Talk:Razib Khan
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Undue weight edit
Hi Scope creep. You added the "too few opinions" and "undue weight" tags. What specific changes do you think needs to be made to the article? Waters.Justin (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Khan Disambiguation edit
I chuckled at the disambiguation pointing to Khan Noonien Singh, but has anyone in history ever confused Razib Khan with the genetically-engineered superman-dictator from Star Trek's Eugenics Wars? Seems like a stretch. 68.63.217.32 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Deletion proposal edit
'Significance' means "notability," I suppose? Non-notability is not established. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Khan is probably the most popular writer on genomics and human genetics in the country. Downvoting the deletion proposal. 67.167.254.120 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Larry Siegel
- Only 3 and a half years late, but thanks for your input ;) Tobus (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- The guy is an egotistical self promoter with no real achievements. Definitely worth deleting 120.21.123.85 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Only 3 and a half years late, but thanks for your input ;) Tobus (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Editorializing edit
I corrected this sentence; editorialized stuff, making too much from an opinion piece written by a dubious journalist; see Freelancer Takes Conspiracy Theories About Gossip Cop To New York Times. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources edit
A lot of the sources aren't even about the article subject, but are used only to back up tangential claims - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I checked all cites and I'm wrong - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This discusses Kahn briefly edit
@David Gerard@Tobus@Joshua Jonathan[1] Heidi Beirich should have an article, she's used a lot as a source here and I'd say her organisation Global Project on Hate and Extremism is also notable. Just wish I had the time. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)