Talk:John Dundee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding family wishes[edit]

I do not see why family wishes should dictate Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has guidelines on how to format biographies (yes this is a biography, as it is an article about a person), which should be followed on all biography articles. In addition, there is a policy on article ownership, which seems applicable as well. Please stop reverting the article to the 'withdrawn' text, as it appears childish (you are also breaking the three-revert rule). --Lusantian (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'd have to agree with the family on this one - was their permission asked before someone wrote the article? Probably not by the sounds of it but there should be a law against it if there isn't already. Anytomdick&harry (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a public figure. No permission is required to write well-sourced non-contentious information about them. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there should be a law against it

Anytomdick&harry (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how that would work? If Bertie Ahern's family didn't want information about his controversial "administrative convenience" cheques published, should it be removed from all sources? —EncMstr (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem, from reading this article, that he would have been the sort of person to do anything dodgy but as I said before - there should be a law against this. I would never give permission for any of my details to be published onthe internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details that are already in published sources? What on Earth sort of law are you proposing? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics[edit]

Is there a strict policy about excluding academic post-nominal initials from the first sentence (as per here? If so, that would leave OBE, as the only permissible one in this article, with the others mentioned in section(s) beneath. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Also any verifiable facts you can cull from the version of the article here and add it to this article would be helpful. –xeno (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this section of MOS:BIO applies to the question. If I'm reading this right, post-nominal initials in the lead sentence are fine. --Lusantian (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Lusantian. In most cases yes, the OBE is particularly appropriate. –xeno (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, but I see in that section Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name. Bjenks (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by a country or organization the subject has been closely associated with. It won't make a big impact on the article either way, so do whatever you think looks best ;) --Lusantian (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the sentence you quote ends with but generally should be omitted from the lead. So, include 'em, but lower down—that's how I'll take it, provided there is verification in each case. Bjenks (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British dictionary[edit]

Does anyone know of an online British dictionary similar to comprehensive U.S. English dictionaries such as http://www.merriam-webster.com/ and http://www.dictionary.com ? I'm struggling to spell the words in this article using UK-Irish English, but there seems to be little published online to help. —EncMstr (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. Very few words in this article need attention. Some obvious ones to watch are anaesthetics (etc), honour(s) and traveller. The best traditional authorities for non-US English include the (full) Oxford English Dictionary (which is online only on a paid basis) and the very useful little Oxford Authors' and Printers' Dictionary, my well-thumbed copy of which I always keep at my elbow (:-)) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any good British dictionary online or not should help. Someone still hasn't spelt traveller correctly! UK-Irish English does not exist. UK English does - Ireland is a totally different country to Northern Ireland - it's similar to calling Americans Canadian. Anytomdick&harry (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed traveller. Feel free to point out or simply fix any other American English to British English. –xeno (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to edit the article (lots of info missing eg qualifications, society memberships etc which have been removed but which made him who he was) but unfortunately someone has semi-protected it! Anytomdick&harry (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection is about to expire, so I could probably lift it, but is the information sourced or sourceable? –xeno (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed...[edit]

...for the following removed content: [1]. –xeno (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few. –xeno (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged[edit]

Matthew, would you be so kind as to explain why you consider the information in question to be dubious and requiring of a source? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so kind, sorry. This policy (essential reading for any Wikipedian) should shed some light on why sources are required (in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.). Matthew (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by long-standing consensus we don't challenge for the sake of challenging. Saying "Nope, I challenge it and I don't have to provide a reason" is not valid. Please explain what you find dubious here, or I will reinsert it so as to allow sufficient time for finding sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the reason was not clear enough for you (I'm not willing to attempt to explain): it's unsourced. I've removed unsourced content—ergo it has been challenged. Please explain why you cannot provide a source prior to reinstating the content? Your failure to do so gives me concern that some content (but not necessarily all) may be false. Given that this article was unsourced for two years (as another user stated) I'm going to say that users have had sufficient time to provide sources. Matthew (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody had asked for a source in those two years, so this seems a bit spurious. But again, why have you challenged? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to repeat myself, Phil. I suggest that you read, re-read, or re-re-read my first sentence. Policy has not allowed original research in the past two years; so while no one has "asked" there has been no excuse not to provide a source. I think you're wasting you time arguing with me! Why don't you go and add some sources instead :-)? Matthew (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am forced to conclude that you are being disruptive. WP:V is not a carte blanche to arbitrarily remove information for the sake of removing it. I am reinserting the material you removed. If you remove it again, I will block you for disruption. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to somewhat the same conclusion (that you are being disruptive). Policy does not and will not allow original research. I suggest—should you so desire—that you raise any objections to policy on their respective talk pages. Should you reinstate the removed information I will be forced to remove it again. I do desire, however, that you make some sort of effort to provide sources (your incessant belief that sources can be provided should be enough motivation for you to do so).
Phil, I am deeply concerned with your threat to block me. I do suggest that you read the blocking policy.
Again: Raise objections to policy on their respective talk pages; do not edit war, however. Matthew (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in a content dispute here - I stepped in when I saw excessive and unexplained removal of sourceable material. I have no dog in this fight. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, Phil. I do not wish to speak to you if you are going to spout such nonsense. Matthew (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to easily find a reference for the publication in the Journal of the RSM [2] - this was one of the things "challenged". Things like this, that are trivial to check even without a reference provided, don't need to be proactively referenced simply to be included in the article. Matthew, as a sign of good faith, could you indicate why you felt the need to challenge this? Simply being unsourced is not a problem - we are fine with unsourced material as long as it is clear the material could be sourced. Challenges need to have a reasonable basis beyond the mere omission of a source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reasonably suspect that some (but not necessarily all) of the content is untrue. I came to this conclusion while attempting to find sources for the article. As I have stated: original research is not acceptable. Anything likely to be challenged may be removed. This has been challenged. Matthew (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on how you searched for sources. That will help prevent duplicated effort. For instance, some of what we're looking for are proceedings of British medical societies that are now 10+ years old - not stuff that's easily Googleable. So if you've already taken care of the obvious Google searches we know where better to look. On the other hand, if you've done proper searches of newspaper archives and medical literature, even better - then we know it's very unlikely to be sourced. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Google searches. Obviously my experiences with Google have been somewhat different to yours. Matthew (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've only been tagged as citation needed for less than a week. The statements are uncontroversial and BLP is not a concern. I've re-added them to give people some time to find the sources. –xeno (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I've challenged them multiple times... well I don't buy into your claim that they're "uncontroversial". *shrug*
Somewhat begrudgingly I will cease reversions now as I've reached three reverts. As there's a belief that the claims can be sourced I will not remove the content for one week (ample time for any interested parties to provide sources). Matthew (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, BLP is a concern here given that it appears that the living family of Mr. Dundee have objected to the article. So we should remain attentive to those issues. But even for a BLP I'd be skeptical of removing this information, which is not negative and seems readily referenceable. But Matthew has suggested that he's done some of the work trying to reference it - knowing what would be very helpful and informative. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. I would be willing to wager that he didn't do more than a trivial google search, as the OBE New Years Honour citation was easy enough, if by easy, you mean poking through the archives of the London Gazette for an hour. –xeno (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users should not be expected to do anything more than a "trivia Google search". It's quite simple: content should not be added unless users can source it. Matthew (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... what? Users most certainly do have an obligation to make a serious and credible effort at finding information before they declare it "unlikely or dubious." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I mean, the right way to search for sources here is going to require archive searches of both newspapers and some medical literature. I don't know medical literature or British papers well enough to know how best to approach that off-hand. But straight Googling seems unlikely to produce what you might call meaningful results. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, you said, "content should not be added unless users can source it." and that is correct. However, there's no requirement that the sources actually be added when the content is added, only that the sources exist. Your suspicion that this material is all unsourceable seems to have been disproven by the ease with which sources were found for so much of it. Unless you have additional reasons for thinking the remainder is actually unsourceable, rather than just unsourced, it would probably be better not to continue removing it. The strong interpretation of WP:V you seem to be arguing for - that everything must actually be sourced when it is added - does not have the support of WP:V or of practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does Wikipedia do when articles verifying facts are not online, are too long ago to have been online, but can easily be backed up by newspaper clippings etc.? There's more to life than the internet and there was an even better life before it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk • contribs) 16:03, July 30, 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers, even those without online archives, can be cited as reliable sources. Just need to properly cite it using {{cite news}} I would be happy to assist in integrating any relevant information that the family or anyone else has in newspaper clippings. I would need the date, publication (including location), author, title of the article, and page the information is found on, as well as any relevant quote or information that should be included. –xeno (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous acronym in last paragraph[edit]

The second-to-last paragraph reads "At various times, he was superintendent of Windsor City Mission and a member of the board of BCM." Does any one know what exactly the "BCM" is? The BCM disambiguation page doesn't turn up anything useful. --Lusantian (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast City Mission maybe? –xeno (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be. The article doesn't mention the Belfast City Mission though, so I didn't want to assume... --Lusantian (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as the "Windsor City Mission" according to Google. But there is a Belfast City Mission and they probably have a mission hall in Windsor, which I gather is what this sentence is driving at. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCM stands for Belfast Central Mission - a branch of the Methodist Church in Ireland - google BCM Belfast and you'll find it.

Windsor Mission, not Windsor City Mission, was a Mission Hall in the Windsor district of Belfast and is possibly not now in existence but when I lived in Belfast, went there as a child and Professor John Dundee was definitely Superintendent of it and Superintendent of the Sunday School at Windsor Presbyterian Church in Belfast - he was a committed, practising Christian which probably explains why the family do not agree with the Wikpedia entry - it focuses mainly on his academic achievements but he was a much more 'rounded' person on that - another problem is probably the deletion of his hockey achievements - I played hockey with him on the Irish Universities team when he was a medical student at Queens University Belfast, which was his club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the evident fact that you have the knowledge to contribute sensibly to articles such as this—and have done so, quite a few times, I see (often enough, in fact, to support an inference that you have a constructive view about information). However, I also have to allow primacy to Wikipedia's important pragmatic rules about 'neutral point of view', verifiability, 'original research' and, predominantly notability. If JD's 'hockey achievements' pass a notability test and can be openly documented, it's more than likely that you can successfully incorporate a reference in the article without challenge. It is at least partly a matter for private judgement as to whether internet systems are appropriate vehicles for promoting sectional views with a purpose of excluding or deflecting scrutiny and alternative views. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Family[edit]

Dear Family (Waltzingmatilda57 et al):

It is clear that this article has been a source of confusion and pain for you. How sad! But because this is a public article about a public person, that is just how things are going to be. The best thing you can do for your own peace of mind is to completely ignore this article. Here at WP, people with any direct involvement in a subject are not supposed to edit the articles -- strange but true!

The best way for you to influence the content of the article would be to put everything you want to say, exactly the way you want to say it, somewhere else on the Internet. And then let the people here decide what to do with that information. If you provide good information, with good sources, in the long run that will have much influence. But you must be patient with the process! If you have unique documents, put the images online, somewhere, in a way that they will be preserved for all time. (Consider using wikimedia and the internet archive.)

There are many other online encyclopedias that work in a different way, where you would be able to prove your special interest and access to information, and influence the content more directly -- although in most cases you still would probably not be allowed to dictate the exact wording of the whole article.

I hope you can get over this pain. WP is a fantastic resource, shared by all humans together -- but the process of creating it also involves endless ongoing agony, also shared among almost all those of us who work on it. -69.87.199.246 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can see where the family are coming from. Obviously No-one asked the family before the article was written, again obviously not by a family member. Just think Wikipedia overstep the mark lot of the time by publishing stuff online by anybody about anybody when their families don't seem to want it. Surely there must be a law against that somewhere?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a public figure. As long as everything is well-sourced, there is no law against anything written here. –xeno (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dundee. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dundee. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Dundee&oldid=1207056906"