Talk:Paul Roderick Gregory
Latest comment: 7 years ago by SPECIFICO in topic Encyclopedia.com is a tertiary source, and perfectly reliable.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Roderick Gregory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Encyclopedia.com is a tertiary source, and perfectly reliable. edit
I'm very surprised to see anyone question the reliability of an online encyclopedia, especially one that not anybody can just edit. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Previous version did not include this ref. I now included it, and I think it can be used on this page, although that would not be an appropriate RS for other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia is not well sourced. It uses lots of primary material that WP would not accept. E.G. the encyclopedia.com article has his kids names and maybe their favorite flavours if ice cream as well. It's like money-laundering for source citations. This fine gentleman is not really notable per PROF. If anybody believes otherwise, please state in detail how he fits the tests in the WP guideline? Thanks. The stuff that's currently sourced to encyclopedia.com is innocuous and could just as well be sourced to his personal bio or even left unannotated, as they are uncontroversial and unchallenged. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is a "quaternary" source that should not be used if challenged by anyone, but I thought the info was harmless. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia is not well sourced. It uses lots of primary material that WP would not accept. E.G. the encyclopedia.com article has his kids names and maybe their favorite flavours if ice cream as well. It's like money-laundering for source citations. This fine gentleman is not really notable per PROF. If anybody believes otherwise, please state in detail how he fits the tests in the WP guideline? Thanks. The stuff that's currently sourced to encyclopedia.com is innocuous and could just as well be sourced to his personal bio or even left unannotated, as they are uncontroversial and unchallenged. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)