Talk:Gordon Rugg
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gordon Rugg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article requires an MOS scrubbing, categorization, wikification, and a GFDL image if available. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously unprofessional language here
[edit]"Rugg failed to explain the topicality of the manuscript, the natural prefix frequencies, the two-level word natural entropies and most other peer reviewed statistical properties in work by academic researchers, all of which his pseudo random pseudo scientific method miserably fails to duplicate. Rugg was able to get BBC publicity for his rugged research. What he lacked in substance, he made up by arrogance."
I am removing this paragraph until I can write it in a less aggressive and inflammatory fashion chrisboote (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Voynich Manuscript
[edit]At the end it says 'The debate continues.' While this is undoubtedly true, the sentence is not necessarily in WP style (though more appropriate than the section whose deletion is mentioned above). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)