From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|
==Undue emphasis and sourcing issues== |
==Undue emphasis and sourcing issues== |
||
|
Clearly we need to fully explore the controversies surrounding Flynn, because they are the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources and are indeed intrinsic to his notability. However, we need to be careful that it not totally capsize the article. For instance, there is a significant subsection dealing with a controversy over his foray into Spain during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. But that episode itself is dealt with only very briefly in the appropriate section of the article. We just say he went there. We don’t say anything else. His career was quite monumental in its own right and we mustn’t make it seem as if all he did was get into trouble. |
Clearly we need to fully explore the controversies surrounding Flynn, because they are the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources and are indeed intrinsic to his notability. However, we need to be careful that it not totally capsize the article. For instance, there is a significant subsection dealing with a controversy over his foray into Spain during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. But that episode itself is dealt with only very briefly in the appropriate section of the article. We just say he went there. We don’t say anything else. His career was quite monumental in its own right and we mustn’t make it seem as if all he did was get into trouble. |
||
|
I also wonder whether we go into far too much detail on the Higham allegations, given that they have been refuted and his work was shoddy. I’m not cutting back on that for now but I have concerns, given that so much has come out since his sensational book appeared decades ago. |
|||
|
Also I have misgivings about the sourcing in this article. Books have been written about him, yet we seem to rely far too much on stuff grabbed off the internet and, at his death, primary sources. Sourcing needs to be greatly improved. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
Also I have misgivings about the sourcing in this article. Books have been written about him, yet we seem to rely far too much on stuff grabbed off the internet and, at his death, primary sources. Sourcing needs to be greatly improved. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:17, 2 December 2025
 |
|
 |
The Wikimedia Foundation‘s Terms of Use require that editors disclose their “employer, client, and affiliation” with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
In the ‘Marriages and family section’ para 1, it states: ‘disappeared in Vietnam’, but in para 4, we’ve got: ‘disappeared in Cambodia’. Which is right?
RASAM (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
-
- Sean Flynn is usually stated as having died on Highway One in Cambodia, on or about April 6, 1970, as per the article on him.Nickm57 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The phrase “led to a series of roles where he played to type, assaying drunks” is odd. So, was he type cast as an alcoholic who tested ore to determine its ingredients and quality? Pauldebarros (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Clearly we need to fully explore the controversies surrounding Flynn, because they are the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources and are indeed intrinsic to his notability. However, we need to be careful that it not totally capsize the article. For instance, there is a significant subsection dealing with a controversy over his foray into Spain during the Spanish Civil War. But that episode itself is dealt with only very briefly in the appropriate section of the article. We just say he went there. We don’t say anything else. His career was quite monumental in its own right and we mustn’t make it seem as if all he did was get into trouble.
I also wonder whether we go into far too much detail on the Higham allegations, given that they have been refuted and his work was shoddy. I’m not cutting back on that for now but I have concerns, given that so much has come out since his sensational book appeared decades ago.
Also I have misgivings about the sourcing in this article. Books have been written about him, yet we seem to rely far too much on stuff grabbed off the internet and, at his death, primary sources. Sourcing needs to be greatly improved. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
