Jump to content

Talk:Douglas Coupland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial text

"the rest of his siblings were all male" This sort of implies he wasn't male at birth? Maybe it could be reworded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.76.123 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Tags added to "Writing career" section -- edits needed!

I added a number of tags to the section, "Writing career." While it was informative, it was improperly written according to a number of Wiki policies. Articles must be encyclopedic and, thereby, not carry original research or uncited or unverifiable information. While many of the opinions contained in this section may be popularly held, there are clear rules for stating opinions and analyses of people's artistic work. For starters, such an opinion must be presented in a balanced manner. It also must come from a reputable and accepted expert in the field, or it must be an overwhelmingly pervasive (near consensus, not merely popular) opinion, as verified by a citation. It would be wonderful for someone invested in this article to take a stab at cleaning up that section. I know it could be really great, just given what's already there. It just needs to be tinkered in the areas in which it covers opinions and personal analyses of Coupland's work. Unfortunately, your and my analyses are not valid unless they are shared by a recognized expert in the field. (Here, that field is literature.) And, still, then it must still be sourced. One more thing: No one here needs to prove that Coupland is a wonderful and original thinker and writer. He has enough accolades and critical praise to fill up eight articles. There is no need to present a piece of negative criticism and follow it with a positive one that "negates" the negative one. This just creates the illusion of equanimity, a false impression of a balanced article. This is stilly when the article can actually be balanced. Coupland is, after all, widely respected and admired -- and by enough people for whom one can quite easily find citations. ask123 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede concerns

I was asked to comment on this. I agree with Plumbago and JohnInDC on leaving this out. (The cite to the lecture remained in the reverted version; it should go.) I'm all for including information, but it has to be verifiable. A lecture with no transcripts is not. Google isn't finding anything but this page when searching for the lecture title; Simon Fraser's website has some mentions of him, but nothing about him giving a lecture. It would need a transcript to be used as a source. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then too, if it's his own lecture then the most it could stand for in any case is that Coupland "considers himself to" (and so forth). I'll take out the orphaned reference. JohnInDC (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed update for Douglas Coupland#Visual arts

At present the Visual arts section does not link to any examples of his art work. I suggest that this short review in the Toronto Star be included, which includes a couple of pictures. There are more photos of his work in this personal blog, which also includes a photo of Coupland himself. (Our article lacks an image of the subject). Even though this site is a blog, I suggest it merits inclusion here. If Coupland's art gallery ever publishes its own web site, that could be used as a replacement.

One sentence in this section makes little sense to me and I suggest it be removed: "His is a post-medium practice that employs a variety of materials." EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Working refresh and expansion

I have been working on some research lately for this article, and will be doing some extensive updating and editing of different sections. I think this article can use some new references in Visual Arts, and have catalogued a list of art pieces to add to the main article. As well, I have also done some research on his awards and recognition, and propose a new section for that as well.

I have already started my work, and it will be completed in roughly one to two weeks. Any help would be appreciated! --GoneAFK (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GoneAFK: Conflict of Interest

In regards to the conflict of Interest problems, it seems that the person who recently edited the article, by IP from the University of Alberta, I believe that any over the top language has been attested to. I am the sole editor behind many of the article rewrites, but a partner in the creation of the primary Coupland article. In reference to that, I understand some of the language was improper, but I see that those problems have been addressed. Let us work together to further this article, I am only interested in making this article accurate and well rounded. GoneAFK (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'd appreciate it if you could make a brief statement to the above effect at WP:COIN#User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted), just so the matter can be resolved and gotten out of the way. Please remember that you have the right to edit Wikipedia anonymously, and posting at WP:COIN does not mean that you will be asked to divulge your identity, relationship to the subject, if any, etc. However, it will still be useful if you can reiterate what you said here over there. Thanks and best wishes, --JN466 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put that information over on the other article page, and will be removing the tag. Sorry to have caused this fracas.GoneAFK (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Story

This entry is suffering infestation by vanity editorialists who lack aquaintacy with (certainly, credible knowledge of) proper encyclopædism. Though with little hope of correcting those who so persistently find their pleasure in vandalism here, the present comment will nonetheless serve as statement of intellectual validity and exemplary form. To repair merely the vulgar errors in the most verbose amongst the "discussion" left here, "radical" and "artistic" are not superlatives but concrete adjectives; and "startling" is common currency in encyclopædism. Additionally, placing an author in his literary lineage is so far from objectionable as to be necessary in efficacious encyclopædical treatments of the literary: cf., Encyclopædia Britannica on T.S. Eliot. Once again, to correct vulgar error, sniping against "blatantly evaluative" is determinate evidence of absence of disinterest. Cf. Wikipedia's entry on Percy Shelley which opens with the following 'blatant evaluation': "....was one of the major English Romantic poets and is widely considered to be among the finest lyric poets in the English language. Q.E.D.

Story 2

I think that this page is written in a style that advances a particular aesthetic evaluation of Coupland, in a way that violates NPOV and the No Original Research rule through synthesis. The article is written in the style of a magazine story promoting Coupland's work. It is in fact the case that Coupland's work is highly regarded by many critics, but the tone that comes across here is one of positive evaluation, rather than factual reporting on positive evaluations. This comes across in the frequent use of superlatives - "radical", "startling", "artistic" - to describe Coupland's work. The worst bit is the claim, repeated a few times I think, that Coupland is "a novelist of substance and distinction; latest in the line that runs from Charles Dickens through H.G. Wells and Graham Greene". That's a perfectly defensible opinion, but it is blatantly an evaluative claim and in no way neutral reporting. Also, there are too few citations, and one of these is to an English 101 university course, which is not a valid citation because it is not verifiable. I can't be the one to do it, alas, but this article definitely needs a diligent rewrite. Christopher Powell (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am going to tag the article.--Cantabwarrior (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged it for Story and POV. Hopefully this attracts some editors who can do the subject justice. --Cantabwarrior (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't spotted this before, but you're right. It's a bit, well, over-positive (though far from the worst I've ever seen). Another thing that seems a bit synthesis-y is the breakdown of his career into sections that don't really make sense. To me at least - I always figured Girlfriend in a Coma as a major change of direction, for instance. Anyway, I'll try to have a go over the next week or so. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some of the more gratuitous text in here, but the general flow of the article is like that of a literary biography from a literary encyclopedia. I have kept the general flow of the article intact, and will be going back through it to do spot edits or sweeping changes to the article as I have the time. --GoneAFK (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll reinsert the tags. There is far too much WP:PEACOCK language and similar problems. Examples:
  • "The novel was instantly a critical and cultural success which elevated estimation of Coupland beyond Generation X spokesmanship to the level of substantial novelist." (unsourced)
  • "When Generation X icon Kurt Cobain killed himself, Coupland realized that the idea he had created was officially dead. He announced this in Details magazine in 1995, arguing that over-marketing had created a commercial identity that, like Hyde to Jekyll, had annihilated the original. After this, Coupland shifted his attention to another nascent cultural moment: the digital age." (unsourced)
  • "This early awakening matured through a more direct interaction with pop art during his first year of university." (unsourced)
Many of your Wikipedia edits seem to focus on articles about Mr Coupland and his works. If you have a personal relationship to the article subject, I would advise you to declare this on your user page. Please consult WP:COI about conflict-of-interest editing. --JN466 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Douglas Coupland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Douglas Coupland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Greetings, I don't want to start a debate about this, but despite the term "Gen-X" becoming used in popular culture to refer to the cohort after the baby boom, that's not who Coupland was writing about in the book. He's very specificly using the term for younger, disaffected Boomers. That first sentence in the Generation X section is incorrect. I'll see if I can find an online source to back it up. Quoting the book itself would certainly prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymston (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Douglas Coupland. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Coupland/Archive_1&oldid=1064436019"