Jump to content

Talk:Henry Sutton (inventor)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 7 August 2023 (→top: Task 41 - WikiProject Physics categorisation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A060244b.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://web.ballarat.edu.au/curator/honour-roll/honourroll_sutton.shtml -- John of Reading (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Henry Sutton (inventor). 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:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published main source

(to user sirlanz originally) Am generally happy to see you tightening up on our sloppy content but am curious to know your reason for deleting note on birth discrepancy. Regards Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. Conflict in sources is a commonplace. Whether we canvas this in WP pages is a matter of weight. It is a complete irrelevance whether Sutton was born on the 3rd or 4th of a particular month. The somewhat lengthy note has no value except as a distraction to the reader. If this were Leonardo da Vinci here, yes, this would warrant exposure, but seriously no one cares a hoot about this. If you have one solid source saying one day or the other, go for it and make it the story WP is prepared to tell. If there is a controversy among editors, it will arise and be resolved and, if no one can agree, then it will have to be posted. sirlanz 01:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will take this opportunity to explain my position on the article. It relies heavily on one self-published source and that is in breach of verifiability. There are many grand claims which cannot be verified by me as a fellow editor without buying the book. I am reluctant to do so as it seems I may have served the purpose of the publisher in promoting it through our article. I also note that the author is self-interested, aggrandising (perhaps) her forebear. So I remain uneasy about most of what is said in the article and eager to see verifiable, independent, reliable sourcing. I am busy like everyone else but if I had more spare time I would spend it on trying to find more somewhere or, I suppose, in caving in and buying the book to see just how the author expresses her claims. Given the aforesaid self-published sources policy, I am within my rights to take down virtually the entire page so it's really up to other editors to fortify it before I do just that. sirlanz 01:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The day is unimportant, but the year is used in authority controls and the Branch reference contains copy of birth certificate to put it beyond doubt. Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC) PS:your personal opinion "no one cares a hoot about this"[reply]
Noting your concern about a self published source, I think this book would fall more towards the level of a peer reviewed history, keeping in mind the people talking at the book launch were Federation University Academics, historians, Robyn Williams and the Mayor of Ballarat.
Also from the dust jacket;
 "...Sutton's great granddaughter, Lorayne Branch, has set out to tell his story and she tells it very well. The depth of her research is impressive. She ably describes Sutton's technical contributions alongside the personal triumphs and tragedies of this unassuming and modest man... Professor Mark Dodgson FASSA, FRSA."

I hope this puts the book into a better context for you, as the above people would not risk their reputations on a self serving vanity publication. The Victorian State Library, and other municiple libraries already have the book on order, so I hope it will soon become available a a convenient location for you.

And you have information about who has ordered the book? Are you an insider with a COI to disclose? The doubts that I have focus on technical evaluation. Ms Branch does not appear to be technically qualified to make assessments of the precise technological context of the work done by Sutton and we have nothing else to go on but a local publication evidently oriented to trumpeting the significance of the town, i.e. the article is bereft of any basis at all to make many of its claims, if the work of Branch proves technically deficient. Reading patent applications is no basis to conclude anything about the significance of the designs. It is for experts to do that and publish technically qualified observations (general historians are not competent to comment). I am not encouraged by my own review of some of the claims made and sources put forward in support thereof which revealed gross overstatements (expansions on scope of source materials) in the article text. These are claims of very great significance and must be matched by commensurately robust sourcing. The Branch book alone does not satisfy that high standard. sirlanz 10:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
simply searched library website for book and saw it was ordered. Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavors

Thank you sirlanz endeavors is a good way to clarify Sutton's inventions and gives more flexibility in describing his other interests.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Sutton_(inventor)&oldid=1169136076"