Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views: Difference between revisions

Alternative Views Project‑class

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.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I notice few members, and few of those are active in this project. WikiProject Rational Skepticism and WikiProject Paranormal, and specific projects such as wikiproject astrology etc already seem to cover much of the ground of this project. Is this project dead? Should it be marked as historical? There are about 4 members who appear to be currently active on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been active lately, but for what it's worth, I do still check back here. I think this project does have a role to play. WikiProject Rational Skepticism and WikiProject Paranormal seem to be more about views beyond the mainstream of science, whereas this project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. Tim Smith (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on Ian Stevenson (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One is a book series that presents alternative views of spirituality in a philosophical context. It has some similarity to A Course in Miracles but attempts to take a more philosophical approach (through it is certainly far from acceptable in almost all philosophy deptartments aside from some fingey continentals). It is up for deletion despite being notable according to my close reading of WP:FRINGE, WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG. Could someone comment on this please? Being honest, it seems the admin that has targeted it for deletion is mainly objecting to the alternative views presented rather than to the notability of the book series itself.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed these terms used in metaphysics and alternative physics, so I thought I'd inform you of issues concerning these terms: talk:Dark Wave and talk:Ethereal Wave -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page move from Alternative medicine to Complementary and alternative medicine initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. Defend us against the agents of intellectual hegemony! FiachraByrne (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australian Music has an article alert page for AFDs/PRODs/GA/FA nominations, updated by User:AAlertBot. Worth having here? - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this project did not have a wp:Article alerts section, I subscribed it. Can someone please add it to the Main project page? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage of acupuncture in the military is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

At Talk:Alternative_medicine#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".

I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24#Category:Pseudoscience. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

We are discussing what to rename this article and I hope for input on what words to use/not use in titles and subtitles of such articles. Please come and give your opinions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC at Talk:David Irving. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]