Talk:Valentine Joseph

Edit conflict
Hello editors. There has been a number of changes regarding the use of 'sixty' or '60' in the Career section. Can we have a mutual agreement on which one is correct? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Either, I'm afraid. The relevant guideline is MOS:NUMERAL, which allows for either words or numerals in this instance. I'm afraid you need to come to an agreement here on the talkpage. As a general rule, in cases where the MOS could go either way (such as MOS:ENGVAR), the first instance of such a format is used - in this case, that would appear to be "60". Yunshui 雲 水 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui. As you said, we will stick with 60. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Future editors
As a note to future editors, please keep the '60' in Career and do not change it to 'sixty'. If you disagree please comment below before changing it. Thanks - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nationality
Is there a common policy on the infobox nationality field here? I notice Obi had added the "Tamil" bit everywhere. While I have no issue with identifying Professor Joseph as a Sri Lankan Tamil, what is the necessity of mentioning his ethnic origin thrice in the space of the intro, the infobox and the opening paragraph of the section on his life? Unless there's a legitimate reason, at least take the infobox link to Sri Lankan Tamil out. I've never seen this on Wikipedia, and unless there's a legitimate reason, this should be undone. Either that or we need to start adding every single Sri Lankan's ethnic group to their infoboxes and intro. While some of the more rabid Sinhalese nationalists on Wikipedia would love that, that's not something I'm even remotely interested in doing.

It just comes off as being needlessly clannish and nationalistic. - ක - (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Jesuschristonacamel. Agreed, but I'm not completely sure about the intricate Wikipedia guidelines for this. I have only taken out the link in the Intro, perhaps we should ask Obi for his reasoning/wiki rules? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Just taken out the native name, as he was never known by that.Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping there's a reason. Personally, I was a bit conflicted about whether or not his ethnic group should be mentioned when I went over the article, but I decided to let it be since you'd already said his parents were of Sri Lankan Tamil origin in that opening paragraph about his life. I'd say it's fair enough to leave it in within the intro, but the infobox link is what confuses me. I don't have an opinion on the native name btw. I think it was a good addition :) It's just the three separate reference to race that gets to me. This nationalism thing is pretty rife among Lankan Wikipedians, and I'm hoping this isn't that. - ක - (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, folks. The infobox field is for nationality, not ethnicity and not a combination of the two.  You might find this RfC helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for that link and the info. Since I can't see any particular reason why a fact already mentioned twice in the body of the article need be linked to again within the infobox field meant for nationality, I guess that settles this discussion. Ill go ahead and revert that edit then. - ක - (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NewYorkActuary (I agree with your edit). Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not add "Tamil bit everywhere" - the infobox already contained Sri Lankan Tamil before I edited this article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Obi. Why did you remove education section on the infobox? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * no, but you did add the link to Sri Lankan Tamil again within the intro according to this edit record.


 * I think it would be helpful if we could establish what reasons some of these edits are being based on. Both Anish and I are relatively new editors and I'm afraid some of the recent changes make no sense to me. For one, the 'known for' field is empty again, and a chunk of his educational history is now gone from the infobox; according to Template:Infobox academic, the Alma Mater field is meant for the last attended higher education institution, and everything else seems to go under education. Ethnicity has now gone from linking to "Sri Lanka" through Sri Lankan to linking to Sri Lanka through adding an n after the link. Is this a WP regulation or a personal preference? I ask because I've usually done the opposite, using Sri Lanka|Sri Lankan. - ක - (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Eduction and Alma Mater fields in the infobox are essentially the same and usually we don't include them both. It's one or the other, according to editors' preference. My preference is the Alma Mater field. And where the subject had higher education we don't include the schools they attended in the infobox - see C. S. Lewis as an example. If you want move the contents from the Alma Mater field into the Education field, go ahead.


 * I removed "education" from the Known For field as it means nothing. Every academic is known for his eduction - if he isn't he should not be an academic. See Albert Einstein for examples of what should be included in the Known For field.


 * See MOS:PIPE for why I changed "Sri Lanka|Sri Lankan" to "Sri Lanka]]n".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, I guess we leave things as they are. - ක - (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

One question, can the native name be removed - I think it implies that his native language was Tamil (I don't have a strong opinion on this). Best regards to all - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not imply that. You can have more than one language in this field. BTW, I would be interested to know what you think his "native" language was and what you believe "native language" means.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education
Do you think that the Early life and education sub heading should be renamed Early life and family, with another subheading of Early education with second paragraph under that?
 * No. The section is rather short, and the only "non-early" education mentioned in the remainder of the article would be the doctoral thesis he did while already a lecturer; I don't think we need to distinguish that. Huon (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)