Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:Notability (people)]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Follow-up at AN3

message: According to WP:SOURCES, looks like the there are 3 points it is looking for to establish reliability. 
#Source material must have been published - 
#Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks like you have run out of arguments to counter why it fails SOURCES. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Burden

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Those references are not sufficient to establish his notability.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to who ? Cossde (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Wikipedia requirement.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Wikipedia requirement ? Cossde (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Notability

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archived discution on deletion  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified