Talk:Vezo people

Untitled

I created this stub with mostly empty sections as I am a complete amateur in this area, please review the html comments I left. -Wikianon 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious section

This section was recently removed wholesale by an editor. The content is relevant and should be kept, but improved with citations and an introduction that discusses the belief in the ancestors that all these rituals stems from. - Lemurbaby (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding an important wikipedia policy: the content doesn't just have to be relevant, it cannot be primary. In other words, no personal research is allowed. The section I removed is unsourced; this is (in practice, not in theory) all right when there is a reasonable doubt that it could be sourced properly. In this specific case, however, the section reads like a travel diary, and its editor even calls himself "the author" once. This is obviously personal research, and has to go. Please consider this policy in the future, and don't revert edits based on relevance alone. complainer (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is personal research. Everything the editor added is indeed a cultural practice tied to the religious beliefs of the Vezo. They contributed using a style that is not encyclopedic, but the content is largely good. What needs to happen is the content that cannot be sourced needs to be removed. Would you like to take on that task? If not, maybe you'd like to rephrase the content in a more encyclopedic style? The editor who added this was clearly not a native English speaker. If you would rather not take that on, I will add this content back in as it is and make those changes later. I'm working my way through all the top importance Madagascar articles and bringing them up to GA, and this content provides a very useful starting point. Let's work together to improve the article by sourcing the information and removing what cannot be substantiated. But from what I know about the Vezo, the content discussed here is factual. Please respond here, and if there is no response in the next day or so I will go ahead and revert. - Lemurbaby (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you know about the Vezo is irrelevant too--it is personal research as well, and not a valid point in this kind of discussion, albeit this rule is violated rather often. As for the sourcing, we have no duty to bend backwards to try and figure out the source. You say the writer is not a native: are we supposed to browse through all possible sources in French and Malagasy, just to mention the two most likely ones? Sourcing is the responsibility of the editor inserting the material; putting it on without sources is a form of parasitism, where an editor takes up the fun part and leaves the others with the bureaucratic drudge: we cannot encourage that. Besides, I truly doubt the source exists and is valid: I agree with you that the material is probably factually true. This, however, doesn't mean it has been published by any trustworthy publisher; as it is, it has the same validity of me saying that the sunset was a nice shade of orange yesterday: although indubitably true, it doesn't get onto the Copenhagen article. complainer (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, although most of the content on Wikipedia is unsourced and I'm not sure why you're really digging into this particular article, I share your concern for proper sourcing. Since you haven't expressed an interest in helping to improve the article by finding sources (and yes, digging through the French and Malagasy sources is probably what I'm going to have to do, because that's where the information is), then I am going to add the content there so it doesn't get "lost", but I will hide it, so the average reader won't see it. That way it stays intact so I will have something to work from later. That's the most practical compromise, and one that will enable me to improve this article later. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vezo people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117012532/http://livewiththesea.org:80/velondriake/the-vezo.htm to http://www.livewiththesea.org/velondriake/the-vezo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)