Talk:TamilNet/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: (The?) Tamilnet

message: 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)
thread_title: Dubious Statements

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV titles and original research

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

text: 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.  
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. 
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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Changes Nessicary

message: 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)
replies: text: If you could please write something in this regard.  That would be great.  Elalan 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date stamp issue

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Tamilnet Moving Forward

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable Source 

message: 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". . Do not change it. ProLTTE means support NOT sympathetic. --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Support the LTTE vs Sympathetic towards the LTTE 

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

text: Added statement on Tamilnet date stamp update.  Elalan 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Whittaker statement on its accuracy and  how attempts to discredit "ring hollow."  Elalan 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Restoration of deletes