Talk:Lucien Cuénot

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucien Cuénot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823230522/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Albino to http://1911encyclopedia.org/Albino

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NOR
The section Lucien Cuénot reads like a breach of NOR. The section was included at the creation of the article 6 April 2005 by an IP address and was expanded by another IP address in June and July 2007.

It seems to me to be a case of using wikipedia to right a great wrong, something that is not an appropriate thing to do in a Wikipedia article (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS).

I am not a biologist so I will place a heads-up in some other places so that people more expert than I can look over the section (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology and WP:No original research/Noticeboard). However I noticed the sentence "" this is clearly false and it is is easy to find evidence for this: ""If you look around the world in 1900, and someone told you, ‘Guess what the universal language of science will be in the year 2000?’ You would first of all laugh at them because it was obvious that no one language would be the language of science, but a mixture of French, German and English would be the right answer," said Michael Gordin.
 * states:

Gordin is a professor of the history of science at Princeton and his upcoming book, Scientific Babel, explores the history of language and science."

So if there is naive OR like that in the section which is obvious to myself who is not a biologist what else is there? -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we can legitimately remove some of the unsourced (apparent) speculation per WP:UNSOURCED and without changing the overall sense of the section. Obviously, if anyone has a source for this information, they can add it back in. Anaxial (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. The text looks better now however I think there is a problem with the first sentence in the section
 * Who is arguing over the degree of recognition? It is sufficient to note his research and the contemporary peer citing including the mention in works such as EB1911 without stating that there is "some argument over recognition" today, unless some of today's secondary sources are arguing that he should be given more recognition in the history of the subject than the standard sources currently do. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing over the degree of recognition? It is sufficient to note his research and the contemporary peer citing including the mention in works such as EB1911 without stating that there is "some argument over recognition" today, unless some of today's secondary sources are arguing that he should be given more recognition in the history of the subject than the standard sources currently do. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)