Talk:Terry Breverton
| 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. |
Lack of reliable references, lack of notability, COI edits edit
This page entirely lacks reliable references - on following the links, pretty much all of them originate with self-puffery from the subject, none of them substantiate anything except his rapid-fire production of (unreliable) books. I note that it is the work of one SPA and one prolific editor with interests that closely mirror those of the subject. Generally a page long overdue for deletion. Meanwhile, it needs to have the unreliable stuff removed - which is pretty much all of it. Hunc (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The only real justification I can see for this page is the plethora of self-published books. Not that they are reliable references for their contents, but they do document their own existence. @Bellezzasolo: and others, I propose to trim this page down to a stub, and then take it to AfD. Comments? Hunc (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Hunc: Don't trim it, just AfD it. That way, it's easier for !voters to judge the quality of the sources used. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Publications edit
I have just finished reading Breverton's "Richard III - the king in the car park". I am a German Biology teacher, so I'm not an expert for English medieval history, but I noticed that the chapter about the identification of the remains, especially his comments about C-14- and mtDNA-analysis, is teeming with errors (even a stupid Ninth grader wouldn't make these mistakes). The author obviously didn't do any research at all, mainly paraphrasing the statements given by Buckley and King at the press conference and the proceeding to say that the DNA-analysis is not reliable, because "there are too many generations between Richard III and the descentants of Richard's sister". After that, the DNA-analysis is not reliable because "medieval people lived short lives and there were many adoptions". And a few sentences later, the DNA-analysis is not reliable because "there are many people with the same DNA-haploptype."
If his other publications are on the same level he isn't a serious author and I wonder why he's got an entry on Wikipedia.176.7.144.164 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)