Talk:Paul Roderick Gregory

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Russia

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedia.com is a tertiary source, and perfectly reliable.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Exactly! SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]