Talk:Albert Benjamin Simpson

Christianity: Holiness / Evangelical Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Holiness movement (assessed as Low-importance).
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).

Biography

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

Untitled[edit]

This article makes some pretty extravagant claims about Mr. Simpson (including calling him a possessor of 'natural genius'). I would call that sort of bias a threat to objectivity. Let's edit this page, shall we? 67.226.172.18 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Jordan[reply]

Agreed. Satanstorm (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Guest, April 1, 2017

One's not knowing is not evidence of some mental object's reality. What's the issue here?

Historically, the term 'natural genius' had been used to refer to 'native capabilities' (typically of significant consequence to bring external 'note' from others. MaynardClark (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Unsourced Tag" on Bibliography[edit]

The list of Simpson's works is preceded by the ridiculous "does not cite any sources." This is a particularly ridiculous objection frequently made in bibliographical sections of Wikipedia. What could be a source? A book in which an author attests seeing the book in question? I seriously hope this was inserted by a bot, because an editor really could have no idea was proper sourcing consists of if he added it. But in this case the claim is even dumber because each book has an OCLC identifier. These are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for books before 1970 (as here) where there are no ISBN identifiers. See this article. I am therefore deleting the tag to help remove the editor- or bot-created graffiti that litter this site. I only include this explanation to avert the ravings of any editor roaming articles to increase his edits by reverting others. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]