Talk:TamilNet/Archive 1

(The?) Tamilnet

Is it The Tamilnet, or just Tamilnet? I think its just Tamilnet. Actually I think its TamilNet. That's what the logo says anyway. I think that means we should move the article to TamilNet. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The google summery for TamilNet is as follows.

TamilNet is a news and feature service that focuses on providing reliable and accurate information on issues concerning the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

Its not "the" and it is "N". --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Statements

The following statements, which seem quite dubious, have been added to this article.

• New York Times labeled Tamilnet an authoratative news and information site on Tamil affairs in Sri Lanka.
• (within a High Security Zone compound manned by Sri Lankan government soldiers and behind the parliament building)
• ICRC has reported previous instances of the Sri Lankan security forces refusing to accept the bodies of its dead soldiers

As per Wikipedia policy I'm moving them to the talk page until required sources are given. Do not reinstate them unless Reliable Sources are given. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing more dubious/irrelevant statements

• which itself widely accused of false reporting and outlet of government propaganda
• Independent organization including RSF have condemned these threats and acts of intimidations on the free media, since this has been followed up by killings of journalists under mysterious circumstances.(See Murder of Taraki Sivaram and Richard De Zoysa) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another whole section without cited sources

• When Jaffna university lecturer Ganeshalingam (who was also the spokesperson for LTTE's international student organisation) was arrested for allegedly raping his 13 year old domestic servant. Tamilnet absolutely censored this news.[1] --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV titles and original research

False reporting to Disputed reporting.

Self censorship looks like Original research, unless we find a source which says that Tamilnet practices self sensorship, it will be removed. Thanks RaveenS 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All items within the disputed category seem to be properly sourced except in 2 incidents, the same accuracy is needed under the controversy section RaveenS 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

False versus Disputed

Is a conclusion by whom ? Asian tribune and Sri Lankan ministry of defense ?. Well these are not neutral sources to conclude anything about Tamilnet on Wikipedia. Only the readers will conclude based on the evidence provided as to if Tamilnet made false reporting or not. Sri Lankan ministry of defense and Asian Tribune can dispute the reporting based on facts as presented by them. RaveenS

Links to the articles are now provided. Look thru them. There's no question that they are false reports. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the WP:NPOV tag because this article reads as if the only reporting Tamilnt does is false. Not balanced an article Kingtut1 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All statements all given are fully cited. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then rename it as list of false reporst by Tamilnet not tamilnet.

If anyone wants to add Reliably Cited content to this article they are welcome. Right now the false reports bit is only a section of this article. And you can't add the {{NPOV}} tag for that reason. Again, I'm removing it.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is original research in the article particularly the paragraph below and I am removing it because I left a citation needed flag and no one has responded for almost three weeks. Elalan 03:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reporting on August 3rd that the LTTE had the bodies of 40 Sri Lankan Security Forces personal killed in action and that they were to be handed over to the Red Cross. However Red Cross denied that the LTTE had made any such request and the Sri Lankan Military stated that it did not loose 40 personnel . The next day it reported that the handover had been delayed "due to the urgent need of the administrative section of the Liberation Tigers in attending to the developing humanitarian crisis to provide safe passage to more than 10,000 residents of Muttur to safer areas" [2]. No such handover has susequently taken place .

TamilNet article

Seriously, do you not see the citations?--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No I dont see them ? All waht I see is 2 tamilnet articles and verbage that looks like original research. I agree with User:Elalan, unless citation is found for this case of so called false reporting, this particular paragraph is original research. At least the other two has Sri lankan military citations. I am going to tag this paragrpah as original research. Thanks RaveenS 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Tags

I'm removing the tags, since everything is cited, and nothing is OR/POV. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you are making dubious claims. Not everything is cited and there is original research. This is plain unacceptable for an encyclopedia article and should be mentioned as such. There is still a content dispute on this page and till its resolved, the tags cannot be removed. Elalan 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ministry of Defence of a third world country with poor human rights record cannot be considered a reliable source. Elalan 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, in this case, I'd agree with Elalan. "Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even out right deception of the public." However, I guess the question is regarding which allegations. The August 3rd point doesn't have an alternate cite, so all we have is "Tamilnet reported this ... Tamilnet reported that" with OR in between at this point. That should go. For the August 6th and 11th points, it looks like Asian Tribune may also not be reliable either. However, I think the points made by them can be considered true, unless there's some sort of response to the allegations by Tamilnet somebody knows about, like that the date stamp or the time posted is incorrect in some way. Any other views? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no way suggesting the Ministry of Defence website is a reliable source. But the thing is Ricky81682, the Tamilnet articles themselves are cited. And no one can dispute that they did publish those articles which apper to be false.
The tag reads "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims". Its not OR since its from the asian tribune and Ministry websites, and its not unverified since the actual article is cited.
The other tag says "The neutrality of this section is disputed". Again, same points. It can't be disputed since Tamilnet articles are cited. In any case I'm moving it below the sections which has Reuers and AP citations.
And Elalan is you're making one change don't rv all my edits like you did here [3], cos thats blanking my edits. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that I don't see a neutrality problem. Still, the August 3rd point doesn't have a cite. There's just two Tamilnet reports. Unless there's a cite for the Red Cross denial and military statement, it should be removed. Then, there's no OR I see. Otherwise, is the dispute whether the content belongs at all, because criticism like that does belong here. I would say that criticism of the same could probably belong at Asian Tribune but I think both of you would be on the other side of the issue, if I'm reading the biases correctly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this sentence:

It is widely considered to support the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel group that is classified as a Terrorist organization by a number of countries including the United States, the European Union and Canada.

Sure you could say it could be argued by some that it supports the LTTE, but then we have description of the LTTE as banned organization. How is this (ban on the LTTE) relevant to what the Tamilnet is about, other than pushing a certain POV - that is pushing for guilt by association. This is hardly neutral. Trying to craftily insert the word terrorism into this article is to just find a way of force feeding and demonizing an organization. Why shouldn't unbiased facts be mentioned and let the reader decide/think for themselves.

The subject is not the LTTE, the subject is Tamilnet. More than 80 % of this supposed article on Tamilnet is giving coverage to contreversy of 'mountain out of mole hill' issues. Which other mainstream report has this same proportion of Ministry of Defence sponsored controversy on Tamilnet. Are we questioning the reliability of a new service because they got date stamps wrong on a photograph and time is off by half hour or no time at all according to which standard time you use ? Is it not known that clocks on cameras can be set incorrectly in terms of date and time ?

The Tamilnet article on the Palaly incident never pins down an exact time but says "around ..." Most if not all the wire services have made such mistakes and this hardly proves anything devious. To Ricky81682, this type of conspiracy theories sells very well in Sri Lanka because there is an audience that will believe anything spewed out of the govt. propaganda dish. I think Wikipedia suffers badly from giving coverage to and over emphasizing unverifiable conspiracy theories.

As for response from Tamilnet: Tamilnet is not going to make an official response to propaganda sites with stories that has got clear logical holes in it. Doing so is falling for the bait and merely strengthens the case of the controversy. The Tamilnet article on the Palaly rocket incident. Its hardly verifiable as to whether the Sri Lankan defence ministry is right or wrong. The airbase is a High Security Zone and no independent observers including the SLMM have been allowed in since the latest outbreak.

Asiantribune deserves to be looked at more thoroughly because, no one cites Asiantribune other than Ministry of Defence (which we seem to agree is a source of propaganda at times). Its run by an Institute for something or other.. but who works at this institute ? In the Asiantribune report there was article that mentioned Col. Bahnu was badly injured, but LTTE satellite news channels and Tamilnet from the same day shows him alive and well. A credible news sources atleast accepts that it made an error, but Asiantribune doesn't even bother to do that. Interestingly, Ministry of Defence also carbon copies the same article.

Even more troubling is the insistance of having unverifiable stuff with hardly a relevant citation. Surely anyone can see the citations don't show Tamilnet is lying or whatever. This clearly torpedeos any credibility in this article. Elalan 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation for the sake of a citation hardly shows the supposed accusation is verifiable. Elalan 23:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In summary: Are the sources that push this controversy neutral ? What is the credibility of the given sources ?

Can the claims made by one source or another be in a position to be independently verified ? Who prevents these claims from being independently verified ? Elalan 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

With this there is enough evidence to say that the whole controversy section is disputed so therefore I have moved the controversy tag up. Elalan 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, going thru the Tamilnet article about the alleged handover of 40 bodies, they don't state it as actual fact. Instead they say "LTTE spokesman said...". Therefore its not really their fault if its fake. So I'm removing that section. Apologoes for not noticing that before.
So anyway that eleminates the OR problem.
As for the POV tag, you can't dispute BOTH Reuters and AP so it doesn't belong above that section anyway. And as I said before, the credibility of the cited websites isn't relevent since the Tamilnet articles are cited.
As for the argument that most of the website is critisisms of Tamilnet, anyone if free to go ahead and add relevent RELIABLY CITED content about Tamilnet. Who created it, when was it created etc. etc. I don't know that stuff so I can't add anything there. What I do know is its often alleged to support the LTTE and I included that. Its as simple as that.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The two tags still have to stay since some of the points rely on the Ministry of Defence as source (which we agree is not a reliable source) for the Palaly incident. The section as a whole is hardly neutral. Logically speaking if a date stamp on camera is incorrect from stated date, then this doesn't mean its false reporting. There are alternate explanations possible, yet the article has decided giving publicity to the one by bias sources and unreliable sources. Elalan 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that this is a content dispute and Snowolfd4 doesn't accept Ministry of Defence is a reliable source. So an article with coverage dominated of Ministry of Defence assertions is hardly reliable nor neutral. Elalan 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I should add one more point. Just because you have a source doesn't mean you can just go ahead and cite it on wikipedia. With regard the Palaly incident Tamilnet refers to a source near the scene. So it is hardly logical to conclude Tamilnet is falsely reporting. Elalan 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this, Reuters and AP are NOT POV, and since Tamilnet is cited the rest of the content can't be disputed. And don't add the tags as an anon, because you want to show more people support your views. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just another dubious 'reasoning' of yours. Since I was not signed in my browser window, you assume that I am using my ip address to show more people support my views. You r so called reasoning stands for itself. I think everyone else can judge the merits or lack thereof. Yes there is reference to Reuters and AP to say that Tamilnet is used by other news sources and not to say it files false report. I am beginning to encounter Mickey Mouse arguments here. The whole section rest entirely on Ministry of defence and asiantribune citations and that is where the dispute is centred at. Elalan 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf, assume good faith about the anon contributions. If Elalan brings it up, then argue it; otherwise, let it go. And Elalan, I think Snowolf is right that Reuters and AP are considered NPOV. Elalan, look at the way I wrote it. I wrote quite clearly that it was Asian Tribune and the Ministry of Defence that were making the claims, including that the Ministry of Defence copied the Asian Tribune article exactly. That is all we can say. It is left for the reader to determine whether or not to truth those sources; the biases in the sources are quite clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research tag

Agree with its removal as the content of original research has been removed. Thanks RaveenS 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes its not original research anymore, but that tag also covers for unreliable sources as well. Since some of the allegations for the controversy rests solely on the Ministry of Defence citations, that tag or alternate tag should be put in. Elalan 18:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, my view was that the Ministry of Defense may not be reliable but the section still belongs there. They are the best source we have; it's not original research. Tamilnet makes allegations about the Sri Lankan government and the Ministry of Defense responds. Who else should respond? What is your dispute, Elalan? Do you simply feel the section doesn't belong? Look, you asked snowolfD4 for a source and he provided it. He even removed the point I pointed out didn't have a specific secondary cite for, so be fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To say there is controversy raised about Tamilnet by some pro-government website and Defence ministry propaganda sites is accurate but the amount of coverage on this subject matter makes the article as a whole lopsided.

But my dispute and I think I share this opinion with others (as with Sharz comments) is:

• There is way too much coverage of this contreversy relative to the rest of the article.

• Its majorly overblown and speculative in nature, to say camera time stamps being incorrect implies false reporting (August 6th). There are alternate reasonable explanations possible and is not given due coverage.
• In the second case, the Palaly incident cannot be independently verified because of the Sri Lankan Defence ministry because Palaly airbase is a high-security zone operated by the sri lankan military and has been inaccessible to all outsiders including the SLMM.

• Ok lets be very specific then. The article from the August 6th incident by Ministry of Defence never accuses Tamilnet directly of false reporting (ie it does not specifically say Tamilnet is lying or false reporting). To anyone who disputes this please read the govt. version thoroughly.

• In the second article Tamilnet is directly accused by the Sri Lankan government of lying but Tamilnet was simply reporting what had a source had said closer to the place of the incident. The military website claims the following:

If the Sri Lankan time difference was expected to be 6 hours ahead of GMT still it would be 9:29 p.m. [4]

However Tamilnet reports the following:

At least one unidentified aircraft flew over the Sri Lankan military base at Palaly firing rockets at around 9.30 p.m. [5]

It specifically mention at around 9:30 pm local (assuming new, please see what is meant by new and old time in the Sri Lankan context below.) time, meaning it could have occurred slightly earlier or later than 9:30 pm. The case that it did occur slightly earlier than 9:30 pm does, makes the Defence ministry accusation (self-evidently) pointless. New time was used in SL Government occupied Jaffna. After all, the main thrust of Defence ministry's accusation is that the article reported future events. But even within the Defence ministry article, it logically posible for news report to have been filed after the events occured. Elalan 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Time : Now with Sri Lanka there is the new time and the old time, with LTTE using the old time which half an hour earlier than the new time (started in 1996). Now however, the whole island has reverted to the old time which is 5h30 ahead of GMT.

So in a scenario in which the event didn't occur, can it be said that Tamilnet is lying ? Tamilnet was merely reporting what source had mentioned close to the incident. Elalan 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In followup the discrepancies raised by the Ministry of Defence stuff, I have raised additional evidence contradictory to Government sources and some qualification of the facts and incidents. Elalan 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also added context to Asiantribune and accusation of plagiarism, spreading false info accusation by the Berghof Foundation. Elalan 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes Nessicary

A number of changes need to be made to make this article NPOV and also useful to peoples that want to become informed about tamilnet First off, There's NO infomation concerning Tamilnet itself, it delves into all the controversial issues of false reporting etc, but it does not include the base infomation such as it's creation date etc etc, I know very little about this infomation but if there is someone who does, please make the nessicary edits.

Secondly the list of 'incidents' of 'false reporting' are both biased and rely on sources that have been cited by many as being biased (most specifically the Asian Tribune). Let's please try to get some better sources or remove the speculative comments. (We could write also, 'The LTTE believes that Tamilnet is the No1 site in the known universe' but it doesn't add much to the article)--Sharz 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban on LTTE has nothing to do with Tamilnet. Subject is Tamilnet not LTTE. User Snowolfd4 continues to do POV pushing. Elalan 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out is Vandalism

Snowolf, Blanking out info without reasons and not mentioning in the talk page is resorting to vandalism, I am reverting it to the last edit. Please cite reasons for edits.

Unverifiable sentences such as 'supporting LTTE' and 'allegations of false reporting' in place of moderate words such as 'controversy' are unjustifiable. This seems to be more of a slandering version that an informative one, or even remotely NPOV. Two of your references do not point to false reporting and info seems to have been misconstrued here. Cite, verify and change.

Please look into your edits once again and verify everything before you change before you proceed to blank it out. Thanks. Sudharsansn 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudharsansn the reasons are given in the edit summery. Thats not vandalism. Get your facts straight. Practically everything I removed is irrelevant to the context of the article.

The international news organizations don't say "sympathetic to LTTE" website. Its plain "pro LTTE" website. That means they support the LTTE. Plain English. Not sympathetic. Support.

And stuff like

David Jeyaraj a Canada based freelance journalist known for his neutral stance in the current Sri Lankan civil war had written that Karuna, was personally involved in the murder of famed journalist Taraki Sivaram

is just not encyclopedic and doesn't belon in WP.

So again I'm removing irrelevant content and restoring my previous version. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

These valid arguments from the page, that you have decided to blank for no obvious reason other to push your POV. I don't understand whats the problem with saying "sympathetic to LTTE", support means something else. Support could also mean physical and material support and it is a vague term legally speaking. I am not sure you are well versed in the words and concepts you seem to advocate. Again to remove the Jeyaraj sentence, you come up with a Mickey mouse reason. You don't challenge whether the sentence is true or false but instead claim its not 'encyclopedic'. Says who ? This is called censorship and in this case you are justifying plain ol' vandalism. Continued blatant page blanking vandalism such as this will require admin intervention. I have already notified the relevant admin. Elalan 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It says "In its reporting, Tamilnet is widely considered to support the..." get your facts right.

AS for the David jeraj claim it states "The Eastern Tamil grapevine is buzzing with the rumour that Sivaram was killed personally by none other than Karuna himself". You can't add stuff like that to an encyclopedia.

And you want to notify another admin? Why did the previous admin Ricky81682 not satisfy you. He edited the page this way. [6]

If you want go ahead and notify whomever you want. I have no problem with that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I had notified Ricky. Again you seem to be selectively picking one statement from Jeyaraj's article. There are other instances within the article where Karuna is linked to the murder.. not just the grapevine talk. He establishes motive in there as well . Ricky edited the page as best he could at that time with what was there, but there are additional facts uncovered that needs presentation, which you seem to adamantly want to blank out to satisfy your POV. Elalan 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then let him come and sort things out. Until then I'm not getting into an edit war with you cos honestly I have better things to do. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, here is a reference to an NPOV article on Tamilnet [7] (see the article avoids calling LTTE organizations terrorists and freedom fighters) and simply sticks to credible unopinionated facts. Thats the difference between a well written authoritative source and Grade - D junk. Elalan 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While we are waiting for admin intervention, I have added the POV tag to indicate the article and its neutrality is in dispute. As per arguments above, it biased to have section on false reporting when half the accusations claim discrepancies. It is biased to remove reliably cited contents that further implicate government involvement. Removal of this tag will constitute vandalism. Elalan 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely support Elalan's version. I don't think there is problem except for user Snowolfd4s blanking and vandalism habits. I have decided to revert to this NPOV version. Ministry of Defence is not a *Reliable Source.* Hence qualified statements that Elalan has put in appears to be somewhat adequate all though more content is needed on Tamilnet. Words like "false allegations" are very strong and biased. Everyone except user Snowolfd4 seem to agree on this. Trincomanb 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Date stamp issue

One of the allgations in this article relies on datestamp, another explanation could be the date stamp on the article can be wrong based on the camaer set up of the camera man. It is another explnation. See below a new news item that is not under any allgations but the date stamp is wrong according to Tamilnet Datestamp issueRaveenS 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you could please write something in this regard. That would be great. Elalan 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamilnet Moving Forward

To say there is controversy raised about Tamilnet by some pro-government website and Defence ministry propaganda sites is accurate but the amount of coverage on this subject matter makes the article as a whole is lopsided.

But my dispute and I think I share this opinion with others (as with Sharz comments) is:

• There is way too much coverage of this controversy relative to the rest of the article.

• Its majorly overblown and speculative in nature, to say camera time stamps being incorrect implies false reporting (August 6th). There are alternate reasonable explanations possible and is not given due coverage.
• In the second case, the Palaly incident cannot be independently verified because of the Sri Lankan Defence ministry because Palaly airbase is a high-security zone operated by the sri lankan military and has been inaccessible to all outsiders including the SLMM.

• Ok lets be very specific then. The article from the August 6th incident by Ministry of Defence never accuses Tamilnet directly of false reporting (ie it does not specifically say Tamilnet is lying or false reporting). To anyone who disputes this please read the govt. version thoroughly.

• In the second article Tamilnet is directly accused by the Sri Lankan government of lying but Tamilnet was simply reporting what a source had said closer to the place of the incident. The military website claims the following:

If the Sri Lankan time difference was expected to be 6 hours ahead of GMT still it would be 9:29 p.m. [4]

However Tamilnet reports the following:

At least one unidentified aircraft flew over the Sri Lankan military base at Palaly firing rockets at around 9.30 p.m. [5]

It specifically mention at around 9:30 pm local (assuming new, please see what is meant by new and old time in the Sri Lankan context below.) time, meaning it could have occurred slightly earlier or later than 9:30 pm. The case that it did occur slightly earlier than 9:30 pm does, makes the Defence ministry accusation (self-evidently) pointless. New time was used in SL Government occupied Jaffna. After all, the main thrust of Defence ministry's accusation is that the article reported future events. But even within the Defence ministry article, it logically posible for news report to have been filed after the events occured.

Time : Now with Sri Lanka there is the new time and the old time, with LTTE using the old time which half an hour earlier than the new time (started in 1996). Now however, the whole island has reverted to the old time which is 5h30 ahead of GMT.

So in a scenario in which the event didn't occur, can it be said that Tamilnet is lying ? Tamilnet was merely reporting what source had mentioned close to the incident. In followup the discrepancies raised by the Ministry of Defence stuff, I have raised additional evidence contradictory to Government sources and some qualification of the facts and incidents. Also added context to Asiantribune and accusation of plagiarism, spreading false info accusation by the Berghof Foundation. It should also be qualified that LTTE is sympathetic to LTTE Tamil nationalist prespective, not the organization itself.Elalan 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also added instances of criticism faced by both sides of the conflict and relevant info related to this that further clarifies Tamilnet's stance. Elalan 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

According to Official WP policy

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

All of the following text has been taken from a self-published article so is not reliable. Therefore I'm removing it.

However it is argued that Tamilnet merely shares the Tamil Nationalist ideology of the LTTE and is not an arm of the organization. [6] For instance Tamilnet had fired a sub- editor, once he became an activist for the LTTE [6]. Tamilnet has faced complaints and 'extreme displeasure' from both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE [6]. The LTTE has been deeply unhappy of 'undue' coverage given on Tamilnet to criticism of the organization by international human rights organizations[6]. However much of the criticism directed at Tamilnet by the LTTE is off public view, since the LTTE considers such moves as weakening Tamil nationalism [6]. The Sri Lankan government allegedly twice threatened reporters of Tamilnet with arrest for “treason,” and once hinted, "that “uncontrolled” Sinhalese extremists might be inspired to perform some extra-judicial killing" [6].

--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Support the LTTE vs Sympathetic towards the LTTE

Reuters, AP, AFP and Xinhua all refer to TamilNet as "the pro-LTTE website". After going through the article, independent admin Ricky81682 left the text as "support the LTTE". [8]. Do not change it. ProLTTE means support NOT sympathetic. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have continually blanked out text that doesn't fit your POV. pro-LTTE site doesn't mean support. it means its sympathetic. You have deleted whole section with citations to a peer reviewed journal and claim its an unreliable source. I don't understand the logic behind this. A scholarly peer reviewed journal is more reliable than the any newspaper any day. Elalan 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of deletes

Most of the deletes should be in addition what other think of Tamilnet. All perspectives should be included. I hope Snowwulf made a mistake considering how well he edited the Black July article. Thanks RaveenS 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Added sections on style and operation and details about Nimalarajan, one of its reporters killed. The section on operation include details on how reports are gathered and how it is considered very credible by the anti-LTTE paper the Hindu. Elalan 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RaveenS, the only minor change I would suggest is "Tamilnet Prespective" be changed to "Academic Prespective", since it is relying on an academic source. Trincomanb 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Added statement on Tamilnet date stamp update. Elalan 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Added Whittaker statement on its accuracy and how attempts to discredit "ring hollow." Elalan 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed allegations to controversy, with new evidence of date stamp error being acknowledged and academic statement. Elalan 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has mentioned that some quarters in the media thinks its connected to LTTE. Don't need to have pejorative labels of LTTE here. The subject is Tamilnet, not the LTTE. Elalan 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletes of POV

Style comments are unnecessary and are based on one point of view. The credibility is based on Sambanandan which is also clearly one point of view only. Comments such as "99.9% credible" and "who what when where" of reporting is unnecessary as there are plenty of opinions that suggest otherwise. Academic Perspectives are all sourced from Whittaker who is only point of view. If sourcing academic perspectives, please rewrite in such a way that it does not reflect one point of view only. Please post government POV on Murder of Editor, Murder of Reporter and Government Threats, they only express one point of view ("allegedly"). Comments on censorship laws of the government clearly state only one point of view. I know its difficult, but lets try to keep this article POV free. I'm leaving the NPOV tag as there are still a couple of things that need work. Thanks Mod222 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First no sockpuppetry, i.e. experienced editors should not take new user profiles just to edit controversial topics. It violates WP:SOCK. See also WP:SPA

What makes you think I'm an experienced editor? I'm flattered but please explain your reasoning or retract this statement if this is mere speculation.

Second state the WP policies the sections removed violate or removing sections that have been cited per WP:RS is equivalent to WP:VAND.

This is easy. Read WP:NPOV under "Bias". Claims that Tamilnet's style is "who-what-when-where" with the absence of political rhetoric itself has bias towards Tamilnet. Lets keep the article encyclopedia like and not express opinions about Tamilnet (especially biased ones) away from the article. Words such as "neutral", "credible" are all opinions of Tamilnets reporting than defining what Tamilnet is. Wikipedia is not a stage for individual political opinions WP:NPOV.

Second state the WP policies the sections removed violate or removing sections that have been cited per WP:RS is equivalent to WP:VAND.

Likewise each section that was removed "Style", "Academic Perspective" clearly have political bias and violate WP:NPOV for political bias.

Please demonstrate why style and academic perspective are NPOV because the way I read makes Academic perspetive balances its view by some in the media that it is a LTTE proxy only. If we have WP:RS sources that argue otherwise it should be given equal footing. ThanksRaveenS

Third the article reads WP:NPOV upto government threats section. Hence I agree with the NPOV tag. Concerned editors should find the citations to make it neutral in that section. ThanksRaveenS

Raveen, I respect your opinions and I agree with you on most of the article. However, we need to keep this article POV free according to Wikipedia policy, and I appreciate your help in doing that. Thanks!Mod222

Looks like we know each other for a long time :-) yes let's discuss more before deletingRaveenS