Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Notability (people)

Where is the secondary sources that allude to his notability ? I cannot find any. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Claims about inappropriate information on a web site

Before opening a question at the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard I would like to see if a discussion here could create a more appropriate summary of whatever this complaint is. I have copied below a discussion that began on my own talk page. I'm afraid that the current wording of the article may be criticized and some admins would probably apply article protection to prevent it being reinstated. I will leave it for now but recommend great caution. We do not know if the Asian Human Rights Commission should be regarded as a reliable source for the statements they make about Dharma-wardana. Certainly, when they criciticize Dharma-wardana they are using a strong accusatory tone and it's not immediately clear what information it is based on. The editors of Sri Lanka Guardian copied language out of their letter and used it as the title of the piece, which makes the tone very severe: "AHRC tells the Canada-based Sri Lankan intellectual to stop distribution of false and defamatory material and a death list." At first I was having trouble even figuring out what the charge was, and who was being put on a death list.

The apparent seat of the problem is at http://dh-web.org/place.names/posts/post-ltte.html. At present the website states:

The material on this site has now been completely re-edited to remove some unauthorized material that seem to have been planted by outsiders. The "judgmental" material has been replacced by statement-material. The site is now available only to authroized users, and not available in the public domaine

The objective of this website was to evolve a fair sample of a "whose-who" of political activists who expressed ideas or played a role on the cataclysmic events of Sri Lanka's recent past. The idea was to evolve the profiles by using Internet-sampling of data and allowing the Wiki-principle of self-corrective editing of the entries. This of course required that the document could be accessed by a fair number of editors, so that a cyber-object becomes a complex adaptive system. This also required that the editors exercise local-control rather than central control. This honours system unfortunately left it open to hackers as well as attacks from individuals whose objectives were very different to ours.

We thank those who worked within the Wiki-principle showing that it did work in a tentative way; the input of improper material (possibly also in entries other than those noticed by us), and strongly judgmental or even prejudicial inputs should have got corrected if enough time was given to correct themselves via the Wiki principle. However, we had no defence against mischief makers, and it shows the weakness of the method. See also: methodology

This sounds like Dharma-wardana is complaining that others added wrong statements to his web site and he did not notice it, or did not act quickly enough to take down the material. If our article intends to report the AHRC's complaint, based solely on their letter, perhaps we should consider whether Dharma-wardana's response on the web site should be included as well. The best of all would be to find a third-party source which has summed up the whole controversy, so we don't have to rely on statements by the disputing parties to figure out what happened. Both the AHRC's statement and Dharma-wardana's response are primary sources in my opinion. Secondary sources would be better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

<MOVED THIS DISCUSSION TO A NEW SECTION BELOW>

---

Material copied from User talk:EdJohnston

Regarding this, I am not a native English speaker, how would one word it without violating BLP ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First, find the source and see what they say exactly. Then propose on the article talk page how it should be worded. Before I removed it the material was unsourced. It didn't sound like a neutral description; it sounded like an accusation being made in Wikipedia's own voice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources Sri Lanka Guardian a Sri Lanka based newspaper and Asian Human Rights Comission, an accredited Asian Human Rights Organization like Amnesty International. The wording in the setence attributed it to Asian Human Rights Commission, did not make as if Wikipedia was accusing him. I am a little bit confused. Can you help and clarify this situation ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the sourced section that was removed as un sourced According Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-Wardene maintains false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters.Kanatonian (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This link is simply the reprinting in the Sri Lanka Guardian, without any comment by the reporter, of a letter written by people who describe themselves as a human rights group. To save me going through all the references, can you tell me if any reporter or commentator (who is not a party to the dispute) has presented his own conclusions about this? I see there was a kind of apology from Chandre Dharma-Wardana. Also the article I read did not give the name of the web site where the 'death list' was said to be published. The account in our article would probably need to be greatly expanded to ensure it gives a balanced report, and it is hard to know if that would be too much for a very short article on Chandre Dharma-wardana. Dharma-Wardana seems to live in Canada. Has anything been written about this in the Western press? Possibly the right thing is to open a question at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

End of material copied from User talk:EdJohnston

---

Follow-up at AN3

Here's my comment from WP:AN3 so this doesn't become too scattered. The guy operated a web site about Sri Lankan matters and he had a wiki-like section where anyone could submit material. (Does the idea sound familiar to anyone?) Some people logged in over the internet and added material to his web site that became very politically contentious and may have been defamatory. Since the above brouhaha, he fixed his web site and took down the offending material. < redundant sentence removed > I hope that the editors on the article talk page will be able to come up with better wording to describe this controversy.

A third-party report would be the best if one can be found. The article sources appear to date from January 2011, and they don't reflect the later removal of the offending material. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above

I agree, we should include both the versions, compliant about him and his response to it. Kanatonian (talk)

I propose the following According to Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-wardana maintains a false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters, to which Chandre Dharme-wardene has apologized and promised to improve the controls of who would be able to add potentially libelous and misleading information in his website. Kanatonian (talk)

That might be OK if you dated it to January, 2011:

In January 2011 AHRC charged that CD-W was maintaining a false and defamatory web site that identified people as former supporters of LTTE.

So far there is no explanation of what 'potential death list' means. Was AHRC implying that all former supporters of LTTE might be subject to random assassination, or that the government would arrest and kill them? Do you think our readers will understand that? Then, to give a balanced version, you should also mention the letter that CD-W published in response in January, 2011. Nobody has offered any sources that have been published since January 2011. I agree that the controversy suggests that Dharma-Wardana might have some political interests which remain completely unmentioned in his article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you are making me work hard :), yes the AHRC statement explains after the sentence on legal ramifications to people presumed to be alleged members of this organization, the extra judicial potential to their safetyand life. It explains in the Sri Lankan context "Similar dangers also exist for the organization and all persons associated with it. Thus, the allegations in the publication on this website have the deliberate intent of causing such serious consequences in law. The allegation of being a sympathizer of the LTTE is also intended to cause hatred against the concerned person and the organization. In the present political and cultural context such allegations could expose the concerned person and the organization to acts of violence, including assassination". Extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka were/are alleged by human rights organizations such as AHRC, UTHR, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. You are right, we should expand and explain as to what the word death list means. Kanatonian (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this According to Asian Human Rights Commission report published in Jan 2011, Chandre Dharma-wardana maintained a list of people and organizations who were falsely accused of links to the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It further alleged that such publicity could endanger the lives of the listed people or organizations due the prevalence of extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka and thus termed it a death list. In response to the allegation Chandre Dharme-wardene has apologized and promised to improve the controls of who could edit his website and agreed to remove potentially libelous and misleading information.Kanatonian (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is on the right track. It would be better to call it a 'letter' rather than a 'report'. The opening of the letter sounds like the AHRC person was not familiar with who Dharma-wardana really was, he just took his name down from the web site. The wording of the letter was "deliberate intention to create the impression that Mr. Basil Fernando and the Asian Human Rights Commission are sympathizers of the LTTE which the government and several other governments around the world have named as a terrorist organization."

• The AHRC's original letter does not use the term 'death list.' The Sri Lanka Guardian, on January 6, 2011 says: "Yesterday we published an open letter relating to false and defamatory material which also amounted to publication of a death list." So if you decide to use 'death list' in your own summary, perhaps you can attribute that description to the Sri Lanka Guardian and not to the AHRC.

• In his reply, Dr. Dharma-wardana said, "Indeed, the entry falls below our academic standards...I don't think this has been on the web for very long. In the mean time, please excuse our lapses and accept our apologies."

If you add a revised section to the article, I hope you can stay close to what the various parties are saying. It is not necessary to over-interpret their words. For example, Dharma-wardana did not say anything about 'libelous information' in his own letter. He also did not say anything about improving the controls on his web site. All he said was that he asked his webmaster to disable the entry. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Finalized to According to Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) letter published in Jan 2011, Chandre Dharma-wardana maintained a list of people and organizations who were falsely accused of links to the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It further alleged that such publicity could endanger the lives of the listed people or organizations due the prevalence of extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Guardian news report about the letter, termed it a death list. In response to the allegation, Chandre Dharme-wardene apologized and promised to remove misleading information about AHRC personnel.Kanatonian (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is on the right track, but you may be overstating Dharma-wardana's apology. I do not see anywhere that he offered to remove 'misleading information about AHRC personnel.' He said that 'the entry falls below our our academic standards', and he does refer to 'lapses.' Also he never mentions the AHRC in his response. If it is so hard to paraphrase him correctly, maybe a direct quote is better. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, we will stick to the exact wording in the apology. Kanatonian (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The question I have here is could this content be added on a bio without proper RS. Could we take both Sri Lanka Guardian and Asian Human Rights Commission as RS? Have they been established as such ? Cossde (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you have decided talk instead of revert warring, there is actually a place to ask these questions. It is called reliable sources notice board and I am pretty sure, you will get your answer. Also, more than me have looked at this sources including User:EdJohnston, who is a neutral person and someone who refused to block you for your violation of 3RR. We have him agreeing to work with the sources in a Bio as you acn see from above painstaking discussion I've had with him to develop the consensus. ThanksKanatonian (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. As I believe it is the responsibly of the editor adding content to prove the reliability of the source. In this case the ref from AHRC is a primary source and not reliable and the guardian is a not a RS or has not been established as one by the editor. Further what RS is used to state "It further alleged that such publicity could endanger the lives of the listed people or organizations due the prevalence of extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka" linking Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War to possibility of extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka, this clearly seems to be OR. This is a very serious allegation which should require established RS not anything you can find and ask me there after to try and disprove at reliable sources notice board. Because in that logic we could take Dharma-wardana's web site as a RS and say that the name list is true and accurate as appose to the "falsely accused ", if you have a problem you may take it to the reliable sources notice board . Cossde (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we might safely leave the whole issue out of this article. This is negative information about the subject of the article, and there is no indication at all that mainstream media have taken notice. Even the Sri Lanka Guardian didn't do much more than reprint an 'open letter' from the AHRC that was very belligerent in style. After January 2011 the Sri Lanka Guardian had no follow-up reporting at all, in fact, no article ever appeared in the Sri Lanka Guardian that was written by an actual reporter rather than one of the principals in the dispute. Dharma-wardana gave an apology that seemed nebulous and incomplete, but it's not for us to make judgments about the primary sources. Basically all we have is the direct statements of the two participants (the AHRC and Dharma-wardana) and one headline written by the Sri Lanka Guardian, whose credibility needs to be discussed. (Wikipedia has no article on the Sri Lanka Guardian). So that's not much foundation for a strong negative critique of Dharma-wardana. Of course, if anyone can find better sources, the issue could be reconsidered. Asking at WP:RSN whether Sri Lanka Guardian should be considered a reliable source is one option to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But Sri Lanka Guardian is already used as a source in number of Wikipedia articles.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am glad Hudson did the search and found all the articles where Sri Lanka guardian was used as a source. I am for keeping this information on the article. I have number of points to make, If Sri Lanka Guardian is not acceptable here then it is not acceptable in the 100's other Wikipedia articles as well. Sri Lanka Guardian is a regular news organization with an editorial board that is acceptable as sources in number of published academic books on Sri Lanka, ethnic conflict and religion. Secondly , the information stems from AHRC statement and the professor himself through his apology however nebulous has accepted via Sri Lanka Guardian that it was a fact. If AHRC statements (even if it is strident) cannot be used then we can’t use Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as they are primary sources as well in Wikipedia which is not an acceptable position. We uses these western Human Rights organizations all the time even when they make strident condemnation keeping in mind NPOV. Thirdly although the professor works in a Western country, his political activities are related to Sri Lanka, a third world country with a limited number of media outlets and limited number of human rights organization geared towards it. Not all issues that happen in Timbuktu, Mali, Kinshasa, Congo or Colombo, Sri Lanka can be expected to be covered by BBC, Washington Post or CNN. Issues that happen in these non western countries will be covered by the limited media in these countries and organizations that focus on these countries (such as AHRC). If we restrict Wikipedia to western media and western organizations, then this will only be an encyclopaedia project of western sources only. Fourthly, I suspect that this article created by many SP accounts all point to single person as the creator violating COI and has no notable coverage of him. If this section needs to be deleted then the whole article needs to go because after all the only notable information about him that covers him as a person in the web is this controversy. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove this item since its a bio page and we have to be certain about the information added. Just because a ref here was used in several wiki articles does not merit it a RS status, neither does words human rights council give the AHRC the level of recognition as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. If there refs are needed for other information on this page, tags should be added so that refs can be added and developed not simply deleted. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cossde, I expect you to make your argumenst with references that back up up your opinion. Make your case why everything about Sri Lanka will be covered by western media, make your case as to why AHRC is an non reliable organization compared to AI or HRW ? Make your case as to why Sri Lanka guardian that has been in busines as a media organization at least since 1982 is not RS. Without valid arguments backed up by evidence and wikipedia rules, I am no longer willing to discuss open endely. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply; on this matter AHRC sources falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Sri Lanka guardian does not fall under a RS as per WP:SOURCES and has not been clearly proven by Kanatonian as RS under WP:BURDEN. As stated by [User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] "Even the Sri Lanka Guardian didn't do much more than reprint an 'open letter' from the AHRC that was very belligerent in style" and there have been no follow up of this incident ! Therefore it should be removed immediately based on WP:WELLKNOWN. Cossde (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary

Thanks Cossde for taking the time to investigate Wikipedia rules. I am sure it was of proper use of time. Let’s discuss one issue at a time.

Yes I do agree it is time worth spent reading up on Wikipedia rules, you should also try it. Yet help you understand its meaning. Cossde (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

You say AHRC fails PRIMARY, please indicate in the above paragraphs, which section entails to your opinion. What we have used is not a trial transcript, public document, what we have used does not include his personal details. In fact what we have used is augmented by using secondary sources. So ineffect, using AHRC here in reality satisfies everything Primary is looking for. The rest later Kanatonian (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

AHRC is a primary source, why ? because it is reporting on something that effects it self (AHRC) [1] and as EdJohnston states they seem to be very belligerent in its statements on the matter. Hence it fails WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. Cossde (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether it is primary or not, we all agree it is primary. I hope you are reading the arguments clearly. What it does not violate is what is called out as we should not be doing per PRIMARY. That I have explained very clearly above and I have not seen any rejoinder for that argument. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Since its primary we cant use the source here since "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", also because of the very belligerent language used in it fails WP:NPOV. Therefore it can not be used. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since where did you find that NPOV negates RS, you are on thin ice arguing that. NPOV is what we as editors have to use when describing facts. RS has no such requirements. Allusion to belligerancy is a synthesis that you have brought in here and reading more than what is warranted. Kanatonian (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason primary sources are not recommended to use often is due to the NPOV nature associated with it. In order to gain a neutral point of view we relay on secondary source that have analyse the issue reported by the primary sources. Just like your argument on me calling my self an expert on Royal college base on what is stated on my website started by me. AHRC is not an accepted RS, and it is a primary source which is contested hence it can not be used here ! Correction belligerancy is a synthesis brought in here by EdJohnston not me. Cossde (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

According to WP:SOURCES, looks like the there are 3 points it is looking for to establish reliability.

1. Source material must have been published -
2. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made
3. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source

So with respect to #1, it is published, # 2 It is based on Professors Website that he himself acknowledged later on, #3 See policy of Sri Lanka Guardian Kanatonian (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Not all published material are RS, WP:SELFPUBLISH and the link provided is one such.
2. Is correct, only if the Sri Lanka Guardian article was not a reprint of the letters that were exchanged and if any sort of analysis was done! Therefore it was reprinting items from a primary source without an analysis !
3. What proof, other than a self published article is there to prove otherwise.

I hope this answers your questions. Cossde (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You said, it fails SOURCE but I have proved ppoint by point wht it does not fail the three requirements. # 1 you have pointed above that it is Primary and we agree it is primary, Primary sources are acceaptable as long as we use caution. Now you say it fails SELFPUBLISH. All human rights organizatiosn such as Amnesty International and Human Righst Watch along with AHRC publish statemenst based on reaserch that they have conducted themselves and self publish. Which is acceptable in Wikipedia. There are thousands of articlse with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and AHRC references used in Wikipedia. No, you have failed to counter why it fails SOURCE. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No additional arguments are needed since my reply earlier is clear. AHRC has not been established as a RS, and even if it is there is no secondary for of source in the articles at are relevant to the article Chandre Dharma-wardana. You may take your argument on at the RSN but there is no relevance here. Cossde (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you have run out of arguments to counter why it fails SOURCES. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not disprove my earlier arguments as the which has disproved all your three points. I can not help you if you are unable to understand or unwilling to understand. Just as published article not equal to an RS and AHRC is not a RS . Cossde (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Burden

Sri Lanka Guardian is used as a source in 33 articles in Wikipedia and number of published academic books and AHRC is uses as a source in 89 articles in Wikipedia and number of academic books. Se we are not using anything extraordinary in this article that can be termed as unreliable sources in this article. Kanatonian (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of in other Wikipedia articles is not a basis of reliability ! As you can see the articles used in the books have named authors as appose to the article at hand without an author. That is on the assumption that this infact an article due to it being a reprint of correspondence of primary sources. Therefore in this matter it is not a reliable source. Cossde (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please make your argument in Plain English, your use of Legalish is adding to the confusion. In Plain English, my point was, we have not introduced any sources that are extra ordinary. These are sources we have used extensively in Wikipedia and the academic world and as indicated above, you have not demonstrated why it fails PRIMARY or even SOURCES. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because its used in other wiki articles does not mean that it could be used here, just as a wiki article can not be used as a RS. Is that simple enough ? Cossde (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is about burden, not RS. We dont have to establish everytime we use New York times that it is RS, same with AHRC and Sri Lanka Guradian. Kanatonian (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes the point is about burden ! Your yet to establish that AHRC is a RS and a primary that could be used here ! Also Sri Lanka Guradian is a RS ! But let us for the sake of argument assume that Sri Lanka Guradian; what value or meaning his there in the article. If you can call it an article, there is only reprint of letters and no analyse. Can you call that an article, Im sure the New York times doesnt do things like that. Thats why it can be accepted as a RS. Cossde (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be posting the question on Reliable Sources Notice board, if they agree that I can use the sources then I will add it back on. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is accepted in the RSN then you can add the content from an article of the said website, only IF its an article and not a reprint of the primary source material. Cossde (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributions to development studies

This section depends mostly on a personal website, place.names hopefully we can find RS sources that describe this effort so that we can either improve this section or remove it if reliable sources cannot be found. Kanatonian (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The personal website clearly fails RS, SOURCES, it si even a WIKI according to the author. WIKI projecst are not clearly acceptable as sources in Wikipedia. I propose we delete it from the article. Thanks Kanatonian (talk)

No that is no reason the delete this article. If you have any concerns on sections that need additional sources, please mark them so that sources could be added. Cossde (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything to deleting the article although his notability seems to be around this controversy. But his personal website is not a Reliable source to cite that he is an expert on Sri Lanka place names. It is like you start a website and say you are an expert on Royal college and then you add it to your Wikipedia article about you claiming you are an expert on Royal college. But unlike you, I will not remove it untill we are discussing about it here. Thanks Kanatonian (talk)

His notability was established be for you came into editing it, maybe that for you his notability is around this controversy. But that is not the general case. The items are (which I don't know what you refer too) are not in violation of WP:BLP (I assume) so you should mark them and give a period of time to add refs. Failing which you may delete. Its all fair. However your additions are in clear violation of WP:BLP therefore must be added only after dissociation. Cossde (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, one point of agreement, I will remove his personal website that claims he is an authority on place names and marked them for citation from RS sources to back it up. I will leave it there for two weeks before deleting the whole section. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed all uncited and changed the sentence on the place name website to reflect what it was, he was invited to speak. Kanatonian (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Academic Career

The whole section is based on Original Research, no reliable sources to back it up. Kanatonian (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I have serious doubt about the Notability of Chandre Dharma-wardana and the Google News Archive. I will go for a AFD if the Notability is not established.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the person has been established by refs in the article. If you want more refer these;

• http://www.royalasiaticsociety.lk/http://www.royalasiaticsociety.lk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RASSL-2010-Vol-01-No-31.pdf
• http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=21267
• http://qtgroup.ims.nrc.ca/members.html
• http://vksamaranayake.org/appreciations/

This would put your serious doubts to rest. Cossde (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I did Google News Archive search again for Chandre Dharmawardana; I haven't come across, other than the Island news paper, in any news media to establish his Notability. Other sources which have been provided are only websites and not sufficient enough to establish his Notability according Wikipedia standards. I am re-adding the Notability tag. If it is removed, I will go for a Afd.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this matter as, the refs provided include a local newspaper(RS), a learn society(RS) news letter, a research group(RS) which comes under a nation research council and a charity foundation. A Google News Archive search of C. Nagalingam would only produce a few articles for local papers, would that cause you to have serious doubt about his Notability ? If you feel strongly please go head with an Afd. Cossde (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Academic notability section, the following have to me met

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the detailed Notes and Caveats sections, which follow.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. Kanatonian (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kanatonian, for clearing this issue. Clearly based on this criteria the subjects notability is established under Academic notability as he has meat Nos 3, 5 and 6. Cossde (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he is a non-notable Academic. The sources you have provided doesn't establish any Notability under the Wikipedia requirement. If his page could be accommodated on Wikipedia, there are 100,000 of academic could be accommodated on Wikipedia for their research work.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you as a the refs include a RS, and publication of a learn society. You are more than well come to create pages on 100,000 academic if you can provide sources. Cossde (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Those references are not sufficient to establish his notability.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to who ? Cossde (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia requirement.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia requirement ? Cossde (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are number of vice-chancellors/presidents rolling over the time in universities and being Professor of Theoretical Physics at Université de Montréal is not a Notability factor and listing in Whose Who, Canada doesn't support his Notability.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to who ? Cossde (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point there are several RS in the article to support multiple criteria for academic notability. Therefore the nobility of the subject is quite clear. Therefore there is no need to keep re-adding notability tags. Cossde (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Archived discution on deletion

The article was nominated for deletion in 2006, this is the archive of the debate;

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandre Dharma-wardana

FYI. Cossde (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandre Dharma-wardana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.royalasiaticsociety.lk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RASSL-2010-Vol-01-No-31.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226223803/http://ims-ism.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca:80/staff/DharmawardanaC_e.html to http://ims-ism.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/staff/DharmawardanaC_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)