Talk:Duncan Lunan

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

Resume-like[edit]

I have undone an editor's reversal of my cleaning up of the article. Clearly the information they reinstated (about being married to Linda, claiming to work on some books, etc.) have no place in an encyclopedic article. Moreover, the sourcing is atrocious--mainly primary sources, with a complete lack of secondary sources proving even elementary BLP information. A good example is this: I reverted based on the requirements in WP:BLP and WP:RS, never mind the injunction that we don't write chit-chat in articles, like about someone's belief in extraterrestrial beings or what their favorite soccer team is. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had indeed reversed some of the above editor's chopping of the article. A series of references to reviews the subject of the article published, which has been removed, help source the statement that Mr. Lunan does, indeed, regularly publish reviews on a specific magazine; his belief in extraterriestrial intelligence is quite relevant because of the field his studies and publication have focused on; as the subject is a writer, his "projects for the future" (therefore his announced projects) do belong in the article; the statement that the fact that a science fiction writer spoke at a science fiction convention is not relevant sounds quite over-the-top, and I'd consider the program of the convention an objective source enough. Also, after such extended and indiscriminate chopping of the article the presence of the "peacock" and "resume" tags seem pointless. The subject's publicly available CV is referenced to for biographical details, while the other statements are sourced with news articles, the books referenced to with their ISBN. I will not go back and revert the last round of edits as I'd like to avoid an edit war, but this version of the article appears incomplete. McMarcoP (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addition, I am unable to understand how a reference to a book is not an objective source for the statement that something (in this case some folk songs) have been published in such book. McMarcoP (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • McMarcoP, I appreciate your commentary. Let me try and answer your objections one at a time.
First of all, I have restored the reviews; I had read your edit incorrectly. Please accept my apology. I do note, however, that these are not verified by reference to secondary sources but, like most such articles, by primary sources. In other words, there is little indication that this is a notable and noteworthy activity, as many a discussion on journalists (who aren't notable merely by virtue of the fact that they write for a notable publication) testifies.
Second, given that he writes about the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, it's no surprise that he believes in it. But that's not even the real problem--the claim is unacceptable because it is not properly sourced, and this is a BLP. The link is dead, and the main website is this--a barking bunny. That falls so fall short of being a reliable source that it's not even in a parallel universe. That he's married to Linda--who?--is sourced to this. Again, WP:RS, please.
Third, "Projects for the future" are not usually notable. See WP:CRYSTALBALL, and note the absolute lack of proper sourcing. This subject is not so notable or important that his every life's operation is encyclopedic. An encyclopedic article should not contain such unverified and non-notable information.
Speaking at a convention, unless the notability of such an engagement is properly verified (again, by secondary sources, not by a program--objectivity is not the point), is not relevant. Most academics (WP:PROF is relevant here) have had dozens if not hundreds of such engagements, and we don't list them--now, a keynote address at a big convention, that's something else, but there is no indication that this was anything special.
Fourth, It should be clear that a subject's resume is not to be used to source BLP articles.
In general, the prime issue here is that of notability (for the individual facts mentioned) and proper sourcing. The number of reliable secondary issues in this article is very small: [1], [2], possibly [3], besides the brief flurry of reliable articles about the Scottish Stonehenge. On the other hand, the article is awash with 'references' like this one] and this one. So until there are claims based on sources like that, yes, the tags should remain, and "BLP sources" and "Primary sources" tags should be added. If you wish to help improve the article, please help find references that pass muster with WP:RS. Thank you. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Dr Aaij for your clarifications. As you might guess those references were the best that could be found, as an extensive web research has been done; I will restore or add further details about the subject once I am able to identify more and better sources. McMarcoP (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I am not doubting his notability by our standards, not at all. But I hope you understand why I said it was resume-like. There is a heavy burden on editors of BLPs: to write these articles neutrally and objectively, to carefully weight what's relevant (encyclopedically speaking) and what isn't, and to source rigorously. Of course these conditions apply to other articles as well, but especially on BLPs, in part because of liability issues, in part because some think that WP is a great place to post a resume, and in part because it is such a heavily-visited site. Good luck scouring for sources. All the best, Dr Aaij (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I absolutely understand. I also noticed that some edits (last year) were made by one user called... Duncan Lunan, so it all makes even more sense now. Not many sources can be found but don't worry - I am not quitting (and if I give up on this article you'll find me on some other). Thanks again! McMarcoP (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, there's plenty more of these, I'm afraid. Nice talking to you. BTW, I noticed that you are doing fine work and have hung out with some very good WP editors, from whom I've learned a lot as well. Keep up the good work! Dr Aaij (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I applaud you for {{Template:User Wrathchild}}--though the article, of course, has no reliable legs to stand on... ;) Dr Aaij (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much again for the feedback! McMarcoP (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Woolpit[edit]

Will the anonymous indivudual who keeps altering the "Children of Woolpit" section calling them humans rather than aliens please propose a source stating that? The source proposed in the article calls them aliens, and I could not find any other source stating the contrary. Thanks! McMarcoP (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume he's looking at the rather contradictory statement "the children were accidentally returned from a settlement of humans". Perhaps you could tidy that, if you have access to the source? In my experience humans ain't green...
-- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I have access to is the one quoted, but I'll see how I can reword it. Thanks! McMarcoP (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor's degree?[edit]

What's that, then? There isn't a bachelor's degree in Arts at Gilmorehill. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Duncan Lunan. 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) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duncan Lunan. 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) 18:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Duncan Lunan. 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) 15:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duncan_Lunan&oldid=1208622912"