Talk:Mathole Motshekga

Misplaced footnotes/unclear sources

The recent controversy over the Homo naledi discovery needs clearer attribution of quotations. The parts added today by User:MikeRumex include four quotations and three source links, but the links are all grouped together in the header rather than appended to the quotations they document. It's also not clear to me what is the reason for boldface presentation of some parts of the quotations. My guess is it's not exactly NPOV, but it's possible it reflects boldface or other emphasis in the source stories. Further, the reference to "the generally accepted consensus on the history of writing" and the assertion that "Motshekga has no training in science" need documentation, or need to be removed. Mind you, I'm not saying this because I doubt Motshekga said the things attributed to him, nor because I think he's right in his assertions about the age of humanity or the biases underlying theories of human evolution; I think it's likely he said these things, and I think they're naive and/or absurd. But they need to be documented properly. I'm trying to tease an eowiki article about the guy out of the enwiki one, and I won't be able to go into the detail I'd have liked until this mess is cleared up. --Haruo (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I did my best to make the referencing better. All quotes are taken from the video attached to the article [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeRumex (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject matter here, however, the sentence that begins "According to the wikipedia pages..." needs to be removed, or re-written and cited appropriately. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. - Location (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a stub that covers only the Naledi debacle

It must be turned into a real bio page or else deleted, or moved to a page on Homo Naledi

Bio detail on Dr Motshekga can be found at the link in the article and in several other places eg here: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02426/05lv02596.htm

He has a doctorate from UNISA and a masters in law from Harvard. These type of things can not be omitted from a page like this.

There are many examples of good bio's on Wikipedia.

I understand the intent here. The recent statements from him are controversial and worth documenting, but this is a page on him and not only on what he said about Homo Naledi.

GramlerGrindstone (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have placed an Undue tag on the page. Surely this person is noteworthy for more than remarks given a few days ago. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section, per WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." When and if this article is expanded to more fully cover Motshekga's life and career, the Homo naledi remarks may possibly warrant mention, if deemed relevant and not just a flash in the pan news blip. Articles should avoid WP:RECENTISM. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)