Talk:Scindian

Not a source

Moved from Talk:List of Scindian passengers - the associated article having now been deleted.

This list is not appropriate material for Wikisource, as it is not an original source. The reference states

The lists of convicts, pensioner guards, warders and other passengers presented on this page are an amalgum of information extracted from several sources. In the process every attempt has been made to correct the various anomalies, omissions and typographical errors which were encountered.

Snottygobble 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Noticed this page my be up for deletion. This is the beginings of a great resource, Referencing various sources of great use to historians and those interested in geneology in Australia KEEP Ghostieguide 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I note Snottygobble's claim that the list is not suitable for Wikisource - have you actually tried to put it there? Trouble is the list don't belong here - genealogy is specifically listed as something Wikipedia is not. Suggest put it on your own website or one of those mentioned in {{badbio}}. -- RHaworth 12:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I am a regular contributor to Wikisource and I well know what it is for. This is not an original source and so doesn't belong.
2. No I haven't tried. Just because I could get away with putting it on Wikisource doesn't make it right; Wikisource is not a dumping ground for things you don't want on Wikipedia.
3. This information may be of interests to genealogists but it obviously is not genealogy.
4. This discussion is tiresome and pointless. I have merged the list into Scindian. Snottygobble 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion is far from pointless - it is a basic question: does a list of people have any place in Wikipedia? I think it does not but I will leave it there and see if anybody agrees with me. -- RHaworth 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

August 2007

If the list of passengers is intended to be taken seriously by researchers, it has to have some guidance as to accuracy. Ref the THROSSELL pensioner-guard family - the original document names Michael, Jane Ann and Thomas, and lists two further children but with no names.

It does NOT have "(George)" added to Michael's name and "Lionel" does not appear as son George's middle name. The further note about Michael's burial is also a researchers addition.

This illustrates the point made below by someone about sources. This entry is a copy of information from elsewhere on the Internet (in itself NOT a primary source). Unfortunately some well-meaning person has added researcher's notes on the site that this page has been mainly copied from and the notes have now become 'fact'.

Whether you like it, or not, this page WILL be used by family history researchers who, unless they understand primary as opposed to secondary sources, will simply take the speculative bits as fact! The erroneous appearance of "George" in this version has already caused unnecessary and heated debate over his real name.

The authors attempts to "... correct the various anomalies, omissions and typographical errors which were encountered..." makes it worse because what we are now seeing is a further distortion of original material and thereby distortion of fact. This article would have been better placed on a personal web site with a proper explanation of the changes and additions that have been made to the original.