Talk:Kirkpatrick Macmillan

Simon Brooke 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Googling Kirkpatrick Macmillan gives many different birth years, hence the choice in the article. Ben davison 14:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Errr... this article is scarcely neutral in its point of view, or unbiased in its use of evidence. In it's present state it does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Simon Brooke 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree - this article is nothing short of anti-Macmillan polemic. I'm no expert on this subject - I'm quite happy to believe what the main author of this article seems to believe about Kirkpatrick Macmillan - however, as you say, he's only presented a completely one-sided view (which, incidently, seems to go against the general consensus of the cycling world) and in quite a vitriolic and unencyclopaedic manner. This needs sorted! 84.65.77.43 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article represents the state of knowledge at the International Cycling History conference (ICHC) since 15 years already, yet nobody informed the media. This knowledge seeped slowly into secondary literature like Wilson's "Bicycling Science" or Herlihy's "Bicycle - The History" recently. We all have become victims of the carelessness of former encyclopedias that relied on hearsay and not on verifiable sources (ie like violating Wikipedia's verifiabilitiy policy). Of course it hurts patriotic feelings to learn that the Macmillan claim has no historical basis whatsoever. I propose to remove the non-neutrality tag so that I can eliminate any vitriol Lesseps 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-biased

I had trouble following this article. Its very poorly written, perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject should attempt to wikify and make more concise etc. At the moment it seems like it was just copied and pasted.LordHarris 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version should be unbiased. Antonrojo 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or biases balanced and sourced. Anyway, it starts right out with a claim that someone else is incorrect as to the subject's workplace, which is to say it's a controversy and should be treated as such. The various alternative opinions (there seem to be only two: skeptics and believers) should be presented and compared. I too know nothing of the subject of the biography, and little of cyclohistory, and I too am somewhat inclined towards the skeptical side of the dispute, but perhaps we ignorant can at least organize the controversy in a more orderly fashion. Jim.henderson 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think fixing POV is one of those areas where (partial) ignorance is bliss, because editors are less like to have a strong opinion or feelings about the matter. The debate does deserve a fuller treatment. In my opinion the best approach is to have a central 'bicycling history' article that links here instead of repeating the controversy in each article. Antonrojo 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger, but not better

So, in the beautiful weather I couldn't stay at the computer as promised, but unfolded my bike in the suburbs and was pleased to discover delicious wild blueberries ripe for picking at the roadside. The article meanwhile grew larger but not clearer. So far as I see, there are believers and skeptics, with most words coming from the most vociferous skeptics. The problem with this approach is, it obscures whatever it is that the believers are believing. Can someone who understands their doctrines or activities summarize them without prejudice in a paragraph or section, and move the skeptical responses to another paragraph or section so we can make sense of each argument?

Oh, and another article gives a link to a non existent article about ICHC. Can someone either write that article, or present some information about that organization's history, composition and activities in this article or talk page? Maybe when all this is straightened out, this article can be merged as a section into the more general history article, but as long as it's a mess I'd like it to remain a separate mess and not contaminate a generally neat and orderly one. Jim.henderson 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirkpatrick Macmillan. 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/20150923205301/http://www.antonnews.com/plainviewoldbethpageherald/1999/06/18/opinion/mcmillan.html to http://www.antonnews.com/plainviewoldbethpageherald/1999/06/18/opinion/mcmillan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y 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) 16:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name Error

Error = MacMillan not Macmillan. Mac means "Son Of" and it is always followed by a capital letter not small case because it is a compound word of two proper nouns. Misspelling Scottish names is seen as an insult by Scots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:41BF:9301:1022:8633:2C78:DC7A (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]