Talk:Johal: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Loggerjack (talk | contribs) →Genetic data: new section |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|importance= |
|importance= |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Genetic data == |
|||
Recently 2.222.68.184 replaced the "Origins" section, commenting that "Genetic data completely refutes any migration into north west india at the time suggested. Cunningham did not have genetic information, but his assumption was based on the pro western centric history of india, genetics refute his work". May be 2.222 is correct, but whatever he added constitutes original research, since his genetic text says nothing of Johal. Neither he provides the references from sources which directly say that Cunningham was in error. |
|||
The correct layout of the section must be as follows (supplied by thorough references). |
|||
*In the past an opinion existed that Johals ...bla...bla...bla... |
|||
*This opinion was based on the following evidence: ....bla...bla...bla... |
|||
* Recent genetic studies suggest that this theory may have insufficient fouldation {citations needed} |
|||
* Other suggest that in fact Johal originated in ... based on the evidence... {citations needed} |
|||
*The old evidence may be alternatively explained... {citations needed} |
|||
The above outline is based on the following principles |
|||
*Old erroneous theories are '''facts'''. They are facts of history of the scientific research, and as such are of encyclopedic vaue. |
|||
*All discusions, conclusions and controversies mentioned in wikipedia article must be directly referenced. |
|||
*All discussions in rteh article must bear direct relevance to the main subject of the article. |
|||
*Complete rewriting of an encyclopedic article cannot be based exclusivily on 1-2 very specific scientific articles. At best, these articles must be presented as an opinion, unless somewhere elase it is stated that these articles represent a new consensus or at least a notable alternative theory. [[User:Loggerjack|Loggerjack]] ([[User talk:Loggerjack|talk]]) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:55, 30 January 2012
 | India Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Genetic data
Recently 2.222.68.184 replaced the "Origins" section, commenting that "Genetic data completely refutes any migration into north west india at the time suggested. Cunningham did not have genetic information, but his assumption was based on the pro western centric history of india, genetics refute his work". May be 2.222 is correct, but whatever he added constitutes original research, since his genetic text says nothing of Johal. Neither he provides the references from sources which directly say that Cunningham was in error.
The correct layout of the section must be as follows (supplied by thorough references).
- In the past an opinion existed that Johals ...bla...bla...bla...
- This opinion was based on the following evidence: ....bla...bla...bla...
- Recent genetic studies suggest that this theory may have insufficient fouldation {citations needed}
- Other suggest that in fact Johal originated in ... based on the evidence... {citations needed}
- The old evidence may be alternatively explained... {citations needed}
The above outline is based on the following principles
- Old erroneous theories are facts. They are facts of history of the scientific research, and as such are of encyclopedic vaue.
- All discusions, conclusions and controversies mentioned in wikipedia article must be directly referenced.
- All discussions in rteh article must bear direct relevance to the main subject of the article.
- Complete rewriting of an encyclopedic article cannot be based exclusivily on 1-2 very specific scientific articles. At best, these articles must be presented as an opinion, unless somewhere elase it is stated that these articles represent a new consensus or at least a notable alternative theory. Loggerjack (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)