Talk:Chris Brand

message: Most of the citations in this page go to unremarkable personal websites, some of them racist in nature. Once again, Wikipedia proves its worthlessness as a reliable source of scholarly information. Randy Blackamoor 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that adding photos of subjects makes their articles POV? Can you explain how this photo "seems to be intended to elicit sympathy"? Thanks, -Willmcw 08:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I see also that you are the editor who uploaded the image. ? -Willmcw 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: For a while the article has said "Chris Brand is a widely discredited(citation needed) white nationalist(citation needed)". 
I have removed these because they have been present for a while and no one has sourced them. And what does "widely discredited" even mean? He's either discredited or not. Perhaps "widely considered to be discredited"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.185.79 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced material

message: One of the external links was a link to a Wikipedia page that was already covered by a category, so I removed it. Of the remaining links:
* Summary of Chris Brand controversies - currently gives an internal server error - may need to be looked at again. If it stays offline, it needs to
be removed on the grounds that it's a dead link.
* IQ & PC - what is claimed to be Brands' blog. If so, that would probably cover clause 1 of WP:ELOFFICIAL, but clause 2 is debatable - this is a personal blog that covers material not covered in the article. 
* Amazon reviews written by Chris Brand - WP:ELOFFICIAL says to minimise the number of links and to avoid WP:UNDUE. It also says More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites This link is a series of reviews and so lacks the sensationalist nature of the blog mentioned above, though they are opinionated.Autarch (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Externals links 

message: Brand is certainly a controversial figure. But statements about him in Wikipedia articles need to be sourced, by Wikipedia policies. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues 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. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's especially important to look up sources about living persons connected to the recent ArbCom case, to clean up the articles in this category. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: I don't know a thing about him, never heard of him before. But these recent edits look like garbage to me. Badanedwa (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crapification of this page