Talk:Runoko Rashidi

Fair use rationale for Image:Runokorashidi.jpg
Image:Runokorashidi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

encyclopedic?
It's pretty clear either the subject himself or an "admirer" has written this article. The seperate sections on each of his bizarre assertions are completely unnecessary. --J3d3md4ss3in3 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Afrocentrism = pseudo-science..!!

 * This is a article of pseudo-science and not real..!!(afromerdism/simiosujos..)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.52.147.65 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommend deletion
There are no sources writing about Rashidi and his contributions except his own website. There is a lack of information about him from reliable third-party sources. I think the article should be deleted.Parkwells (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Critique unreferenced section in a BLP
BLP should be given extra attention. An article of a living person dominated by just as much critique as content and high up in the article is unacceptable. If there are no references the section should be deleted. It has all kinds of claims and no ref to back it up. Moreover, there is already a similar critique With ref in the lead. So the section serves no function.--Inayity (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On a related note I do not think mainstream anything bothers to even consider Rashidi notable enough to even refute him. Even the ref given only one mentions his work by name. They are indirect refutation of his arguments not directed at him and his work. This means the critique section was OR I have heard of Rashidi many times for many years, so I know he deserves a wiki article, but the ref to his work (3rd party etc) are paper thin, no wonder people question deleting the page. --Inayity (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the removal, I was careful to explain my reasons for reinstating it. You seem to be correct about the mainstream not thinking it's worthwhile bothering about him. I think we have a new editor with a pov (and most of us have one but know about NPOV) who doesn't understand how we work, I just removed a huge amount of copyvio from another article he's edited. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

these references are not directed to Runoko
I might have mentioned this before but these ref are not directed to Runoko but to the general argument he is using, hence they cannot be used in a WP:BIO.Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, and Harry Nelson. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. 9th edn (Canada: Thompson Learning, 2003).Jump up ^ "Genetic Evidence on the Origin of Indian Caste Populations". CSH Genome Research. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. March 22, 2001.--Inayity (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah
A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
You know adding negative labels to scholars is not NPOV. Now I am no fan of Runoko But that is my belief. I still think he deserves a fair article. And this is why Africans distrust what goes on here. Can't you restrain yourself? Look at the rest of the talk page. Clearly some agenda at work. Ivan Van sertima has a page. Why is he walking around with the title Pseudo historian? in the lead of Runoko? yet all those race and intelligence scholars pushing rubbish are exempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.94 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Issue raised at WP:FTN. Doug Weller  talk 11:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK can we have some RS that says he is a Pseudohistorian?Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * we're talking about Van Sertima here, right? And there are references there calling his work both pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller  talk 20:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to me we are saying Rashidi teaches Pseudo history, that is what we need a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)