Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alternative Views
WikiProject Alternative Views
Main / talk
Articles
Main / talk
Participants
Main / talk
Resources
Main / talk
Popular pages
Main / talk
Assessment
Main / talk
Cleanup listing
Main / talk


WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Great Zimbabwe - Two rival theories?[edit]

Main article: Great Zimbabwe

It could perhaps be argued that there are two 'rival' theories for the origin of the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization (with its drystone temples and fortresses, and its extensive network of gold mines) - namely, the "Shona" theory, and the "Semitic" theory. The overwhelming majority of modern-day academics support the "Shona" theory - but if we include laymen, then the difference in numbers becomes much less.

During the 40 years since the publication of Robert Gayre's 1972 book supporting the "Semitic" theory, almost every article on the subject which has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, subscribes to the "Shona" theory.

Despite that, it is still not clear (at least, not to me) how exactly the "Shona" theory can be regarded as proven beyond all doubt - which is what most of its adherents claim. As far as I can make out, their principal arguments are based on oral traditions, and on the fact that Shona-style dwellings and artefacts were found in and around the various stone ruins.

However, there is an alternative possible scenario - whereby the original civilization was created by people of Semitic stock, but was later conquered and overrun by the Shona. Some of the original Semitic inhabitants could well have been absorbed into the Shona population, such that not all the Semitic skills and knowledge were lost. Thus, the archaeological evidence really needs to be re-examined to see whether or not it could still be consistent with that alternative hypothesis. --DLMcN (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this with no understanding of the details, it sounds like what you describe as "rival" theories are not being treated by mainstream scholarship as "rivals"; but as one generally accepted theory and an alternative theory which causes controversy. So I'm supposing your concern is that the article allows coverage of the alternative? According to the polices on "fringe subjects" WP:FRINGE:

"an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea... [the page] should not make it appear more notable than it is... and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

These are policies that constrain all of us. I would interpret that to mean that some coverage can be given to the idea you describe as the "alternative possible scenario"; but it cannot be presented as an equally viable one. The article would need to be clear that Gayre's work has established the mainstream academic position, and give the alternative view as a minority opinion. That is, of course, if it is shown to have enough notability to have been discussed in reliable sources. Here's the policy that determines a 'reliable source'. -- Zac Δ talk! 20:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
See also WP:VALID. If being in the article unduly legitimized the fringe theory, it can be omitted from the main article. When you say "the overwhelming majority" it sounds like omission applies here. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
New evidence has recently emerged (namely, the Lemba genetic analyses) - which may now justify taking a fresh look at the topic. --DLMcN (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment[edit]

Hi there! I came across this page while poking around on the discussion page for the New religious movements article and thought that maybe this would be a good place to ask for help with a project I'm working on. I am working on behalf of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which has been described as a new religious movement, to improve the entry about the school.

This page currently has some issues, including problems with how information about the school's beliefs and teaching methods is presented. I have now finished writing a new version that addresses these, and some other issues, that I would like other editors to consider.

On the discussion page you will find more information about what I suggest changing and why. You will also find a link to what I have written. Though I have written this on behalf of the school, I am not personally a member, however because of my "conflict of interest" I will not edit the entry myself. If what I have written is an improvement I hope that other editors will be able to make the changes to the entry for me.

If this discussion page wasn't a good place to leave this message could someone please point me to a Wikiproject where I might find someone to help? So far I've left messages at Wikiproject Religion and the subgroup Wikiproject Religion/New religious movements. Calstarry (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment[edit]

I posted on this page about six weeks ago looking for editors to help review a new draft of the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article. Over the past few weeks the conversation has gotten very long and complicated so now, at the suggestion of several other editors, I would like to try and look at the article section by section.

I am looking for editors who can help review the page's current Research section and compare it to my suggested revision which I have named Research into Ramtha.

On the Ramtha's discussion page I've shared my concerns with the current section and some detailed notes that explain the changes I would like to make with my revision. If you can help you can see the message on the Ramtha's discussion page about this here. Calstarry (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lately I have removed[edit]

several pages from Category:Pseudoscience; on the grounds that ‘pseudoscience’ is a judgmental epithet; also it is, IMO, a very stigmatizing label, so it should be used sparingly. Spanish Wikipedia says it eloquently: “No olvide que para utilizar esta categoría debe de haber una referencia verificable, fiable en la materia y sólida que especifique que la disciplina categorizada es una pseudociencia.” Rough translation: “In order for a page to be placed in this category, there must be reliable sources specifying that said subject is pseudoscience.” I strongly support this policy; subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if a preponderance of reliable sources (as I pointed out on my User page, a source with a conflict of interest is not reliable) say they are such. In other words, the burden of proof should be on those who claim a subject is pseudoscience, not on those who claim it is not.

Some of the pages I removed: Continental drip, Steatopygia.

Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Not okay. :: Solomonfromfinland, not so fast. You're removing the meta-category for many things which are obvious pseudoscience (like astrology), and which are in subcategories of Pseudoscience (like Alternative medicine). It's best to leave them as they are. You risk being seen as a vandal. I suggest you do some fast backpedaling and undo a lot of what you're doing. Keep in mind that we don't care whether something is a pejorative or judgmental epithet, although with BLPs were are more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I left Category:Astrology as well as the article Astrology itself in the ‘metacategory’ pseudoscience. However, a number of pages in the various subcategories of Category:Pseudoscience are placed in said category directly. To what extent should this be done? (Same applies to any other category; e.g. should New Horizons be placed directly in Category:Pluto? [Probably not, IMO].) Indeed, the heading of Category:Pseudoscience says, “Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories.”
As a particular case, do you approve of the removal of articles Continental drip, Steatopygia, Meme and Macrobiotic diet from Category:Pseudoscience? Other Wikipedians, any opinions on the matter?
Words to watch says, “With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.” A reasonable interpretation of this passage is that subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if (a) they are "clearly described as such" by said article; (b) such a description is supported by (a preponderance of) reliable sources. (Some sources consider psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, but this may be a minority view.)
A slight mistake, for which I’ll forgive you, is that you apparently said Category:Alternative medicine is a subcategory of Pseudoscience. As of now, it is not, though the article Alternative medicine is placed in Category:Pseudoscience.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see that Obiwan removed it some time ago. Odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Btw, BullRangifer, not so fast about calling me a vandal. Cutting the number of articles included directly in a specific category, which I’ve done before, isn’t necessarily vandalism; especially when the category page requests it. For a highly contentious label like “pseudo-”, articles that don’t belong should be speedily removed. Btw, I am not angry at you. Wikitalk pages (say nothing of Arbitration cases, Noticeboards, and RfC) are full of disputes; and I barely consider this a dispute, even.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. I know you're not a vandal. You definitely mean well. I just wouldn't want you to be "seen as a vandal" by someone not familiar with the situation or with you.
I just feel that in some situations you're being hasty and also putting your efforts in the wrong place. Better to actually add the sources, or put a {{cn}} tag, or request that the needed refs are provided when the subject is obviously pseudoscientific. Most of these aren't BLPs, so there is no rush. BLPs are obviously handled differently. Otherwise I do understand your concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of project?[edit]

There's been a bit of ambiguity as to what the scope of your Wikiproject is over at [1]. I explained what I was seeing as the scope you all state focusing on significant minority views rather than fringe views. If my read is correct, I'm not seeing where the scope for this project would be in that article, so it would be nice for folks involved in this project to give insight as to what the intent would be while tagging articles. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I answered this already on Talk:Vani Hari - relevant for notable advocacy of highly non-mainstream scientific views, and that the tag on the talk page was useful for project purposes, e.g. article alerts. Apparently this isn't sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial[edit]

I added the “Contentious label” template to a number of Holocaust denial -related categories. This template was removed; a removal to which I do not object and which I currently do not intend to revert. I am by no means a Holocaust denier. I agree, the Holocaust is a fact in the same sense as any number of other historical events. However I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I thought the “contentious label” template would be appropriate, given that the term “denialist” is listed as a contentious label.

I apologize for my potentially inappropriate edit.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category rename[edit]

I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists. It is about “Persons who have criticized or tried to debunk conspiracy theories.” It should be re-titled “Critics of conspiracy theories”. Btw, I placed it in Category:Criticisms, which I changed to Category:Critics. (When I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists, I didn’t know that Category:Critics existed.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative_theories_of_the_location_of_Great_Moravia[edit]

Need some editors to have an eye out on this article. It is new and was created as part of a compromise between two users on the NPOV noticeboard. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: transhumanist politics[edit]

There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation[edit]

Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

holocaust revisionism[edit]

Would talk:holocaust revisionism fall in this project's scope? Trying to father input on what to name or how to present an article conservatively designed to highlight basic reliably publicized changes in statistical estimates of death counts or camp sites. Basically to cover legitimate revisionism rather than the illegitimate kind which often needs to negationism or denialism.

People seem to think a source need s to use the exact phrase to be counted in a field and can't acknowledge a changed number estimate is a revisionist. --Ranze (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment article[edit]

The alternative view of those who claim to be targeted individuals (TIs) is being described as a delusion at the electronic harassment article. I have tried to change that but failed, despite a Washington Post article Mind Games that is acceptable as a reliable source. Any assistance would be welcome. (for some reason I cannot give you a link to the Wikipedia "Electronic Harassment" article) Jed Stuart (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

New account possibly not understanding scope[edit]

Icannotthinkofagoodusername (talk · contribs) is adding the project template to people from Jerry Fallwell to Mussolini, and to White Supremacy. Perhaps someone from the project could check the additions and advise him? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And an IP, 92.28.226.240 (talk · contribs) - to the KKK article, Margaret Thatcher, atheism, Hitler, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The account has been blocked, and the account's edits and IP's edits reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC here...[edit]

RfC here SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Nuanced different between Alternative and Competing views[edit]

    Eaterjolly (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This argument of mine is irrelevant, because it was based on the false premise of scope. This project's scope is limited to fields of endeavor, not strictly any "views".Eaterjolly (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric universe[edit]

There is a deletion debate here at Biocentric universe that involves whether major mainstream sources are adequate or if top science journals are always required as a source. It's over a heavily covered alternative thought in mainstream press. Lots of highly anti-alternative people involved and vocal. May be of interest. Grump International (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Alternative views Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarify in the Scope: Field versus not Field[edit]

I propose clarifying:

  • Theology is a field, religion is not.
  • Political Science is a field, politics is not.
  • Philosophy is a field, spirituality is not.

etc..

Also seems like a lot of these articles are about minority religions, political stances, people with lots of different unrelated views, etc.

I think it would be best to start removing articles which aren't either about a view itself or a major developer of a view. Individuals, organizations, and media designed to promote these ideas should not be included. 12.168.201.132 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted you at the NWO conspiracy theory talk page, that's still poly sci.Doug Weller talk 07:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted you at some articles. The way you are defining "field" is odd in some of these cases; for example, this one. It is easy to argue that a conspiracy theory is a field, and a list of them is just an extension of that. If the view is an alternative and a minority view, then there's a good chance it should be tagged as such on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested[edit]

There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. This project is being contact because it is listed as one of the projects on the Donald Trump talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Donald Trump to be moved to Donald J. Trump. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Soylent (food) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Soylent (food) to be moved to Soylent. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories to be moved to John F. Kennedy assassination fringe theories. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Soylent (food) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Soylent (food) to be moved to Soylent (beverage). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Blue quartz[edit]

The redirect Blue quartz, which currently points to Quartz, has been nominate at RfD. As google hits suggest there is significant interest in blue quartz in the "new age", alternative medicine and other similar fields, your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Blue quartz is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Soylent (food) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Soylent (food) to be moved to Soylent (meal replacement). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mind control listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mind control to be moved to Brainwashing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory to be moved to Zionist Occupation Government. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Alternative views, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nephite listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nephite to be moved to Nephites. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ancient astronauts listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ancient astronauts to be moved to Ancient aliens. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.