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 sourcedmust 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.
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 athe 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!
--Jerzy•t 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.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)