User talk:Yogesh Khandke/sandbox Yazidi
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Section break
Consider inclusion of the contents of the sandbox edit
Pl discuss and include. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Had a closer read and I must agree with Cúchulainn; the sources in the article in general are bad and the ones you're giving aren't, well, that ironclad either. The problem with using online sites of a specific group (not just Yazidi related) as a ref is that the group itself tends to claim whatever it wishes. For example, if you read Microsoft's site, you get the feeling that it's be best thing since sliced bread but you only get critical views from non MS sites.
- Assuming there is a scientific background to this link to India, then it would really be best if you could provide a printed source. As you said yourself, this article has had all sorts of strange stuff added to it and its hard to figure truth from fiction so I'm sure both Cúchulainn and I would welcome a cleanup with good sources. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean that the Yazidi's are bragging about their India connection? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look at it this way - I have no preference either way. If they're from India, they're from India, if they're from Zimbabwe, then I'm good with that too if that's what the evidence says. But with only a website by an organisation with a self interest in the matter to go by, I'm not satisfied that they're view is necessarily widely accepted. How can I know? After all, I could blow 100 bucks, buy a domain and set up a site claiming that Yazidis ARE from Uganda. Would you quote me? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is a hypothetical question. See the sites. They are about real people with real life issues. Unless someone makes outlandish claims, like your Microsoft analogy. The Yazidi's are claiming that they came from India, not from Atlantis or the moon. There is the English reverend and the American Journalist, an Armenian Yazidi, an American new-religion follower . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a research paper too. All pointing at the same direction. Diverse sources. Does each source look like it is worth only $100.00 Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Several of the cites are not reliable; some are personal webpages, and one is a book from the 1850s. Some of them look okay, but I am confident there are better, academic sources available.--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a research paper too. All pointing at the same direction. Diverse sources. Does each source look like it is worth only $100.00 Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is a hypothetical question. See the sites. They are about real people with real life issues. Unless someone makes outlandish claims, like your Microsoft analogy. The Yazidi's are claiming that they came from India, not from Atlantis or the moon. There is the English reverend and the American Journalist, an Armenian Yazidi, an American new-religion follower . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look at it this way - I have no preference either way. If they're from India, they're from India, if they're from Zimbabwe, then I'm good with that too if that's what the evidence says. But with only a website by an organisation with a self interest in the matter to go by, I'm not satisfied that they're view is necessarily widely accepted. How can I know? After all, I could blow 100 bucks, buy a domain and set up a site claiming that Yazidis ARE from Uganda. Would you quote me? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean that the Yazidi's are bragging about their India connection? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Section break edit
The guide lines are as follows regarding personal web-pages:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why is a book written in 1850 bad, on the other hand, its antiquity is an added qualification. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, its antiquity is not an added qualification. It's going to be very out of date, as research in this area has continued for the last 160 years. We need to find the best, most up-to-date source we can.--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have a fellow who went around the place in 1850, please read the source quoted. It is an eye-witness account of 160 years ago. What is wrong in that. He does not mention a theory, he says I saw this it looked to me like that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, its antiquity is not an added qualification. It's going to be very out of date, as research in this area has continued for the last 160 years. We need to find the best, most up-to-date source we can.--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
When people first saw the tasmanian tiger they thought it was a mammal. That doesn't make it true. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well... it is a mammal, it's just not a placental mammal. But the point is taken: whether or not Badger recorded what he saw truthfully (I assume he did), a lot of work has been done in this field since 1852 and we need to rely on that.--Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)