Talk:Dhammika Dharmapala

Important papers on tax havens
''This was originally a section in the article, but is both 1. outdated and possibly mildly inaccurate and 2. not super relevant or informative for a reader. It is, however, a very quick justification of this article's notability, so I'm moving it to here as a resource. signed,Rosguill talk 06:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following are the most cited papers on "tax havens", as ranked on the IDEAS/RePEc database of economic papers, at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Papers marked with (‡) were cited by the EU Commission's 2017 summary as the most important research on tax havens.

Dharmapala has co-authored two papers in the ten most cited papers on tax havens.

To User talk:99.125.164.110
I noticed that you were trying to blank/delete this article on the basis that "the birthplace and other factual matters", and that " the subject of this biography prefers not to have ..." (missed the end section, but I presume it means that the subject prefers not to have an article on him). In response to this:
 * WP is not a service and does not take into account whether the subject of a biography article does or does not want a Wikipedia article. That is decided by separate criteria of notability, of which I think the subject does meet (professor, major citations in his field, covered in major global newspapers regarding issues in his field etc.)  On a non-WP criterion level, but basic common sense level, the subject has their own infobox on Google Knowledge Graph (a crude but surprisingly prescient guide to notability, however, not one used by WP), and you can see from the Authority Control codes at the bottom of this article (e.g. WorldCat etc.), that the subject is well referenced in other databases.
 * You may be the subject of this article, or speak for the subject of this article, however, WP cannot take any of that into account as everything on WP is anonymous; you could just as well be somebody who wants to vandalize the article or someone who has an ax to grind with the subject. Hence why WP relies on separate criteria of notability.
 * You mention that the article contains errors regarding birthplace and other matters - if you highlight them and can point to a reference (e.g. from some source that I can use), then I can help you fix these errors. You can list them on this Talk Page and I will fix for you (just start the sentence with user:Britishfinance to ping me, and I will try to help. Britishfinance (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the article to show that the subject is a U.S. citizen (I have a reference on that), and that he was born in 1970 (I can reference that), but I cannot find a reference to his exact birth date (maybe there was one but I cannot reference it). Hope this helps. Britishfinance (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about the page for Dhammika Dharmapala
Dear Britishfinance, Thank you for creating this Wikipedia page - I appreciate your work on tax havens and related topics. However, I wanted to raise an issue regarding this page. It includes three citations to newspaper articles (footnotes 1, 2 and 3) about a crime in which the subject was the victim. This crime is of no relevance to the theme of the article, and publicizing it widely may create a safety and security issue for the subject. In addition, some of the inferences about birthplace, birthdate and other matters made from these newspaper articles are incorrect. Can I ask that you edit the page (very slightly) to delete footnotes 1, 2 and 3 and the inferences (birthplace, birth year etc.) that rely on these sources? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmap1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi user:Dharmap1, thank you for logging on to WP as a user (and welcome). I had responded to your earlier edits when you were using an IP-account on the Talk Page of the relevant article to help you (here ).  WP is a strange place initially, on one hand being very open (e.g. anybody can edit), but on the other hand, it has rules/guidelines and editors/systems monitoring adherence (e.g. edits that conflict with the rules are reverted).  However, what runs through all of WP is the principle of consensus, and the Talk Pages are how consensus is established (and later enforced, if needed). Without consensus, an article can become unstable, and current/future editors could revert changes in a manner that you may not agree with.  There are two actions that I would suggest regarding your concerns:
 * * The article in question comes under a "biography of living people" (called a BLP), for which the main guidelines are listed in WP:BLP. Certainly, the hate crime carried out on the subject is not the purpose of the article,  and the subject is not notable (in WP terms) in their capacity as the victim of a hate crime.  The case could certainly be made on the Talk Page of the article for the sentence discussing this hate crime to be removed, probably under WP:AVOIDVICTIM.
 * * The issue with the footnotes, however, is that they provide core biographical data (e.g. date of birth, place of birth, citizenship and full name), from good secondary sources (e.g. established newspapers), who are reporting on the court events surrounding the hate crime (e.g. the journalists are sourcing from a robust process), and are spread over several years (e.g. again, probability of a single incorrect newspaper article is diminished). These sources appear in any basic google search of the BLP subject and are in the public domain (and the footnotes used are only a selection of articles available).  It would, therefore, be very unlikely that these facts could be removed by consensus without any other data showing that these facts are wrong? You have two options here:
 * 1. Provide an alternative good quality publically available source for these details regarding the subject; or
 * 2. Contact the Volunteer Response Team, who could verify your details and situation, and make a ruling if needed (which would be printed onto the Talk Page).


 * I hope this makes sense, but happy to help/respond if you want to discuss further. Also, I have moved this to the Talk Page of the article which I think is the best location for this issue to be discussed, and will allow other editors to contribute.Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am posting this note here to begin a process of trying to build consensus on deleting the footnotes relating to the crime and the information sourced to those newspaper articles, on the grounds that their inclusion potentially exposes the subject to further danger. The inclusion of this material violates Wikipedia policies under WP:AVOIDVICTIM that state (in part): "Avoid victimization: . . . including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems . . . from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmap1 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My pleasure . To help move things along, I would support taking out the sentence regarding the crime in question (and will do that now), however, I feel that the VRT would need to rule on the footnotes (for the reasons mentioned above regarding their importance in supporting basic facts).  Also, somme minor housekeeping, note that you should add the colon ':' each time you add a paragraph (so that each one is indented and follows a chain), and at the end of your paragraph, add the four tilda characters 'Britishfinance (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)' which will "sign" the paragraph as coming from you. Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I endorse 's removal of the text about the crime. However, I think that the references to articles about the crime that support key pieces of biographical information, such as date of birth, should be retained until replacement sources of equal or better reliability are found. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , another way to go about this would be to get the newspapers to redact their articles, as they are in the full public domain (and appear in any basic google search of the subject), and the real source of your issue? Under the WP:BLP guidelines, it is not permissible for editors to use non-public information (i.e. a WP:BLP is not meant to be "investigative journalism", but merely a chronicle of publicly recorded events from good quality secondary sources).  If the newspapers themselves took these articles down (or redacted them), then they could not be used on WP.  I think that this is the real source of your issue? Britishfinance (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless the newspapers retracted the stories, the genie is out of the bottle: the story can be used because it was printed, even if it's not currently available online. The retraction could be cited to say "No, that story isn't really valid as a source any more." That's why for retraction of personal information, it's best to be addressed by VRT on a case-by-case basis. —C.Fred (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Thank you very much for removing that section of the text. This is obviously a significant improvement. I still have concerns about the footnotes, but will follow up on those concerns with the VRT, as suggested by C.Fred. Regards, Dharmap1 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * my pleasure, and thanks also to , which was very helpful. good luck. Britishfinance (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I happen to be a member of the volunteer response team aka WP:OTRS, though I haven't been involved in the OTRS side of this issue. I'm not sure what OTRS is expected to do here. It's not an editorial board or a group of "super editors" whose decisions carry more weight than those of "regular" editors. As far as I can tell, there's no private information involved that OTRS volunteers might review without it being put on Wikipedia; the information based on the sources asked to be removed is not itself being challenged (if, say, the birthdate were disputed, the article subject could provide proof via OTRS and the volunteers could provide a statement here that says something along the lines of "Dharmapala sent us an image of state-issued ID that shows a birthdate that differs from what the sources report" - but as far as I can tell, that's not the issue here). What reliable sources to use in a BLP and how to weigh the information they provide against possible WP:AVOIDVICTIM issues is a regular editorial decision that could be taken here or, if more input is desired, at WP:BLP/N. If there's private information that having those sources in the article creates a "safety and security issue for the subject" that should overrule the consensus of editors on what's best for the encyclopedia, that's an issue beyond OTRS' pay grade and should probably be addressed via the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency email address, emergency@wikimedia.org. Huon (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional information: CV
Dharmap1 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Dear Britishfinance, Please note that there is a publicly available CV with alternative biographical information about the subject that could be cited instead of the newspaper articles that have raised concerns about victimization:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/CV_Dharmapala_IIPF_Bd_Mngmt.pdf

Thank you very muchDharmap1 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(reply)

Hi. Nice to see you back and thanks for the above. I have read this and there are two issues here:


 * Source not publically available. I can't find this source online or by using google (even when I put the exact title in).  In Wikipedia, we can't use sources that are not publically accessible (per WP:RS).  For example, if an editor tried to quote directly from court documents or depositions from his case, they could also not be used.  In Wikipedia terms, this document could have been made by anybody to say anything and put onto the server of the law school (unknown to anybody else).  This condition is strictly applied for biographies of living people (per WP:BLP).


 * Source is primary. Wikipedia uses quality independent secondary sources (per WP:RS).  This document is possibly from the subject himself (or somebody close to the subject and not independent of the subject) - i.e. a non-independent primary source.  Primary sources can be used in a BLP but only in specific situations (per WP:BLP), and certainly not from non-publically available sources, and/or where the sourcing and origination of the material are ambiguous.

Given the above and the fact that this new non-publically available primary source also contradicts reliable quality secondary sources used in the article means that this new source has no chance of being able to replace them in the article. I note that he has a downloadable CV on his bio page of his University of Chicago page, however, it is a different document, and does not, unfortunately, have a "Personal Details" section with the place of birth and age. If you could get this CV changed to include these personal details then a good case could be made for it to replace the existing sources in the article. At least it would be publically available and unambiguously sourced from the subject himself (given it is on his official bio page). Hope that makes sense. Kind Regards. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)