![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" which is exactly what I did. User Trekphiler added one-sided criticism that 1) shouldn't be in a biography, 2) is sourced by an Amazon.com book review which itself has no citations and is the opinion of the reviewer, and 3) requires more background information than is provided to enable the reader to understand what is being criticized. Bob ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The article presented Stinnett's fringe theory as though it were a proven fact. I have removed some of the most egregious breaches of impartiality, but the whole article needs to be balanced with mainstream material. The notability of Mr Stinnett has also not been demonstrated. Martijn Meijering ( talk) 01:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" which is exactly what I did. User Trekphiler added one-sided criticism that 1) shouldn't be in a biography, 2) is sourced by an Amazon.com book review which itself has no citations and is the opinion of the reviewer, and 3) requires more background information than is provided to enable the reader to understand what is being criticized. Bob ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The article presented Stinnett's fringe theory as though it were a proven fact. I have removed some of the most egregious breaches of impartiality, but the whole article needs to be balanced with mainstream material. The notability of Mr Stinnett has also not been demonstrated. Martijn Meijering ( talk) 01:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)