Talk:Ian Sinclair

Honorifics

We show him as both a CH and an AC. I don't believe he was ever awarded either of these honours, and they're not mentioned in the article. I've removed them unless someone can provide citations. JackofOz 13:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Excellent Speaker"

"Sinclair made an excellent Speaker..." NPOV? An unbiased quote would suffice, but as it stands it is a problem.

I agree. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The computer book writer?

An Ian Sinclair (not this one; he was British) wrote enormous numbers of books about microcomputers during the 1980s computer boom. I believe Ian R. Sinclair is the same person - see this Amazon list. Does he have an article somewhere? (Ian R. Sinclair doesn't exist.) 86.143.48.9 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the best place to ask this question. List of people named Sinclair shows there's an article for a British writer named Iain Sinclair - he might be the one you're after. JackofOz 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

undue buildup

The quote from Sinclair complaining about an "undue buildup" of Asians has been deleted by somebody (diff). The quote has important historical significance.Lester 05:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to supply the third party source telling the project why it has important historical significance. At the moment the quote stands out like somebody trying to make a point. Like normal with BLP, the editorialising surrounding this quote needs to be removed and the reasons why this quote important and notable included in the article. Just because somebody said something, at one time doesn't make it encyclopedic. Shot info (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, which part of the wording do you feel is editorialising? Did you want more references added? It already carries two independent references.Lester 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire quote is editorialising. Supply the third party source telling the project why it has important historical significance. At the moment it is just a throw away quote that you have discovered in a text that does not improve the article but does seem to improve your POV given your predilication to adding oddball quotes about "race" in various articles. Shot info (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There are already 2 references. You want another? There are books written on this. You can't just say the whole thing is editorialising. You've got to say what and why. Sinclair wanted to "reduce the number of Asians". Are you disputing that fact? The article doesn't editorialise on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. Are you disputing that Sinclair said it?Lester 01:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:NPOV one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Then you will understand why this small snippit of information pulled from a book is considered to be POV. This is Wikipedian 101 here... Shot info (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, there were two books about it, not one. Second, if it is "this small snippit of information" (your words), then it is not occupying much space in the article, and can't be said to be given undue prominence. I'm not sure why you are concentrating on this referenced fact rather than the rest of the article? Why don't you apply the same criteria to other text in the article? The rest of the article is mostly unreferenced opinion. You could help by adding more referenced content. Lester 02:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please supply the third party source telling the project why it has important historical significance. These two books about it don't seem to explain why a quote by Sinclair has "important historical significance" (your words). I'm not going to explain WP:UNDUE to you since you seem to be more interested in diverting attention from your edit. Shot info (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Sinclair. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602194820/http://www.austcare.org.au/aboutus/our-board.aspx to http://www.austcare.org.au/aboutus/our-board.aspx

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) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)