Talk:TamilNet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
Peer review TamilNet has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
List of Archived Talk Pages



Contents

[edit] Ban in Sri Lanka

Please edit the article as TamilNet is no longer banned in Sri Lanka. At least not on SLT, last time I checked when I went home, it worked. NB: This was in December 2007.

If you have citation for your claim please add it to the article. Watchdogb (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we rely on what others say, no Original research. Well said Watchdog Taprobanus (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of citations

Removing WP:RS sources is considered WP:Vand so please refrain from it. Thanks RaveenS 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What self published articles, it is published by Anthropological review, it is peer reviewed article RaveenS 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a letter published to the Anthropological Quarterly. It is NOT peer reviewed. His intro says,
In this essay I argue that Tamilnet.com, an Internet news agency put together by a group of Sri Lankan Tamils to address the Tamil diaspora and influence English-speaking elites, subverted international news coverage during Sri Lanka's civil war by making "ironic" use of the discursive styles of journalism and anthropology. I also claim that this constituted a particular form of autoethnographic popular anthropology that challenged professional anthropology, and in some ways sought to replace it. In the first two sections of this essay, I dismantle the concept of "the popular" by showing that when anthropologists and social theorists use the term they are often referring to connected but distinct aspects of popularity which should be distinguished: Baudrillardian market popularity on the one hand, and Habermasian identity-resistance popularity on the other. I then show how the Internet, given its technology and software, is best seen as market popular in form but identity-resistance popular in content. In the remaining four sections I illustrate, ethnographically, how the creators of Tamilnet.com, while deeply embedded in civil war and a world-wide diaspora, recognized this aspect of the Internet and used it—again, "ironically"—to construct a site that advances their own nationalist interests.
He has provided citations for everything EXCEPT his extraordinary claims about Tamilnet. For them, there are absolutely no sources.
Simply, this is a self published article in a scholarly magazine and is not a reliable source. If you dispute that take it to the admins noticeboard and see what the community has to say. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Which I did,

“Mark, Whittaker (2006-08-31). "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet". Anthropological Quarterly’’. archive of article

Anthropological quarterly is peer reviewed journal not a self published magazine. The author Mark Whitaker. Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of South Carolina.

It is not a letter, it is peer reviewed article of over 400 pages. Thanks RaveenS 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Raveen anna, I suggest you look at the official website(http://aq.gwu.edu/about_aq.html)
it says, "AQ is a publication of the George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. The content of AQ does not necessarily represent the views of the editors, the Institute for Ethnographic Research, or the George Washington University. Authors are solely responsible for their opinions and for the accuracy of the information contained in their publications."
it make very clear, ". Authors are solely responsible for their opinions and for the accuracy of the information contained"
So it's not RS, Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Lahiru Ayye/Malli (?), I also suggest you look at When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications that is from WP:SPS#Self-published_sources. Ciao RaveenS 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru_k, you seem to misunderstand what "self-published" means in wikipedia terms. an article (not a letter) in a peer-reviewed journal is not considered "self-published" even though legally the author remains responsible for the opnions included. Such an article nornmally considered a reliable source. If you can cite published responses to or refutations of the article involvd, those could also be included, or if you can give god reasons why this particular article is not appropriate, they might be considered. But in general properly attributed satements published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic are not supposed to be removed just because one disagrees with the content. DES (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DES, you say "an article (not a letter) in a peer-reviewed journal is not considered "self-published"". Like I said before, AQ is not peer reviewed. There is no confusion over the term self-published.
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.
Straight from the horses mouth, AQ acknowledges that they do not guarantee the accuracy of the articles and have not reviewed the material. The author, Mark P Whittaker, is not notable, and is certainly not an expert in the field. He has just 76 google hits to his name [1]. No other reliable text has quoted from his work on TamilNet and he does not cite any sources where he got his facts about TamilNet from.
All fact considered, this is not a reliable source, by any stretch of the definition, and should not be included as a source. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark P Whittaker is an American Professor, in an accredited American University such as University of South Carolina one does not become a professor without publishing number of peer reviewed journal articles and his research subject includes Tamilnet and its murdered Editor Taraki. To remove his research from this very important internet phenomenon will be loss to Wikipedia indeed RaveenS 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So becoming a professor automatically makes you notable and all you're works correct? That's ridiculous. And if that policy is followed everywhere on Wikipedia, unenclycolpedia will end up being more accurate than Wikipedia.
Go over the Wikipedia policies again. Just because you agree with what he has written doesn't mean his work can be used a reliable source.
The fact is AQ acknowledges that they are in what is published may not be correct and their articles are not peer reviewed. Under these circumstances the is no way this can be used as a reliable source. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be WP:CIVIL in your comments to your fellow editors also do read WP:NPA By using the words Just because you agree with what he has written doesn't mean his work can be used a reliable source. and That's ridiculous indicate you may have not read those policies well. I urge you to show respect to all Wikipedia rules. Thanks RaveenS 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Anthropological Quarterly

According to http://aq.gwu.edu/manuscripts.html, essays published in AQ are "peer reviewed". According to http://aq.gwu.edu/mission.html So while we will continue to publish first-rate peer-reviewed articles, AQ will also publish one additional peer-reviewed section of essays on theoretically informed development anthropology, "Development in Theory," and two additional non-peer-reviewed sections of public intellectual thought and commentary, "Social Thought and Commentary" and "Media." I cannot tell without further checking what section the essay in question was published in. Note that the formal statement that authors are responsible for the opinions stated in their own work appears in most scholarly journals, and is not in any way to be equated with being 'self-published'. Nor are only "peer-reviewed" publications considered reliable sources. For example, major newspapers are pretty much invariably considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, but they are not close to being peer-reviewed in the academic sense. In general, any publication that has an editorial process that makes a serious attempt to screen out unsupported allegations will be considered a reliable source on wikipedia. The policy includes the statements that Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's analysis of a traffic accident, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. and A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.. Since AQ has an editorial board that reviews all submissions and decides which to publish, it is not self-published in the Wikipedia sense. (see http://aq.gwu.edu/editorial_board.html). Since some of the statements in the essay in question are expressions of opinion, any quotes from it that express an opinion should be indicated as such. No source, however "reliable" can safely be assumed to always be accurate. That is why multiple sources should be used, particularly in disputed or controversial matters. But that does not mean that reliable sources should be deleted. if there is another reliable source with a contrary view, by all means include a citation to that source as well. DES (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, it is always possible to get confused with these policies and we end of making the wrong decisions especially when some articles have political ramifications. Mark Whittakers research makes the Wikipedia article on this obscure subject matter neutral. Without it we will be presenting only one side of the argument. RaveenS 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that the author of a work considered a "reliable source" need not himself (or herself) be notable in the sense that an article about the author would be justified, although of course often such an author is notable. For example, many newspaper reporters would not themselves be considered notable, but their works are still considered reliable sources for many purposes on Wikipedia. DES (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned the article is written by a prof who has done a lot of research on the area specially Tamilnet. All the informations are fully cited and has allready been peer reviewed. Also seeing that he does not have any bias towards Tamilnet or the two sideds in the conflict this source would be great for wikipedia editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Ok a lot of things. First can anyone see any citations for his extraordinary claims about TamilNet. He has cited a number of facts related to the conflict, but regarding TamilNet, everything papers to be his own ideas on the matter.
And with the citations you provide, the first one says
Peer-reviewed essays should not exceed 35 pages in length.
In regard to publications in the magazine. Does that mean AQ peer reviews every article? NO.
The second citations says a lot. This article is NOT related to anthropology, so it most likely does fall under the
and two additional non-peer-reviewed sections of public intellectual thought and commentary
category. Assuming it comes under the "first-rate peer-reviewed articles" is just not good enough to be used as a source for Wikipedia.
Your next argument hit the nail on the head. Major newspapers are considered reliable sources. This is an article by a non-notable author. In order for it to be considered reliable, his work should have been quoted elsewhere buy other reliable sources. Has that happened? Can anyone provide any citations where his work on Sri Lanka has been quoted elsewhere? Quoting from policy, the exceptions to WP:SPS are
When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.
74 google hits means he is NOT well known, his work doesn't appear to be republished anywhere, and no other reliable source backs up his claims.
The next citation is just the editors of the anthropological magazine who review sections related . That does not mean they reviewed this article for accuracy.
And DES did you actually go over the subject matter here? Here we have a website which practically every news organization label as pro-LTTE, some even going as far as calling it the official LTTE website, and Mr. Whittaker says its "double sourced, "double checked" and attributes a comment to someone saying it "100% accurate". Do you know any news organization that is said to be 100% accurate in its reporting. Such claims merely help prove the inaccuracy of the article. Who do you think is correct? The regional correspondents for Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, Xinhua, PTI etc. etc. or a Associate Professor with 74 google hits to his name?
He also writes stuff like
Tamilnet had fired a sub- editor, once he became an activist for the LTTE
Tamilnet has faced complaints and 'extreme displeasure' from both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE
Members of 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".
Are there any neutral citations for any of these claims? Given the interest shown in how the government deals with the media by organizations like RSF an others, they would almost certainly have reported such incidents. Where are the neutral citations?
Ultimately, you base your entire argument on the assumptions that this article has been peer reviewed, when in all probability, it hasn't, and in the fact that his work is reliable, which there clearly is no proof of. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So the whole argument is based on probablities, may be we need the help of a mediator and take this to mediation and see what yet another neutral wikipedian may think about this citation. Thanks RaveenS 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some responses. User:snowolfd4 says above:
  • "In order for it to be considered reliable, his work should have been quoted elsewhere buy other reliable sources." That is simply not the case. In general any publication in a source that has an editorial or fact-checking process in place, whether the author is well known or not, and whether the publication is cited elsewhere or not, is considered reliable on Wikipedia. You seem to be misunderstanding the WP:RS policy, and trying to set a much higher bar than that policy in fact sets.
  • User:snowolfd4 quotes the exceptional case under which self-published sources may be used. This is irrelevant, because an article (whether called as "essay" or not) published in a scholarly journal with an editorial board and an acceptance process involving editorial review is not considered "self-published" whether it is peer-reviewed or not. My point above about newspapers is that they are never "peer-reviewed" but are still not considered self-published. As long as there is an editorial process that stands between the author and publication, providing a degree of checking or supervision, the content is not considered self-published, so the exception need not apply. This is simply not a "blog (or self-published equivalent)".
  • "74 google hits means he is NOT well known" Google hits are a very poor way to measure notability or academic reputation, and in any case a person writing in a recognized academic journal need not be "well known" for the writing to be considered a reliable source.
  • "no other reliable source backs up his claims" If true, this is relevant, but how exhaustive a search has been done for such sources. Are the reliable sources that cite and dispute his claims, or that, when not mentioning him, state facts and views inconsistent with his? If there are, it is best to cite both the Whittiker article and any refutations or inconsistent reliable sources, so that the reader can judge the relative accuracy of the various sources. Note that saying that a publication is a reliable source does not imply that it is accurate in any given case. It should still be cited unless there is clearly established and widely accepted proof of the inaccuracy -- in cases of disputes between reliable sources, it is best to cite both (or all) sides.
  • "Ultimately, you base your entire argument on the assumptions that this article has been peer reviewed." Not so. i said "Nor are only "peer-reviewed" publications considered reliable sources." Let me be more specific. It is my view that Wikipedia policy clearly implies that any article published in a recognized scholarly journal that has an editorial board and an application and editorial process is presumptively a reliable source, regardless of whether it was formally peer-reviewed or not, and whether the author is "well-known" or "notable" or not. Only if specific reasons can be shown to consider the publication or article unreliable should it be excluded. Such reasons might include: A clear and wide-spread consensus among other reliable sources that the article or its author is unreliable (shown by explicit evidence, not merely an absence of citations); explicit and well-founded evidence that the author or publication is "extremist" on the issue at hand, based on more than the specific article at issue; or other problems of similar magnitude, established with similarly clear evidence.
  • "And DES did you actually go over the subject matter .... Who do you think is correct? The regional correspondents for Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, Xinhua, PTI etc. etc. or a Associate Professor..." I did review the Whittiker article and the Wikipedia article, briefly. i don't claim to be an expert or even well informed on the details of this conflict. I do claim to know Wikipedia policy fairly well. I don't know who is correct and who is not, on the specifics -- how could I? The proper way for a Wikipedia article to handle such a case is to cite multiple reliable sources, preferably ones that are representative of all significant views (or as many views as possible) and point out where they conflict or contradict each other, so that the reader is in a position to judge what view to credit, or to to further research in the matter. In general it is better to cite more sources, of more differing views, rather than fewer, provided that all sources cited meet the minimum standards for reliability, and a Wikipedia article should not state or imply that one source or viewpoint is accurate and another is not. That is what the neutral point of view requires.
For all of the above reasons, i think that the Whittiker article should be cited here. The article should also point out where and when other reliable sources have said things inconsistent with that article, and should be clear when Whittiker is making an alleged statement of fact, and when he is stating an opinion. If any reliable source has written in specific refutation of the Whittiker article, that source should certainly be cited. I hope that this is helpful.-DES (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued deletion

In this edit with the edit summery "rv - no reply" the citations to the Mark Whittiker essay from AQ were again removed. Given the discussion above, is there any valid reason why this content should not be restored to the article? DES (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By no reply I meant that you didn't reply to what I wrote above at the time I reverted. Apologies if the edit summery wasn't that clear. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But do remember that not everyone is online all the time. Please allow a little more time before assuming that a lack of a reply means that there is no reply to make. DES (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Rebel versus Biased towards

I cant find any RS citation that are linked that support the non neutral sentence biased towards but all say Pro rebel, hence I changed to pro rebel. Also what is the point of 4 cites saying the same thing. This is not a propaganda article. As long as we say it with a reputable source in a neutral language, the point gets across to the readerRaveenS 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume that your "what is the point" refers to the section "Murder of its editor" where it seems that you deleted several citations and some detail. In general multiple citations from multiple, independent reliable sources help establish that an event did in fact occur as stated, since no one source, even if reliable, can be assumed to be 100% accurate and complete. This is particularly true on controversial topics. While citing an excessive number of sources wastes the reader's time and may seem to be inflating the importance of a particular point, citing several sources for different aspects of a single event is often good practice. It also allows the reader to see different takes and PoVs on an event. Please consider restoring some or all of these sources. DES (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is miscommunication as to what I wanted to say versus what you understood it to be. My question was about the intro in which 4 citations support the view that Tamilnet is considered to be a pro rebel media outlet. My question was why not use one WP:RS source to just say it but if you think 4 citations makes a point because of the controversy then we will leave it alone but you raised another point that was under the murder of its editor section (no longer a section) This is what was there originally
Murder of its editor
Original version
In 2005, Tamilnet's editor Taraki Sivaram, who media organizations including the New York Times said favored the LTTE in his articles, was kidnapped and then shot and killed in Colombo, Sri Lanka.[13] The LTTE has accused the government of complicity in his murder,[14] while the government has denied any responsibility[citation needed]. 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 Taraki Sivaram[1] But Karuna has denied this categorically.[2]. Both the LTTE and SLMM have accused the Sri Lankan government of arming, sheltering and supporting Karuna group [3].
This is what I simplified it to
New version
In 2005, Tamilnet's editor Taraki Sivaram, was kidnapped and then shot and killed in Colombo by unknown gunmen. His body was found next to the parliament building.[15] Currently a former member of PLOTE(Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam) a minor political organization and a known paramilitary group has been accused in the murder.[16]
I simplified it to the mere facts, that Taraki was editor and he was kidnapped and killed, his body was found next to the parliament and his killers are unknown. Also added that the accused killer formerly belonged to a paramilitary organization. Because the former version got in to Tarki was pro LTTE (he is no longer alive to dispute it) LTTE accusing the government (without evidence) of killing him, then the government denying it (obviously) then some journalist from Canada speculating that some one may have killed Taraki and that some one speculating that someone else may have killed him. It was all confusing and getting away from the fact that he was kidnapped and killed by unknown men and body was found and a court case is still pending. If people needed more about his murder then they can always link it to Taraki article. Just my opininRaveenS 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As to the lead, 4 cites that Tamilnet is considered "pro-rebel" might be excessice, but reducing to one might be too few. Perhaps the two or three that seem most reliable and neutral.
As to the Murder of its editor that accusations of complicity ahve been made and denied are themsewlves facts relevant to the subject. Shortenign the original might be desireable, but your revised version seems to ommit too much. Perhaps somethign like the following would do:
In 2005, Tamilnet's editor Taraki Sivaram was kidnapped and then shot and killed in Colombo, Sri Lanka.[13] The LTTE has accused the government of complicity in his murder,[14] while the government has denied any responsibility[citation needed]. David Jeyaraj a Canada based freelance journalist known for his neutral stance in the current Sri Lankan civil war has written that Karuna [explain who or what Karuna is, or give a link] was personally involved in the murder.[1] But Karuna has denied this.[2]. The LTTE and SLMM have claimed that the Karuna group is suported by the Sri Lankan government[3]. [Is the "former member of PLOTE" the same person as the accusation agaisnt Karuna? If not mention that there is a separate accusation]
I hope that this helps. DES (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the new para now RaveenS 13:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation formats

It is better if titles such as "Professor" are spelled out.

When giving the ISBN of a book please do not use a form like "[[ISBN]]: 12-345-6789-0". Instead use soemthing like (ISBN 12-345-6789-0)" with no colon or other markup between "ISBN" and the number. This will automatically link to a special book search page on which the reader can use the ISBN to search any of a number of sources, some commercial, to find a copy of the book. DES (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again Self published

[edit] Is AsiaPacific MediaEducator a WP:RS source ?

Let's start all over again. According to them AsiaPacific MediaEducator (APME) is a refereed journal published annually by the School of Journalism and Creative Writing at the University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. The first issue was published in 1996.

APME aims to generate dialogue among media educators, researchers and practitioners by publishing their informed analysis of media production and texts, and innovations in media education and training. It will consider for publication original articles based on applied research which generates critical questions and examines research issues through comparative frameworks. Papers should aim to challenge the conventions in journalism education and training, and provide practical ideas on improving the standard and currency of media reportage and media training.

APME welcomes articles on academic and non-academic topics. APME is cited in the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts www.csa.com; APAIS; ERIC database; and The Iowa Guide: Scholarly Journals in Mass Communication and Related Fields.[2]

It is published by University of Wollongong. It is no different than Anthropological review that we have discussed and above. Thanks RaveenS 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of reliability on WT:RS

Please see WT:RS#What kind of a source is Tamilnet?). — Sebastian 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinarily long discussion Dutugemunu 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete section

Teh references for the below paragraphs do not work. I am deleting in 20 days as unrefenced statements unless someone can find an actual reference Dutugemunu 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mark Whittaker an Associate Professor of AnthropologyMW[›] argues TamilNet merely shares the Sri Lankan Tamil NationalistSri Lankan Tamil Nationalism[›] ideology of the LTTE and is not an arm of the organization. For instance he says TamilNet had fired a sub-editor once he became an activist for the LTTE. He also says TamilNet has faced complaints and 'extreme displeasure' from both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. Whittaker also says the LTTE has been deeply unhappy of 'undue' coverage given on Tamilnet to criticism of the organization by international human rights organizations. However Whittaker believes much of the criticism directed at Tamilnet by the LTTE is off public view, since the LTTE considers such moves as weakening Tamil nationalism.[1]"

"Experts in the field argue TamilNet's accuracy of its reporting has "rarely been successfully challenged that such charges ring hollow". According to V. Sambandan, Sri Lanka Special Correspondent for the prominent Indian English Daily The Hindu, "facts and figures are double sourced, checked and are considered 100% credible".[1"

Another attempt to censor wikipedia, not every source is available online, some time you have to get off from infront of the computer, walk to a library and find the source. This is not a link farm alone, we are creating an encyclopedia with academic citations. Deleting academic citations will be considered vanadalism and we will take it to ANI. Thanks Taprobanus 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
But it is also archived here [3] but there is no need to cite that link as the original version is a journal articleTaprobanus 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Taprobanus, WP:NPA, please. Calling this "censorship" is over the top - especially on the page about a website that is just experiencing real censorship. Dutugemunu has not removed anything and it is only a human mistake to confuse an unsourced statement with a dead reference (for which 20 days would be a very long notice). Please see WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". — Sebastian 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I apologize, you know there has been one reason or other given to delete it to make this article fail NPOV over a year now. I can count 3 attempts to delete this particualr source from this article. Anyway I found the correct link and it is citedTaprobanus 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OOh come on, now you are referencing Tamilnet to extablish the bonafides of tamilnet Dutugemunu 13:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand your comment, but this reference is now linked to the JSTOR cite. Also see here. Thanks Taprobanus 15:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Tamilnet

I had a look at teh WP:RS discussion on tamilnet.

According to a large Indian newspaper "The Hindu", Tamilnet is the mouthpiece for the LTTE, an organisaiton which is known for terrorism.

have a look at [4] "TamilNet (www.tamilnet.com) is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Tigers in English. It is a kind of news agency chronicling the conflict as perceived by the LTTE. The site is a `must hit' for any serious Sri Lanka watcher. A senior official in the Presidential Secretariat told Frontline, "My first port of call on the internet is TamilNet. Though it is brazenly pro-Tigers, it is a good guide to know the mind of the Tiger leadership tucked away in the safe havens of the Wanni jungles."

Every other mainstream media (BBC, AFP, Reuters)prefaces any report from Tamilnet with the words "The pro-rebel website Tamilnet"

This means that the mainstream media accepts that tamilnet is not reliable , it is pro-LTTE.It reports the viewpoint of the LTTE leadership as opposed to the FACTS of the conflict

if we accept the mouthpiece of every terrorist organisation as a reliable source, there is no tellign what kind of fantastic lies will end up on wikipedia. Please lets stick to reliable sources like the mainstream media instead of propaganda websites run by terrorist organisations. Imagine if we rewrite Wikipedia pages according to the viewpoint of ETA, IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Red Army , nazi's etc:- Dutugemunu 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take that complain to WP:RS not here. Thanks Taprobanus 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Already did that. And many people on WP:RS agreed tamilnet is unreliable Dutugemunu 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the discussion there got very long, as Dutugemunu remarked above, and the other editors there got impatient and asked us to leave. For this reason, while I was the one who brought the discussion there, I must say now that this talk page may be a better place for discussing the details of this.
Dutugemunu, I think your concern has been addressed there. The distinction is between reliability and neutrality. We don't require sources to be neutral in order to be reliable. Some people cited WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COI, but these policies all don't apply to individual sources, but only to articles as a whole. Because the consensus was that Tamilnet was partisan, but reliable, we agreed that it needs to be cited with correct attribution ("pro-rebel"). — Sebastian 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian , please have another look at WP:RS. I dont think there was a consensus that Tamilnet is reliable. According to the world media Tamilnet reports what the LTTE wanni leadership thinks. Therefore you have to accept everything which the LTTE says as truth if you accept Tamilnets version. Exampels of Tamilnets ongoing and continued unreliability is Tamilnet habit of exaggerating Sri Lanka army casualties and for lying about LTTE casualties in almost every battle. According to Tamilnet half the Sri Lankan airforce was destroyed by three small bombs dropped from a mini airplane. Even they had to drop this ridiculuous statement later. I dont see how you base your conclusion that tamilnet is reliable. It is a reliable mouthpiece of the LTTE but not a reliable source of news. The world media always quote Tamilnet as giving the LTTE version of things. If it was viewed as a reliable source of information they wouldnt have to preface every statement from tamilnet with the words "The pro LTTE website tamilnet". furthermore the world media always end by saying "there is no way to check if the LTTE(Tamilnet) or Sri lanka government version is true". Plain and simple, Tamilnet is not a media organisation but a pro-LTTE website reporting the LTTE version of things. Of course sometimes the LTTE says truth but most times it doesnt and this unrelaibility is reflected in Tamilnets reporting Dutugemunu 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Mr. Sebastian, where is this consensus you and taprobanus keep talking about? The only consensus I see is that tnet is NOT a reliable source. Nobody brought up COI wrt tnet. It was only pertaining to taprobanus as an editor on these articles. Stop obfuscating the issue and confusing people by drawing conclusions that dont follow from the discussions there. Also everybody who was commenting there knows what WP:NPOV and UNDUE are. Nobody is confused about it. So stop claiming matter of factly that people were confused about NPOV or UNDUE or any other policy. Nobody also said that biased sources cant be RS or that RS sources have to be unbiased. So stop attributing stuff to people by misinterpreting what they said.

As for tnet, we could use it with attribution only if it was the official mouthpiece of the LTTE. but then, from the evidence we have seen it only seems to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the LTTE. for that matter, there are several unofficial mouthpieces and propaganda sites for the LTTE and other terrorist organisations. we cant report all that tnet says as if Prabhakaran said it himself. As it is not the official mouthpiece, it also loses its relevance as an encyclopedic source. As far as wikipedia is concerned, tnet is just another propaganda site.

Also remember that while the mainstream media may sporadically quote tnet, that doesnt mean tnet becomes a reliable source for an encyclopedia. tnet can probably be used with attribution on wikinews but not on wikipedia. also there is nothing that tnet reports and the bbc, reuters, the Hindu etc., dont report about the situation. if there is anything that tnet reports that the mainstream bonafide sources dont report, then we shouldnt be reproducing that stuff on wikipedia because such stuff would fail the 'notability' clause straightaway. You obviously cant use tnet to establish notability! Sarvagnya 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen anything more confusing than this

"if there is anything that tnet reports that the mainstream bonafide sources dont report, then we shouldnt be reproducing that stuff on wikipedia because such stuff would fail the 'notability' clause straightaway. You obviously cant use tnet to establish notability!"

Notability does not apply to each and every sentence we write in an article. Please read WP:N again and again to calrify.It says "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines". I.e It applies to the subject matter not to each and every sentence. Not all information is international, some information is regional and to make an article NPOV we need to use Tamilnet as pointed out by many uninvolved third party editors.1234. This is four editors from 4 different countries who have no history of any edit conflict in Sri Lanka related articles and 3 ofthem are admins to boot.Taprobanus 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Whew! This is beyond misrepresentation. This is lying! First, none of them except Fayssal meant what you said and secondly, I know perfectly well what notability is. If your series of articles about cause celebres is any indication, it is perhaps you that needs to read WP:N, WP:UNDUE etc., again. And please take the trouble to indent your posts properly. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is lying! Now now, arent you violating WP:NPA where is a the lying ? please be specific. User:Blueboar wrote that Tamilnet does not violate WP:RS, User:Nishkid64 wrote that Tamilnet should not be removed from Sarathambal article, then User:Llywrch wrote that removing it from Sarathambal article will make it violate NPOV hence it should not be removed. None of then have any history of edit conflicts with Tamil or Sri Lanka related articles.Taprobanus 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont see how the users who aren't interested in Sri Lanka articles can judge on the reliability of Tamilnet. They must be totally ignorant about Sri Lanka and been hoodwinked by pro-LTTE parties to accept the official website of a banned terrorist group as a reliable source of information. Dutugemunu 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In wikipedia we rely on discussion, unbiased third opions and consensus to work our differences, those who are close to it including you and me need the advice of outsiders who are unbiased. Look at this here. ARTICLE 19 are not some minor body of people, they are a reputable organization. If they say it is reliable why we in Wikipedia should fight it ? Taprobanus 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the views of unbiased people are useful if they know what tehy are talking about. However the world media (BBC, Reuters, Hindu , CNN)always put a qualifier saying that they cannot vouch for the correctness of reports from tamilnet. Now if the world media who have spent years reporting on Sri Lanka are doubtful about the reliability of tamilnet, I dont see how one or two wikipedians who are probably not familiar with Tamilnet say it is reliable. What is the basis for overturning the opinion of independent unbiased organisations like Reuters, BBC, CNN etc:- Dutugemunu 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The best answer to your question lies here. Look at his argument and let us know what is your opinion about it. Thanks Taprobanus 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
What his argument means is that while Tamilnet may not be a reliable source of news information , it is a good place to pick up the LTTE's views. he says that when the two parties contradict each other , it is hard to know who is saying the truth but websites like tamilnet broadcast the LTTE's version of the truth. I have to say I agree with him. In the history of tamilnet , there has not been a single report which gives the same causalty figures for battles as the Sri Lankan government. I think there are serious credibility issues hereDutugemunu 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Sarvajña would say

Sarvagnya, you qote Sarvajña on your home page:

sarvagnya didnt become sarvagnya merely out of vanity
he learnt one bit of information from everyone
.. and became a veritable mountain of knowledge

Of course, Sarvajña's vision wasn't limited to Wikipedia alone. I am sure he also thought about personal growth. As an accomplished poet, he chose his words carefully, and it is an important detail that he wrote "from everyone". This, in my modest interpretation, includes those who disagree with us. I believe that this is an exercise that helps our soul, and it seems that this is an important step of the Noble Eightfold Path. Now I know this isn't easy, and it is probably much harder in a climate in which your own "friends" kill you when you don't 100% agree with them. But I believe that this climate can only change when people start listening to the other side and have the courage to admit when they find a bit of information that helps mutual understanding. That is why I came here. That is why I put my heart and dedication in WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

Of course, being in the middle of a fierce conflict isn't comfortable. I have made enemies on both sides; I have been called every accusation you can imagine, including "a sockpuppet of somebody" and a "Sinhalese nationalist". But I am grateful that I have also made friends from both sides. I have helped both sides find win-win situations. For this, I need your understanding, too.

So, please believe me that I came to this discussion with an open mind. I truly listened to the arguments put forward by both sides. Please spare me to go through the details again; we went through all arguments ad nauseam, until, as Blueboar put it, it became "clear ... that the consensus of non-involved editors here is that Tamilnet is indeed reliable." If you disagree with this, I recommend the exercise laid out by Sarvajña: Please go through the discussion with an open mind, and learn one bit of information from everyone. — Sebastian 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how Blueboar came to the conclusion that there is consensus Tamilnet is reliable. However he does not have the final say in Wikipedia. There is no consensus on tamilnet being reliable according to the records of the discussion on WP:RS Dutugemunu 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dutugemunu, why do you think it was only Blueboar? — Sebastian 08:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian, I am referring to your comment in last para above
"we went through all arguments ad nauseam, until, as Blueboar put it, it became "clear ... that the consensus of non-involved editors here is that Tamilnet is indeed reliable." " Dutugemunu 08:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian. I think we are all confused about the definition of "reliable". I have added the latest discussion from WP:RS below Dutugemunu 09:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable". Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact. As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents.Now, this does not mean that you can quote Tamilnet in just any article... there are many other policies that affect whether you can include a statement by Tamilnet (WP:NPOV#Undue weight for example). These are issues that are better discussed in other forums (such as the NPOV talk page). My point is that, if you do quote what Tamilnet says, you most certainly can consider it to be a reliable source for that quote. An analogy would be citing a Pro-Islamist website to back a statement of the opinion of Islalmists. There is a serious question as to when it is appropriate (or even allowable) to include such a statement in an article, but... once you do, the source where the statement is found becomes reliable. I doubt anything I have said will change anyone's opinion (this seems to be too political an issue for people to view with dispassion)... but as a neutral third party, I felt it nescessary to express my opinion on the matter. 'nuff said. Blueboar 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually saw this comment just now. I guess what wasn't clear was your definition of Tamilnet as reliable source. Most people here thought when you said Tamilnet is a reliable source, that you meant it provides accurate news about events in Sri Lanka. However your above comment does clarify what you meant. Thanks for that.I agree that Tamilnet is reliable for statements of opinion by the LTTE but it is certainly not reliable for statements of fact about events in Sri Lanka. Dutugemunu 09:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
OK Dutugemunu, what he is saying is not just it is reliable for statements from LTTE but also about what ever it says as opinion. For example, Tamilnet quotes court proceedings about a case. Then we can say according to Tamilnet, the court proceedings were so and so and if you have a government source to back it up or refute it then we have a balanced sentence. In Massacre at Thandikulam, SATP which South Asia Terrorism Portal, run by an intelligence agency of a large South Asian nation says that pro rebel media alleged that the soldiers killed the students. But if we don’t have the pro rebel media agree with it, then the article will fail WP:NPOV so in that incident we have to add Tamilnet source. In the Sarathambal case it cites very simple information such as details of a funeral, without it, the article will fail WP:NPOV because we don’t know whether the Sinhalese people were also upset because of the rape and murder (which they were) so an independent admin said we should not remove it. This is how you deal with Tamilnet not cart blanch removal because such nihilist attitude does not work in your personal life, office life or even the jolly good, good for nothing voluntary work in Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies. Thanks Taprobanus 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related websites

i would like to know whether the reliable news websites listed below are acceptable to everyone as sources. These are far more reliable than Tamilnet www.defence.lk, www.asiantribune.com/, www.lankapage.com, www.independentsl.com Dutugemunu 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Classes of sources. It is a good reference to negotiate the mind field of sources about the Sri Lankan conflict. We have already decided to use Asiantribune as a qualified source although it is run by one man on shoe string budget without any oversight. About defence.lk, we did not discuss but my personal opinion is that just like Tamilnet it is a biased but qualified source that can be used with attribution. I have used independentsl.com, in once in the article Burning of Jaffna library so I think it carries balanced information, it may even be a RS source. About Lanaklibrary, I have not ever investigated it. This is just my personal opinion.19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Include in Sri Lanka dispute resolution agreement?

It has been proposed here that this article should be included in the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. Are there any objections? Watchdogb (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, and since the disruption has been going on, I will add the template now. Sebastian (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing links to tamilnet

Please cease changing tamilnet.com to tamilnet.tv . Tamilnet.tv is a blog and an attack website. This repeated change can be considered as vandalism and action may be taken against users to prevent them from degrading the article as well as wikipedia. Thank you Watchdogb (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "attack website." It's a parody website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.238.74 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely an attack website and a blog. Has not media coverage and functions in a sole purpose to attack Tamilnet. Watchdogb (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's simply your opinion. You are a Tamil who is sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers so of course you would be annoyed. It's a parody website and quite humorous. It is certainly not a news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.238.74 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! You cut the the point. This is wikipedia which has no room for parody websites which are not notable and attack other websites. Watchdogb (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)