Talk:Georges Ifrah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Generally not valid as a WP reference[edit]

   While i'm greatly impressed by the vision of his thinking and scope of his sources in Vol. 1 (which book i have at hand), i take the critiques cited by our bio on the accompanying article (esp. that of Vol.2, to which review i've so far given a the longer look) seriously enuf to see our use of him in refs problematic. In a line, he's self-trained, and an expert in his field has accused him of rampant errors both major and minor, at least in the second volume; IMO there's a prima facie case that he is not entitled to a presumption that citations of his work meet our criteria for RS. I.e., that each citation of him as a source needs an individual defense of his reliability re that specific assertion.
   What i propose to proceed with in the next 24 is tagging the approx 50 articles that appear to cite him with a somewhat harsh template for the Vol 1 citations, and a harsher one for the Vol 2 citations. I base that distinction on my first (i.e. tentative) impression from the 2-part professional scholarly review in a major journal (links in our bio article) that vol 2 is grossly inferior in thoro-ness and accuracy to vol 1 (which is likely to be provocative enuf to indeed become a classic even if he's full of crap!).
   Input from colleagues is more than welcome!
--Jerzyt 20:59 21:04, & 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I said "[within] the next 24 [hours]", but actually i'm not going to be able to spend more time on it this week.
--Jerzyt 02:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)