Talk:Carmen Duncan

Accent

This bit sounds dodgy:

Another criticism was that, even though she took elocution lessons to fight it, she spoke in a distinct Australian accent, thus she looked out of place in an American family.

Seems a bit POV. Moreover, I'm Australian yet to me Carmen Duncan doesn't speak in a distinct Australian accent at all, but a crisp and enunciated accent of an actor - like most working professional actors in Australia at the time Duncan was establishing her career - who is trained and experienced in the traditional theatre. Asa01 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be my POV, but it's rather noticeable that she sounds...not American. It can easily be pegged as British or something other, but it was rather jarring that she sounded like she was from a foreign country. Mike H. That's hot 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My main objection was the wording "distinct Australian accent", and "Elocution lessons." Wouldn't she have attempted an American accent for the role? It seems unlikely she would have played the part with a "distinct Australian accent" which is what the article said. And I'm sure she already did "dialects" decades earlier at acting school so wouldn't have gone to elocution lessons at this late stage. I did see episodes of her in the part but as an Australian it is hard for me to judge how convincing it sounded to Americans. I'll reinstate something as per your comment. Asa01 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if she really tried to speak in American English, but I know it definitely didn't come off that way. It basically sounded as if she was just playing another part for an Australian audience; the problem is, she was on an American soap. I loved her character and I think her acting is great, but one watching would know she was from somewhere not in the United States, which was odd since she was playing a rather American role. I watched Another World in reruns at the office today and saw Iris and thought "Yep, not American." Mike H. That's hot 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These kind of lines should never be added into the article without a reliable source supporting the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carmen Duncan as Helen Sheridan in Number 96.jpg

Image:Carmen Duncan as Helen Sheridan in Number 96.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carmen Duncan. 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/20070829064450/http://gofund.org.au/html/board.htm to http://www.gofund.org.au/html/board.htm

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) 20:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Commenting out unsourced parts of the article

During a major page improvement today, I have added a number of reliable sources for the content in the article. For the content that I could not find a reliable source, I have commented it out, so that it is not visible to the public. Even filmography entries that were unsourced have been similarly commented out. Kindly do not remove the commented out portions without first adding a reliable source for the same. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Name of Children in article body

Hi User:Espresso Addict, AFAIK, the name of the children/spouse/parents even if non notable but if reported in the media does get mentioned in the article body. It may not be mentioned in the infobox, but the article generally keeps this information. Can you please point me to the relevant policy or discussion that supports your removal of children s name from the article body. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If the children are not themselves notable then there is no reason to include their names; it is pure trivia and intrusive to their personal privacy, which would of course be covered under the BLP policy. This is particularly important when the article is linked from the main page and is likely to receive a big spike in hits. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray -- BLP states (my emphasis): "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

I tend to interpret this quite strictly and remove the names of children who are not notable, especially where the figure is themselves not a very well-known public figure. Bear in mind that our coverage stays at the top of Google's search results, while press interviews, obits & the like will often be ephemeral. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

ok, so my initial assumption was correct. In our case it is indeed reliably sourced but yes it is still a grey area. I did not add the children's name, but I will not further dispute the removal either. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pederast = vandalism?

The article states:

Carmen Joan Duncan (7 July 1942 – 3 February 2019) was an Australian actress and pederast ...

I think "pederast" must be the result of Wikipedia vandalism.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

now removed. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)