Talk:TamilNet

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah we rely on what others say, no Original research. Well said Watchdog Taprobanus (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban in Sri Lanka

message: Yes, TamilNet is still banned. Not only "TamilNet" but also most of Tamil news websites are banned in Sri Lanka. The same time Sri Lankan government or Sinhala people run a website namely similar www.tamilnet.tv instead. If anyone sees it, easily can understand what kind of dirty work is. This is the true face of Sri Lankan Government and Sinhala majority peoples of the island.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.138.138 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sri Lankan Government and Sinhala Peoples' Dirty works

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Continued deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation formats 

message: ===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.''
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)
thread_title: Here we go again Self published

message: 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.''
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)
thread_title: Is AsiaPacific MediaEducator a [[WP:RS]] source ?

message: Please see WT:RS#What kind of a source is Tamilnet?). — Sebastian 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Extraordinarily long discussion Dutugemunu 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of reliability on WT:RS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But it is also archived here  but there is no need to cite that link as the original version is a journal articleTaprobanus 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OOh come on, now you are referencing  Tamilnet to extablish the bonafides of tamilnet Dutugemunu 13:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Delete section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Related websites

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Include in Sri Lanka dispute resolution agreement? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Changing links to tamilnet 

message: Some lines in the article:
"TamilNet articles are written in the elegant, simple and informitive style of reporting"
That's not very neutral. :/
"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]"
Who are these experts? Sambandan has shown an obvious bias towards the LTTE (see here http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1709/17091240.htm).
"It is relied upon as a credible news source by journalists, civil society and the diplomatic community both within Sri Lanka and globally." The article makes this assertion separate of the Article 19 quote.
Also, I'm having some trouble accessing the Mark Whitaker article which seems to corroborate everything Taprobanus and others want to include in this article like ""uncontrolled extremists might be inspired to perform some extra-judicial killing". Whitaker is also a friend of a senior editor on Tamilnet and thus can't be considered a reliable source (conflict of interest). 
Ya.User:HumanFrailty (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some of the offending terms, about Whitaker you have no leg to stand on. His is aAmerican professopn who published his views per WP:RS and we dont censor people in Wikipedia because of their alleged biases. This is after all an American website run according to the rule of laws of America. Wiki rules are very clear Taprobanus (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anymore issues before I remove the tag ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been over 10 days now, so I will remove the tag. Taprobanus (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality?