Talk:C. Nagalingam

Untitled

• In C. Nagalingam's article and other I don't find anything wrong mentioning British Ceylon when there articles with the similar title such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah where there birth places are mentioned as British India(Let it be Presidencies and provinces of British India or Company rule in India), but it is not there he was borne in India.

• Ella Baker is mentioned as "an African American civil rights and human rights activist", Cato Perkins is mentioned as "an African American slave"..........so there is no standard rule on Wikipedia whether someone should be mentioned as "Sri Lankan" or "Sri Lankan Tamil".Sudar123 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Pls cite a RS that states that C. Nagalingam was born in British Ceylon, then it could be mentioned so.Cossde (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think in the articles of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah their birth places are mentioned as British India with RS?Sudar123 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• For a person who identifies him self with a certain background for a particular purpose it is fine to associate that background in describing said person. Politicians associate their race and creed and make used of political polarization. Where as public servants as a practice refrain from doing so. Since we would not for certain know what their own means of self identification is I suggest best to identify them from their country of citizenship rather than from any thing else. If they have explicitly identified themselves to a certain background, recorded so in a RS then by all means we must states so in their biographic articles. If not we would be editorialising. Cossde (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The above findings and the conclusion is your POV. Since someone is borne in a particular community, because of his or her profession, he or she doesn't change the ethnic identification.Sudar123 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Certain conclusions could be reached, thats why I proposed

"Since we would not for certain know what their own means of self identification is I suggest best to identify them from their country of citizenship rather than from any thing else. If they have explicitly identified themselves to a certain background, recorded so in a RS then by all means we must states so in their biographic articles. If not we would be editorialising." Cossde (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't want to go deep into what is their self identification to support their bio on Wikipedia. Simply if they are born as Tamils they are Tamils; they could be even visualize outer space and care for living creatures there.Sudar123 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you want to go deep into what is their self identification ? Isn't that the objective of a biography ? As per your logic, simply if they are born in a country why not list them as a countrymen instead of complicating matters with creatures from outer space ? Cossde (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Man, understand properly human's social structure first. Each human is associated with a culture and ethnic identification whether they are living in country or widespread within a region or beyond. They like to identify them with their ethnic identification first to protect their culture and not with the country or region, that comes second. If you can't understand these human psychology, please take a break on Wikipedia, don't waste others time here with your POVs.Sudar123 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your lesson in human psychology, or should I say sociology! However this statement is clearly your POV and I would have to give you your own advice on not wasting others time and read WP:OPENPARAGRAPH on opening paragraphs. Cossde (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

C. Nagalingam is mentioned as Ceylonese. And he is notable among the minority Tamils as "He was the first Ceylon Tamil to be appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of Ceylon", hence it is not violating the WP:OPENPARAGRAPH.Sudar123 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on that, if that was the only case we could use only that as the lead. But he had also served as acting Governor General in 1954 a more senior position which makes him more notable than that of a Supreme Court Judge in any capacity. Cossde (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But among the minority community, he is more notable as the first Ceylon Tamil to be appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of Ceylon.Sudar123 (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As an encyclopedic article we must take a global perspective. Cossde (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We will take all views, not something to suit particular editors purposes.Sudar123 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We as in your friends to back up your purposes. Cossde (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that

• 1. British Ceylon can not be used here unless a RS supporting his birth in British Ceylon is provided.
  2. He is identified as a Ceylonese as per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH for is primary notability is as acting Governor General in 1954, his secondary notability as first Ceylon Tamil to be appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of Ceylon has also been mentioned so in the lead section. Cossde (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)