 6 FeTNA statements that are referenced and discussed in the article. Please add new information about relevant FeTNA statements if they exist, but there's no room for baseless claims in an encyclopedia.
  3. Adding "FeTNA was actively involved in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, in which it joined a number of other groups, including Christian missionary groups". Vikramsingh doesn't even pretend to be NPOV. There were a substantial number of groups that shared FeTNA's positions during the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, including (for example) 150+ academics and 17 California state legislators. If the text needed expansion (which I don't think it did), a NPOV edit would mention all of the groups sharing FeTNA's stances, instead of implying by selective listing that FeTNA is linked to or supportive of missionaries. Is there really a need to continue this kind of partisan editing?

I'm disappointed. -- Anirvan 02:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


The facts are actually well supported.

  1. Ilankai Tamil Sangam was the first and the nuclear group, founded much earlier than other groups. That is where the LTTE orientation comes from.
  2. Yes, The Federation supports Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It does not support other Tamil groups from Sri Lanka, or other Tamil perspectives from Sri Lanka. However you may be right, FeTNA may not have explicitly called for an independent Tamil nation, but the they use LTTE expressions to refer to Sri Lanka's elected government.
  3. Yes, some of the groups involved were missionary groups. "Dalit Freedom Network", a well funded missionary group run from USA had one of the most prominent roles.

Armed militancy and richly endowed campaigns can be whitewashed and suger-coated using carefully crafted words.--Vikramsingh 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vikramsingh.

  1. Do you have any actual evidence (beside your own repeated assertions) that Ilankai Tamil Sangam has more influence in FeTNA than any of the other 41 members? FeTNA's political views appear to be shared by many of its rank and file members, given that some of their resolutions were passed at their annual conventions. It seems much more likely that those Tamil groups that agree with FeTNA's stances tend to join, and those that don't (e.g. Bakaman's community?) avoid it, as opposed to the conspiracy theory that Ilankai Tamil Sangam has secretly forced dozens of unwilling Tamil sangams into supporting a distasteful political position.
  2. I just re-read the six FeTNA statements. FeTNA has expressed support for three murdered journalists, a murdered member of Parliament, Tamil victims of government military attacks, and civilian victims on both sides. They've also tried to pressure other nations into having the Sri Lankan government to de-militarize and engage Tamils in a political sphere, with Norwegian facilitation. The Wikipedia article is very clear: The Federation sides with the cause of ethnic Sri Lankan Tamils in the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. There's a difference between explicit support of the LTTE and broad support for the Tamil cause, in the same way that one can support Irish Nationalists without explicitly endorsing the IRA. My gut feeling is that that FeTNA's not anti-LTTE, but neither are they actively pro-LTTE. Readers deserve access to the facts, including access to original sources, not political editorializing.
  3. Your insisting over and over that some of the groups involved in the CA textbook controversy were missionary groups won't change the fact that the incredibly selective inclusion in your edits was biased and misleading.

This is an encyclopedia, not a POV grudge match. - Anirvan 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vikramsingh. Would you mind discussing your rationale for your 6 latest edits, and how they fit into the text? (Your edits are unlabeled, as usual.) For example, you intersperse original commentary re: FeTNA's stance vis-a-vis the LTTE outside the associated criticism section. You also added an unsourced misspelling-ridden paragraph-length description of a particular FeTNA press release which is longer than the entire "California Hindu textbook controversy" section, and three times as long as the description of FeTNA's concrete stances on the issue. Thanks for your help. -- Anirvan 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vikramsingh. Here's the rationale for my latest set of edits. I'd appreciate you actually responding to some of my questions one of these days. Pretending that the issues don't exist won't make them go away.

  • You write in the article, referring to FeTNA's fundraising activities, "It is suspected that some of these funds were used to support terrorist activities" pointing readers to a Zee news story about Nagaratnam Ranjithan of the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation. FeTNA isn't mentioned in the article, nor does a Google search for Nagaratnam Ranjithan pull up any associated references to FeTNA. Do you have any actual verifiable basis for you assertion?
  • I removed the special paragraph about Ilankai Tamil Sangam, which read like a description of the US with a special paragraph devoted to Virginia. As fascinating as Ilankai Tamil Sangam may be, it's best dealt with in its own article.
  • You label any discussion of FeTNA's positions/involvement with Sri Lanka "Ethnic conflict and Terrorism in Sri Lanka"; Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is a neutral term used as the name of the Wikipedia article.
  • I've made a clear separation between FeTNA's public stances, and the news coming out as a result of the August 2006 arrests.
  • I added the Chicago Tribune linkage of Nachimuthu Socrates to FeTNA, and based on that, added details about his role. I tried to use primary sources whenever possible.
  • I renamed "Religious stance" back to "Other political stances." The California Hindu textbook case was about politics, not theology, in the same way that history curriculum disputes in India are deeply politicized. FeTNA's particular objections to the HEF/VF edits were primarily non-religious; of the 6 edits highlighted in their February 2006 letter, only one dealt with religion (pointing out that Hinduism isn't only based in the Vedas, pointing out the existence of gods like Murugan).
  • I deleted the unsourced paragraph-length gloss of a FeTNA press release about the board's rejection of the edits; the text is longer than the entire CA Hindu textbook controversy section, and almost three times as long as the entire discussion of FeTNA's stance on the issue.

Thanks. Anirvan 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vikramsingh. You clearly spend time on this article; would you mind answering a few simple questions about edits? In the last ten days, you've made 25 edits, while consistently refusing to engage in dialogue on the talk page. I'd love to learn more about:

  1. Why you're conflating support for the Tamil side in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict with support for the LTTE. Is it your opinion that there does not exist any Tamil anti-Sinhalese / anti-Government-of-Sri-Lanka positions outside the LTTE? Do you have evidence that FeTNA supports the LTTE to the exclusion of the larger Tamil Sri Lankan movement?
  2. Why your edits are focused on trying to selectively describe the Ilankai Sangam in the body of the FeTNA article? Why not describe the Ilankai Sangam in their own article?
  3. Why you're so attached to the paragraph-length description of the February 2006 FeTNA textbook press release, which is longer than the entire rest of the textbook section, and almost three times as long as the entire descripton of FeTNA's position on the issue. Other editors have made some rather substantial compromises in order to get a widely supported, streamlined, NPOV description of FeTNA's role in the controversy; you clearly disagree with what everyone came up with. Can you explain your reasoning?

I hope you're not offended that I keep asking you to engage in dialogue. If you disagree with me, I'd appreciate it if you took five minute to explain why. Thanks. Anirvan 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News

For reference --Vikramsingh 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/nyregion/22tigers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

13 Tied to Sri Lankan Separatists Are Charged by U.S. With Aiding Terrorists

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM Published: August 22, 2006

Federal agents in four states, including New York and Connecticut, have arrested 13 men on charges that they plotted to buy weapons for a Sri Lankan separatist group and bribe agents posing as State Department officials to remove the group from a list of foreign terrorist organizations.

The men were charged yesterday, and others were being sought, in a case arising from two sting operations, the authorities said. The men were said to have close ties to the group, the Tamil Tigers. Three arrests were made in Buffalo and one each in Simsbury, Conn., San Jose, Calif., and Seattle.

The men were accused of a range of crimes, from trying to buy Russian-made shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and assault rifles from an undercover agent on Long Island to conspiring to pay a $1 million bribe to get off the government list.

The defendants included a Sri Lankan doctor who lives in London and met last year in a Staten Island apartment with an undercover F.B.I. agent posing as a State Department official to discuss the bribe, officials said. The doctor and five other men were arraigned and ordered held without bail yesterday in United States District Court in Brooklyn.

Also arrested were a Connecticut man with a master’s degree from Columbia University, and a financial adviser, the authorities said. Three of the men were American citizens; others were from Sri Lanka, India and Canada.

Among the suspects still being sought in the case was one identified in court papers as “a principal liaison” between the leader of the group, formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and its supporters in North America, Europe and Asia.

That man, whose name was redacted from the court papers because he was still being sought, was actively involved in procuring military equipment for the group from around the world, the papers said.

The arrests came three weeks after a frail four-year-old cease-fire between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government fell apart and the government stepped up airstrikes against the group.

Criminal complaints unsealed in the case said the group relied heavily on supporters in the United States, Europe, Canada and elsewhere “to raise and launder money, acquire intelligence, purchase technology and military arms and equipment and improperly influence elected politicians.”

In Cumberland, Md., F.B.I. agents searched the offices of a charity that, according to its Web site, has raised money to aid tsunami victims in Sri Lanka. The court papers identified it as a suspected front for a Tamil Tigers fund-raising organization.

The State Department designated the Tamil Tigers as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, and the investigation into its activities in the United States began two years later, according to the complaints.

The complaints detail an escalating series of deadly attacks by the Tamil Tigers, including one in June in which, they said, the group detonated a remote-controlled mine on an overcrowded bus, killing 64 people, including 15 children.

The investigation, which was conducted by the Joint Terrorist Task Force in the F.B.I.’s Newark office and overseen by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, with assistance from 20 other F.B.I. offices and authorities in 10 other nations, essentially ran on two tracks, officials said.

One track focused on the group’s fund-raising efforts. A confidential informer who had infiltrated the group introduced one of the defendants to an undercover federal agent posing as a State Department official. They began discussions about the possibility of a million-dollar bribe to remove the group from the State Department list, according to the bribery complaint.

The second track developed late last month, when one of the men contacted the same informer, believing he had a relationship with a black market arms dealer who could acquire weapons, including missiles. That began a series of telephone conversations and e-mail messages that ended with a Saturday meeting at a Long Island office, secretly recorded and videotaped by the F.B.I., one complaint said. Several of the men were arrested at the meeting.

The five men sought to buy 10 SA-18 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, 500 AK-47’s and other military equipment, according to the complaint. One law enforcement official said they arrived at the meeting with a “shopping list.”

“These folks took this to another level of aggression in their desire to acquire sophisticated weapons,” said Leslie G. Wiser Jr., the special agent in charge of the Newark F.B.I. office.

Nachimuthu Socrates, 54, one of the defendants charged yesterday in the bribery complaint, which described him as a Tamil Tigers supporter based in North America, was arrested at his home in Simsbury, Conn., officials said.

The complaint says Mr. Socrates met with the federal agent posing as a State Department official and the informant five times in 2004 and 2005. They had detailed discussions about financial terms to remove the group from the State Department list, according to the complaint.

Mr. Socrates’s daughter, Thernal Socrates, said the family was surprised by the charges. “We think he’s innocent and that all the charges will be dropped,” she said. “I think this seems to be the new trend these days,” she said of the government charges, adding, “I don’t know where this is coming from.

She said her father, who came to the United States from India in 1976, is an engineer with a master’s degree from Columbia University and runs his own granite business.


So what exactly does this have to do with the Wikipedia article on the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America? If you're suggesting that the unnamed organization is FeTNA, you'll notice that it's based in Cumberland, Maryland, while FeTNA appears to be based in Illinois.
You're obviously reading this talk page. Again, would you mind responding to my specific query about your six latest edits? Posting off-topic innuendo while ignoring queries won't help us write a better article.
Thanks. -- Anirvan 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Update

See LTTE funded U.S. Congressman’s 2005 trip to Vanni in Sri Lanka

Washington, D.C. 24 August (Asian Tribune.com): United States Congressman Danny Davis’ trip to Sri Lanka from March 30 to April 5, 2005, spending most of his time in the regions of the Vanni and Kilinochchi Districts, controlled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, was in fact funded by the Liberation Tigers, it was revealed by federal authorities, according to an August 23 datelined report in Chicago Tribune.Danny Davis, Democratic Congressman from Illinois says that he was unaware that the Tamil Tigers paid for the trip and on his required congressional disclosure form has reported that the trip was paid for by a Hickory Hills, Illinois-based Tamil cultural organization, the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America. Congressman Danny Davis said he knew that the group was "associated" with the Tamil Tigers but did not realize that the trip’s costs were covered with the funds controlled by the (Sri Lanka) rebel group. ...

Now, he should know.--Vikramsingh 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the problem?

things seem sourced.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits, September 12

I'm making a number of changes to the article, which involve specific changes by users ISKapoor. As always, I'd appreciate responses and feedback.

  • Lead section: The fact that not every org that FeTNA lists as a member links back to FeTNA on its website is highly irrelevant to the lead, and is mentioned below in the text. Given the substantial press coverage that FeTNA and its conferences has received over the past two decades, I've come across no externally verifiable critiques of its membership; it's not important enough to go in the lead section.
  • Lead section: Danny Davis' statement doesn't stand by itself, and refers to a charge associated with a current event; I've added some more context.
  • The three-paragraph-long discussion of the Tamil Relief Organization is utterly out of place in this article; it's an entirely separate organization, and deserving of its own article.
  • ISKapoor added back the misspelling of Madeleine Albright's name. I'm fixing it again.
  • It's utterly irrelevant to the FeTNA article that Nachimuthu Socrates was given a copy of an audio CD at a FeTNA event
  • I feel it's NPOV to claim that the two Hindu orgs involved in the CA textbook case were making "revisionist edits," given the level of disagreement about the issue; I'm changing it back to a more balanced "allegedly revisionist edits"
  • In the CA textbook section, ISKapoor characterized all critics of the edits as groups "similar" to FeTNA, which is off-base (I believe FeTNA may have been the only broad-based national membership org or ethnicity/language-based org involved)
  • Also in the CA textbook section, ISKapoor deleted (1) the fact that FeTNA felt that the edits in question whitewashed caste and gender discrimination in India, (2) the references for the entire para, and (3) the "see main article" section. I'm putting those back.

- Anirvan 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


A few more edits. Again, I'd appreciate comments. I've invited ISKapoor for his feedback on the talk page:

  • Ilankai Tamil Sangam and the Tamil Relief Organization are not the same as the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America. They should be discussed on their own pages (both of whcih are redlinks, just begging to be brought to life). I haven't seen any externally verifiable data that Ilankai was substantially more involved with the founding of FeTNA than any of the other co-founders.
  • The paragraph-long description of the reaction of a FeTNA member to a potential HAF lawsuit in the CA textbook case is incredibly irrelevant to FeTNA's position on the overall issue. After negotiations, FeTNA supporters agreed to substantially limit the length and type of discussion of FeTNA stances on the issue in this article; if we wanted to expand the section (which I don't think we should do), we should expand discussion of FeTNA's specific comments on the content of the edits.

- Anirvan 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm disappointed to see that Vikramsingh and ISKapoor are teaming up to do kneejerk unlabeled reversions, without addressing any of the issues raised, either on the talk page, or in the edit summaries. As before, I'd love to see either editor discuss the specific content of their edits on the talk page. Wikipedia isn't a game of my-revert-button-is-bigger-than-yours. - Anirvan 01:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


As usual, Vikramsingh continues to engage in POV-pushing on this article, using the technique of selective inclusion of off-topic information. His latest set of edits contain:

  • two paragraphs discussing the Tamil Relief Organization, which is not FeTNA
  • a paragraph discussing Ilankai Tamil Sangam, which is not FeTNA
  • unreferenced discussion of a former FeTNA member being handed a musical CD on a stage
  • discussion of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu's policy on caste-base reservation (FeTNA's letter was about general support for academic reservations in India, and didn't deal with specific states or policies).
  • discussion of the opposition of two Indian industrialists to the concept of workplace reservation -- an issue utterly unrelated to FeTNA's letter

It's difficult to argue with someone who steadfastly refuses to engage in public dialogue while continuing to make problematic edits; my fellow Wikipedians ISKapoor and Vikramsingh appear to be using this strategy on this article. I believe my edits are substantially NPOV. I don't know FeTNA from Adam, and I researched and wrote the entirety of the "Alleged involvement with conspiracy to assist LTTE" and "US civil rights lawsuits" sections, both of which have been repeatedly deleted by presumably pro-FeTNA editors. What I do know is that FeTNA is an organization that's been around for about 20 years, that virtually all press mentions over the years deal with its cultural work (suggesting that it's misguided to treat it as an entirely political org, which some editors seem to want to do), and that we'll learn more about its possible involvement with a conspiracy to assist the LTTE in time, as we get more information from the courts. I'm reverting Vikramsingh's edits, and continue to invite feedback.

- Anirvan 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Ditto. Another unlabeled reversion back to the same POV, off-topic, badly-written content. Another day of complete refusal to discuss the edits on the talk page. I'm going to be reverting back to my last NPOV edit. As always, I welcome feedback. Anirvan 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Some of the recent edits to the article are quite perplexing. For example, editors keep deleting the sentence "The group is best known for its annual cultural conferences." A cursory web search pulls up umpteen articles about FeTNA's conferences, from a variety of mainstream outlets: India Abroad , News India-Times, Indian Express, SiliconIndia, SiliconIndia , Indo-Asian News Service, Zee News, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Embassy India Review... - Anirvan 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)