Request for consensus on inclusion of reliably sourced content: Reply
← Previous revision | Revision as of 13:23, 16 July 2025 | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:: (Example source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate#Higher_doctorates) |
:: (Example source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate#Higher_doctorates) |
||
::Happy to adjust or defer to consensus. Thanks again. [[Special:Contributions/81.99.57.13|81.99.57.13]] ([[User talk:81.99.57.13|talk]]) 13:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC) |
::Happy to adjust or defer to consensus. Thanks again. [[Special:Contributions/81.99.57.13|81.99.57.13]] ([[User talk:81.99.57.13|talk]]) 13:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC) |
||
:::You are misunderstanding [[WP:PEACOCK]], [[WP:NPROF]], and also many academic details. His citations and awards are far, far more notable than the 2% and comparable metrics, see for instance [[ Wikipedia Talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about Stanford/Elsevier top 2%| this discussion]]. Any full professor at an R1 university could apply and get a DSc, few do as it does not matter (being bluntly honest). This is completely different from an honorary degree which is a very big deal. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 13:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC) |
|||
== Correction to Chinese name == |
== Correction to Chinese name == |