Talk:William Buckland

later life, relgious problems and insanity
shouldn't something be said about his later life? I understand he suffered a mental breakdown and was confined to an asylum partly by reason of his failure to scientifically prove the existence of the biblical Flood. Is this true? if so shouldn't it be mentioned? Currently there's nothing about his later life at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.166.133 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

New section: Coprolite Collection
This information was found in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything (to be exact on page 69). I wasn't sure where to site the information so I put it here. If this is mistaken please add it to wherever it belongs thanks Jonathan Zabriskie (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of anecdotes
The article is in a poor state with the use of anecdotes, which are continuing to be inserted. A biography should describe the subject's life neutrally and objectively without "humorous" incidents, interjections, or anecdotes. The purpose of a biography article in an encyclopedia is to inform, not to entertain, there are plenty of other kinds of site for that. The immediate source of such stories is not relevant - they may have been widely retailed in humorous books, magazines, novels, whatever, but since they have from the beginning been subject to exaggeration and embroidering in the telling, it is impossible to tell which if any of them may have been "true" or even have a basis in fact. Let us please confine the article to describing the certain facts about Buckland, rather than repeating what is in effect primary and questionable narrative about him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

1. There are no anecdotes. You thinking something is an anecdote, does not make it one. Just because a piece of information seems fantastical and is interesting, does not make it a fantasy. 2. Contrary to your belief, anecdotes are still relevant to educational articles because they are based in truth. Look up the definition of an anecdote. 3. Content being humorous or interesting is irrelevant, as long as it is informative. Facts can be funny and cool. Ex. Calvin Coolidge was known to buzz for the secret service and then hide, just to mess around. This fact is humorous and entertaining while being very relevant in knowing Calvin Coolidge; most of information on Coolidge paints him as constantly serious and dour, so knowing he joked around in private changes that perception more towards what he was actually like. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not personalise this, it's a general point, not my or another editor's view, and it is entirely inappropriate to speak of any editor's beliefs in such a discussion. Argument from unrelated examples (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not really valid (indeed it's pretty much the canonical instance of how not to argue about article content); almost any point of view can be supported in that way. However, in Buckland's case, the anecdotes related about him do not contradict the popular picture of him as eccentric, but reinforce and indeed probably play upon it, so they have no counter-intuitive value. The point I made earlier remains: that each anecdote is told simply as if it were so, i.e. in a primary, unevaluated manner. If on the other hand you can find scholarly sources that evaluate and compare Buckland anecdotes, and which offer considered opinions about them so as to illuminate his character, that would be another matter entirely, as they would be reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

IMAGE = RALPH BUCKLAND?
The first portrait in the English language Page about WILLIAM BUCKLAND has the title RALPH BUCKLAND, and the picture is not the same photograph, that looks like his bust, that appears in the page in other languages.

2804:38A:C051:FBF5:DC7E:54B4:265D:2D85 (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I don't know about the image because I'm blind, but I've fixed the name, which was added in this edit by Ficaia. Graham 87 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, I don't know how I made that mistake to be honest 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)