Talk:Stephen G. Wheatcroft
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Horse Eye's Back in topic Unsourced significant work section
| 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Unsourced significant work section
edit@C.J. Griffin: would you be so good as to provide discussions of each of those works in a WP:RS? I don’t doubt that some of them are notable, but currently none have anything to vouch for their significance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some of those works are discussed or referenced here and here. I'm sure I can find others given the time. Both discuss the debate between Wheatcroft and Conquest, which further demonstrates their significance. I have seen many Wikipedia articles on scholars, historians, etc which have "Selected works" sections that do not contain references for each work listed, and editors are not going in and wiping them out because of this. Seems a bit extreme to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- In general its discouraged, only significant works should be featured and significance is demonstrated by being featured in a WP:RS. Even when an article contains unsourced selected works (it shouldn't) its almost never longer than the actual article as it is here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)