Talk:Raymond Duncan (entrepreneur)

Large Deletion of Sourced Data

Note: They are a large and wealthy local family. Generally, they are good folks but Kevin is not and they will try to hide his misdeeds as they have always done. — Preceding unsigned (38.109.219.103 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

Recently user FamilyFriend22 deleted a large section of what appears to be well sourced information about the Duncan family businesses. I have restored the original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay... now a new attempt to delete the same block has been made by User: Dr. Blofeld. This information is well-sourced, accurate and relevant. Surely if the ventures discussed in the text had been successful friends of the family would not be attempting to delete it from Wikipedia. Wiki is not just here to create a puff-piece for the Duncan family. SpecialFXavier (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Today Dr. Blofeld deleted the same large chunk of accurate and relevant information and ALSO deleted my comments reporting the last deletion. SpecialFXavier (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@SpecialFXavier: If it was an article on Kevin Duncan some of it might be relevant providing the sourcing is top notch. Content largely about Kevin has no place in the biographies of his father and brother. You even say that Ray wasn't even aware of it. If either Ray or David had been personally been prosecuted for something, then it would difficult not to mention it. This is pure speculation and somebody who alleged something, and is damaging to WP:BLPs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Ray was directly involved in the transaction; his lack of awareness of one aspect of it does not change his involvement. Again, if the deal had not gone sour this would be happily on this page. I will, later, consider a rewrite that is more 'impartial' but the facts are the facts. Ray was an investor in (a) one of the sexiest movie studios in the world and (b) a failed business venture. These things are facts; there is no basis to leave them out. SpecialFXavier (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I have replaced the data we have been discussing with some significant re-writes to remove any references to accusations made by Edmeades or others relative to their involvement. I believe this now presents a more balanced view. (This is clearly noteworthy content; mass deletion rather than editing is not appropriate.)

Please stop with this. None of the sources actually discuss Ray Duncan himself in detail being involved with it all. You even say that stuff went on which Ray didn't even know about. This is a biographical article about Ray himself, not Kevin Duncan or the overall family. Not a place for fraud theories and content which makes it look as if you're out to rub the family's name through the dirt.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You are right, this is not a place to rub the families name in the dirt. It is also not a place for a marketing puff piece. This section is about his legacy (and their legacy). That he was an investor in a prominent film studio (with film credits including Avatar, Pirates etc.) is part of that legacy. It does not stop being part of his legacy because the deal went bad. It does not stop being part of his legacy because his partner was a convicted felon. That said, I have already toned down the section to remove 'fraud theories' etc. and bring balance to the article. It appears, strongly, as though you have some relationship with the family; you started the page of a man that is not particularly notable to begin with and have been the major contributor to the article. This is not Ray Duncan's website. Your repeated wholesale undoing of my and other edits is approaching vandalism. You have also undone useful edits to a variety of names and companies that are linked to nonexistent wiki pages -- stop it. If you want to edit the piece, edit it. These are facts. They are part of his legacy. And they have been toned down in light of the BLP policies. SpecialFXavier (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SpecialFXavier, please discuss, instead of edit warring, rather than as well as doing so. It's not vandalism either and neither is Blofeld a friend of the family (as far as I am aware), so tone down the attacks on others and discuss things civilly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

LMAO, I live over 5000 miles away, any experienced editor here knows I live in south Wales, my ip address will confirm that. Do you think I'm likely to really know the man or his family? On the contrary I'd guess you are the one who lives in California or America and your persistence over this suggests that it is you who are concerned primarily with tampering with this as a rival. Ha, me vandalising? You're the one trying to paint Ray and David Duncan as criminals and unsuccessful businesspeople. You've still not explained why it really matters to a biography of a wine merchant. I can think of a number of people who've invested in a very large number of pursuits, wikipedia isn't the place to document them all. I'd say major film companies like that have many sources of investment. I'd dare say Ray has invested in a fair few other things over the years too. None of the sources explicitly discuss Ray himself in any detail, and there's something about the way you keep insist on stating that this person was a convicted felon which looks suspicious here. Indirectly sourcing something to claim something else on wikipedia is frowned upon on here. The articles are red linked because they probably deserve articles. You seem to be largely concerned with Kevin Duncan (businessman), not Ray Duncan. Ray stepped down from heading his interests I think a long time ago in the 90s, he's in his 80s now. The idea that Ray specifically made a deal with a guy he knew to be an ex convict to finance Avatar (2009) or whatever is ridiculous. I don't even know why it would be relevant to mention he was an ex convict anyway and why that would really matter other than trying to paint him as some shady figure. As I say, if Ray had been directly convicted by a court for some offense then I wouldn't dispute it. Your claims violate our polices on WP:Synthesis and WP:REDFLAG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I have attempted that; the edit warring starting with Dr. Bloefeld's wholesale deletion of sourced content rather than editing. I have edited, toned down and reedited. He created this page of a largely obscure business man and turned it into a puff piece for him. These facts are relevant to his legacy and I am sure that he would agree had the venture been successful. WE do not get to pick and chose what is or is not in our or someone else legacy. Duncan was involved in a failed business transaction with one of the most prominent film studios in the world. That is relevant.

Further; the RED TAGS are not useful if they highlight people or companies that are not notable, namely some of the other Duncan family members and Duncan Oil. Try a even a basic Google search and you will find just about nothing about that company. With that in mind, what purpose do the links hold?

And lastly, accusing me of making attacks is an attack. My suggestion that Dr Blofield has some relationship to the Duncans is not an attack; it is reasoned supposition based on his creation of and maintenance of this page.

• "accusing me of making attacks is an attack": utter nonsense. Falsely accusing you would be an attack but, considering what you have written, you have attacked him. Stop the incivility, and trying to wheedle out of it by misquoting policy. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Living 5000 miles away is, as you know full well, no indication of your family connection or lack thereof. You created a page for a largely unknown businessman and have since been 'defending' his honor by maintaining the page as a puff piece. No, I do not live in California, in fact, I own a home very close to where you live (if you are telling the truth.) That said, I will tell you that I am a researcher and found this page as a result of a research project I am doing that involves fact checking a manuscript. When I arrived on this page to see if I could save some time I found a puff piece that was missing any references to the investment and related misdeeds that Duncan has been involved with. Further, that the internet has been scrubbed of much of that information as well. Generally, I do not spend a great deal of time editing Wikipedia but every so often when my research projects highlight something that is blatantly missing, I step in and add a line or two. In this case, you have created a page worth of being www.RayDuncan.com but not worthy of being an open and honest wikipedia page. You can bring in other Wiki authors to support your edit war but that does not change the truth; this is a puff piece for Ray Duncan not a true BLP.

LOL, you really think an innocent independent person would have stumbled across that by accident and seem to have close personal knowledge of what supposedly went on? You'd have to be very familiar with the convict, the film company or legal case or have some personal knowledge of the Duncan family to have dug up what you're trying to push and argue based on very dubious sourcing or at least been contacted by somebody who knows Kevin Duncan. If you were a neutral independent reviewer you'd not persist here in trying to push sources and content to form your own argument which violates our WP:Synthesis guidelines. I suppose I was also paid to write a puff piece on the likes of Zelma Long, Iris Rideau and others too? I'd be a very rich man by now if I was!! Has it not simply occurred to you that I disagree with your misrepresentation of sources to argue a point which really isn't directly discussed in the articles? This content has no place in his biography. As for "red tags" (never heard them described as that), my subscription newspaper sources turn up enough decent sources to indicate Duncan Oil is notable. As for Ray Duncan being "largely obscure", sources like The New York Times, Frommer's, and countless books on wine don't seem to think so otherwise they'd not write about him and his business. Anybody researching the Napa Valley would soon come across them. As for yourself, being aware of somebody's "ex convict" status and apparent dealings which are not well covered in mainstream sources like Duncan's wine business generally is, that's obviously suspect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)