Talk:Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology

SLINTEC and SLINTEC academy

A little notice to future editors of this page- SLINTEC is not a university. It is a for-profit research institute. The educational arm of SLINTEC is a separate, non-profit entity, whose website can be found here.

User:Cossde, I notice you recently reverted a good-faith edit by User:Samankamal in which he claimed SLINTEC is a college rather than an institute. I'm afraid you're both wrong. I've now corrected the issue on the infobox, and replaced the earlier University template with an Institute template. I've left the bit about them getting degree awarding accreditation in the body of the text until I (or someone else) decides whether to have the academy as a subsection of the article or as a separate article entirely. Either way, I'm working on an infobox and text for the Academy in my sandbox.

I'm one of their first PhD intake this year and heard all this, but since that's not a verifiable source, I've given you citations for my statements up there. Hopefully I can get some proper photos for the page soon :D

TL;DR- SLINTEC ≠ SLINTEC Academy

References

- ක - (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jesuschristonacamel: I expect such backward views (that an organisation which makes a profit cannot be a university) from marxists such as Samankamal by not from someone doing a PhD. The government has recognised Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology's academic degrees therefore it counts as a university.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: please re-read what I've written above. I was pointing out that SLINTEC isn't the body that will be the educational arm of the organisation, but rather the SLINTEC Academy. I've provided you sources, including a separate website for the Academy. This is not an opinion.

Again, SLINTEC Academy is the university/college/educational organisation or whatever you want to call it, not SLINTEC itself, which will continue as a private research institute. I would advise you, a senior Wikipedia editor and member of the Wikiproject, to more carefully read things fellow editors write. - ක - (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jesuschristonacamel:I read what you wrote but such pedantry is not needed here in Wikipedia. Many universities are part of larger organisations and/or have subsidiaries which are separate entities. We are not interested in the organisational structure, only what WP:RS say. The Sunday Times source given in the article makes no mention of the Academy.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: "such pedantry is not needed here in Wikipedia"? This is an encyclopedia. It's our job to be pedantic.

Regardless of the one source, the other source and the Academy's own website are still valid. I'm not asking for anyone to disregard Wikipedia rules. I simply wanted people to understand that I'd be either adding a separate section for the Academy or another page (although I think that's overkill), and so, to not label SLINTEC as the educational, degree-awarding arm.

What started out as a good-faith notice about my intentions has now been dragged into some kind of personal political issue you have. I can assure you my only interest is in informing a reader of the article that SLINTEC and its subsidiary are two separate entities and have two infoboxes for them.

If you feel strongly about your viewpoint, please go ahead and revert my edits. I do want it on the record that I don't agree with such an action, and that I wasn't disputing SLINTEC Academy's status as a university.

We're both on the same side here. I can't understand where you're coming from :( - ක - (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jesuschristonacamel: I'm afraid you've inadvertently strayed into the "are private universities legal" dispute. Samankamal has been holding several articles hostage and causing much disruption with his view that they are not. Your opening salvo "SLINTEC is not a university. It is a for-profit research institute" seemed to go along with his view. But I now understand that this isn't the case. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Getting back to this article, the issue is whether we need a separate article for the academy. My view is that we don't, for the reasons I have stated previously. We should of course mention that the academy is a subsidiary of SLINTEC. FYI the gazette notifying that SLINTEC had been given degree awarding status does not mention the academy either.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Phew. Glad we got that out of the way :D

The part about the Academy- I'm not sure what the situation is. Like I said, there's two news articles that mention the Academy, and I've been invited to a formal opening ceremony to it later this month at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute with Kiriella attending, so I don't think the Academy is anything dodgy. This is why I haven't yet done anything as far as the academy is concerned except mentioning it once in the intro. The infobox for a separate section (even I think a separate article is overkill) for the academy is still sitting in my sandbox until I have more sources. I'm sure there'll be more substantial ones after this opening event I mentioned. Thanks for the gazette btw. I was trying to find it. I can't seem to access it however. - ක - (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that academy exists or that it will be responsible for the running the academic courses. I agree that we should not have separate article for it. I've had a look at your sandbox. I wouldn't recommend moving it to this article until you can expand the content - as it stands there is only an infobox, no narrative.

The documents.gov.lk website is very difficult to access at weekends - the staff must switch off the servers when they go home - try it on Monday. The extraordinary gazette number was 2032/23, dated 16/8/17.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)