Talk:Wesley Critz George

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: I have deleted the proposal for deletion, having added references from the first of numerous pages concerning W.C. George that result from a search, not at Google, but at Google Scholar. Articles on authors are not deleted from Wikipedia simply because their ideas are distasteful. The financial support for W.C. George and the sources from whom it came need to be added to this article.--Wetman (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just curious, why would the financial support be important for the article, when that's irrelevant in articles of other scholars?  41.151.57.93 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed for deletion (deleted) 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am getting tired of your spam to this list. Noone is using it and noone ever will, you are not even using it yourself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually hear from readers of the source lists fairly regularly both by comments on the lists' talk pages and by comments on my user talk page. I have also seen edits to article text (on a variety of articles) based on sources mentioned in those lists. You have a constitutional right to feel tired about whatever it is that you find tiresome, but I personally find it more tiresome to read Wikipedia and not find any pointers to reliable sources, so I do my best to supply those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles 

message: *Tucker's book is not appropriate further reading for this article. It spends 6 pages from page 162-68 discussing George's segregationist work and relations with Carleton Coon. It would be a good source for describing that aspect of his life, but it is not mostly about george and does not purport to give a full or balanced account of his life and work. We cannot add as a further reading item any book that mentions the biographed person in passing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for expressing your rationale for your recent edit. You wrote, about the cited book, "It would be a good source for describing that aspect of his life," and in view of the current start-class length of the article (much shorter than the discussion of George in the book) and in view of the article subject's deep involvement in the issues discussed on those pages (which did the most to establish his notability), I think it is a no-harm, no-foul service to readers to let them know that this source is out there. You are of course correct that it would be especially helpful to readers to update the article text with inline citations to the book, and meanwhile find yet more sources about George's life. I might be able to do both of those helpful things sooner had you not removed sourced content from this article. I invite comments by other editors meanwhile, as I regard you as a constructive editor who generally follows sources where they lead, so I was puzzled by your recent reversion of sourced content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see why my removal of the book from the further reading section would slow you down in adding the sourced content. And I also am not particularly optimistic in that regards since I do not remeber you ever having done so in the past. If you were to choose to spend ten minutes of your time wriiting up a summary of Tuckers six pages and adding it to the article the entire discussion will of course be moot.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I wrote above, I respectfully disagree with your thoughtfully expressed conclusion that adding a further reading section to an article that lacks one isn't helpful to readers. Many of the grown-up adults that I know here in the United States who remember the days of print encyclopedias and now use Wikipedia from time to time have suggested that Wikipedians in general should add more further reading resources to Wikipedia articles in general. That is an editorial activity specifically encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. I thank you for the suggestions of further sources for this article, which I should be able to look up and download immediately. As an example of sourced content that I have added to Wikipedia, I can thus far point to the article IQ classification, which now enjoys many page views (presumably because I added enough content that many keyword searches on Google now lead to that article), which was an edit-warred stub before I patiently updated it with dozens of sources through off-wiki edits of a draft expansion. That article has now reached good article status, after earlier contributing a fact to the Did You Know? section on Wikipedia's main page, and it is my intention to continue updating it, collaboratively with other editors, until it reaches featured article status. When I tried to edit that article in its stub condition with live edits incrementally to article text, I often found that those were reverted without rationale. Perhaps it is my experience with that article that does much to color my perceptions of what editorial procedure will be most successful when working on controversial articles. As I think you can guess, I also have the intention to update several articles that are closely related in topic to that article on IQ classification, as I already have many sources at hand in my office for those article expansions. I have also done a variety of minor expansions to other articles on psychology on Wikipedia that I hope to follow up with more major expansions.  -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What grieves people, me included, about your editing style is that you very often add the same text across large swaths of articles, for example adding Tucker as further reading to the biographic articles of everyone mentioned in the book, adding the same message linking to your list of your favouritte sources across all the articles related to race and IQ etc. That is widely, and I think correctly considered to be spam. I also consider it sloppy and lazy editing. Because your collection of sources is by no means exhaustive or definitive. With a five minute google search you could have found much better sources for this article which would have been both more appropriate further reading items for the article than Tuckers book which is a general book about scientific racism, and which would be better sources for writing content in the article. Instead you take the easy solution of adding whichever book on your short list of favorites that happens to mention Wesley Critz George however briefly. You could spend your time much more productively than by spamming references and links to your book collection all over these articles. You have a right to spend your editing time as you please of course, but you cannot expect that other editors accept sloppiness simply because there is no deadline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: should be included in the article as well as a complete bibliography. I found one for now: https://archive.org/details/TheBiologyOfTheRaceProblem1962 --154.69.30.39 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to works