Talk:Stephen G. Wheatcroft

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Stephen G. Wheatcroft is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]