Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....
(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)
BEEEEEP....
Leave Messages and Comments below this line
Statue of Henry Sinclair
Here it is [[1]] Dickie birdie (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Honorary President of Clan Sinclair is this fellow [[2]] Dickie birdie (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The statue has never been mentioned in any published book, therefore the online photos of it is inadmissible evidence? Dickie birdie (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "evidence"... the issue isn't whether the statue exists or not (it does)... the issue is whether the statue is important or note-worthy enough to include in the article. Lots of things exist ... not all of them are worth talking about or showing a picture of. Mere existence does not guarantee inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- The statue has never been mentioned in any published book, therefore the online photos of it is inadmissible evidence? Dickie birdie (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Therefore the final paragraph of that article either needs to be deleted or to be revised. Don't know if you have noticed, but Frederick Pohl and T. C. Lethbridge belong to the woo-woo category. If the statue of Henry Sinclair isn't deemed notable then the woo-woo authors shouldn't be in the article either, or at least not presented as credible historians. Dickie birdie (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-