Talk:Edwin Dun

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edwin Dun. 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/20100527133606/http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/j/amb/tambj-list.html to http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/j/amb/tambj-list.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Josh Dun
They should’ve added that he was Josh Dun’s great, great, great grandfather. Marley Wells (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added that Random person editing things (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Edwin Dun Museum in Sapporo has looked into this in detail and spoken with other family members, and says this information is in error, and that they are relations, but not in a direct line. Miyakd (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Other evidence against the "direct ancestor" theory includes Wikipedia user Eadun writing here on the Edwin Dun page, "Edwin Dun is his 1st cousin 4x removed. (At the time of the Instagram post referenced he had misinformation through no fault of his own.)", and also Twitter user Betsy #TheAUnt Dun who tweeted a reply to another person's tweet on this topic - "Edwin Dun is his first cousin 4x removed". The only evidence in favor I have seen is Josh Dun's own Instagram post from several years ago, plus quite a few sites that seem to have gotten it from Wikipedia, as several people have posted it here after seeing it on Josh Dun's Instagram. Miyakd (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a message on my user page from another Wikipedia user, who asked the following: "So apparently you've noticed the thing in the Edwin Dun article. Standard practice when we've got sources that contradict each other (since we do have a source for the younger Mr Dun's statement) is to include them both. What's your source for 'the Museum examined the story and says, no' ?"

I will reply here, so this information will be public. A few years ago, I happened to visit the Edwin Dun Museum on his old land in Sapporo (having known nothing about either Edwin Dun or Josh Dun). I had a long talk (about an hour) with the museum curator, during which she showed me the Museum's work (family trees, etc.) on tracing the descendants of Edwin Dun in the US. She also mentioned that a famous young US musician (Josh Dun) is related, but that regrettably the English Wikipedia mistakenly has him as a direct descendant. She had also been in contact with an actual direct descendant in the US, who confirmed to her that Josh Dun is not a direct descendant of Edwin Dun, but distantly related. Returning home, I found his Instagram post (that was apparently the only source for this "direct descendant" info on Wikipedia). I also read through all the comments on his Instagram post, and found the one by his aunt, saying that he is not actually a direct descendant, but rather his "first cousin 4x removed", as well as an early edit by a Wikipedia user (also named Dun), also saying he is Edwin Dun's "first cousin 4x removed" (see above on this talk page for more details about both of these). Some other higher level Wikipedia users also commented that Josh Dun's Instagram post alone is not sufficient to be taken as proof, for it to be included in Wikipedia.

Of course I realize my "proof" to the contrary is not strong, either, but given the available evidence, it seems more likely that it is the Instagram post (the sole evidence in favor of "direct descendancy") that was in error. Now, I would be just as happy as the next person and would think it's pretty cool if he WAS in fact a direct descendant, but it just doesn't seem likely to be the case, unfortunately (though the "evidence" is pretty limited, either way). But now that a top Wikipedia user has shown an interest in the topic (direct messaging me and re-adding the "direct descendancy" assertion to both pages), I will bow out and leave it to the higher level Wikipedia users to do whatever they feel is best, in light of the various flimsy sources of the two conflicting "truths". Perhaps both views could be mentioned on both their pages? Miyakd (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)