Jump to content

Talk:Michael Cunningham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2003

[edit]

Yesterday I created an article for "The Hours" novelist Michael Cunningham. As I would have expected there are a number of extant articles that already link to this page. But, there's also a link to it from what's obviously different Michael Cunningham in the article: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/City of New York casualties which is now erroneously linked to the new article. I'm not sure how to proceed. Can someone help? Thanks. Bill 07:51 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Normally, as 'your' Michael Cunningham is the more famous, the thing to do would be to rename the other one to something like Michael Cunningham (bond broker), and have a brief note at the bottom of Michael Cunningham noting his existence; however, as there's not mention of his profession, I suppose one should move him to Michael Cunningham (author), and at Michael Cunningham put a disambiguation page.
HTH.
James F. 08:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Liking my idea too much, I went ahead and did it.
James F. 08:33 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Please restore as it was. The solution is to unlink the name of "Michael Cunningham, who died in the 11th of September 2001 terrorist attacks", who is not encyclopedia material -- Tarquin 08:55 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This was my first instinct, but I wasn't sure it was proper. Thanks. But since the namespace Michael Cunningham is now occupied by a disambiguation page won't this require administrator intervention? Bill 09:00 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
No, disambiguation pages are just normal pages with some special code in them. You can edit them in the normal way. CGS 11:48 24 Jul 2003 (UTC).
yes.... but i think Bill means an admin needs to delete the disamb to then move back the origianl page. -- Tarquin 12:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, Tarquin is correct; if some kind admin will delete the disambiguation page, I'll patch things up from there. Please? Bill 16:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
To unlink one name out of thousands appearing on the page seems at best arbitrary, surely? I don't think the Michael Cunningham should be on the Wikipedia either, but I haven't the time to re-edit the source page to strip out all the persons' links from that page. This way is, if not good, possible.
Perhaps I was and am being overly cautious and lazy, though.
If people want me to undo the 'damage' I have done, I'm happy to. Sorry about this.
James F. 16:18 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's not really arbitrary. It's the one instance (AFAIK) of an unpopulated link on the page that's inhibiting rational use of the Wikipedia namespace. I do agree that theoretically all the unpopulated links should be removed. Most of them will never have articles. If someone wants to create an article for any of these people, they can create the link when they create the article. Bill 16:54 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I found 4 by cursory random glancing at sucessful links (no, I don't remember which ones, as I was just checking), so I'd guess there are quite a few of these. Some of them (very few) are sucessful links and also point to what they were meant to; working out which ones are which is only do-able by a human, and stripping off all of the links would be a step in the wrong direction.
Maybe it's just me, but I find stop-gap measures undesirable.
James F. 19:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You're missing my point, I think. It's the unpopulated links (those that are displayed in red) that I'm addressing. I have no problem with the links that point to real articles. However, it's not worth the struggle. I had some more work to do with the Cunningham article and links thereto and my main concern is that the article name remain stable. Bill 20:37 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved back

[edit]

Obviously, the author's article belongs here. Whenever we have one person immensely (or even just noticeably) more famous than the other, we reserve the main article title for that person e.g. Paul Simon, John Adams, and others. --Jiang 01:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Author Photo

[edit]

Is it possible to add a photo of Cunningham? I think he should have one.--NYKenny 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specimen Days

[edit]

The article falsely states that "Specimen Days" 'was not well received by American critics'; on metacritic.com, it has a score of 74 out of 100 (generally favourable reviews), based on the opinions of 27 well-known critics. --Sanssheriff 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I return here more than a year and a half later with the same issue: one unfavourable review does not mean the book 'was not well received by American critics'. In fact, it's the only truly negative review it's got, and, on top of that, that was written by Michiko Kakutani, who is famous for her harsh, affected articles. Read her Wikipedia entry. Most of the other reviews for the book range from "favourable" to "outstanding." If everyone is ok with it, I will edit the article to reflect that. Sanssheriff (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Cunningham/Interview

[edit]

I've attached a link to a one hour live interview wiht Michael Cunningham that is wonderful. I think anyone who wants an in depth look at this writers personal experience and his work would benefit from hearing this interview. I've attached the link. http://www.victorialautman.com/ontherecord.shtml#cunningham Corkyshag (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tags

[edit]

Placing bias tags on an article is unhelpful unless an explanation is given on the talk page as to why the neutrality of the article is disputed. I'm removing the tags. If someone wishes to return them, please explain here specifically which elements of the article you consider POV. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Twelve Hawks

[edit]

I have the notion that John Twelve Hawks = Michael Cunningham. I happened to read Specimen Days soon after completing The Traveler. (Yes, I'm American.) I'm commenting here because the GOB has read (or attempted) both. I haven't found anyone else yet that has. He actually negatively compared both to another book (Spin), which is why I found this site on the Internet and decided to post my comment here.

Here's what I have. 1st, both The Traveler and Specimen Days combine sci/fi/fantasy with heavy-duty social criticism to the point that the reigning political system is seen as totally evil and/or failed. (That rules out Stephen King or J.K.Rowling, for example, but not Margaret Atwood.) Specimen Days, like The Traveler contains a character who wants to disappear. The Traveler has the Brethren; Specimen Days has the Family. Specimen Days also has the Company (like the Vast Machine?). Cunningham even uses the term "off the grid." (Is it that common?) Like Maya in The Traveler, the Simon character in S.D., Part 3, is learning to feel love.

At 1st I didn't think Specimen Days had a religious aspect like The Traveler. But that's in part b/c I 1st listened to an audio of the book and didn't pick up on the titles of the parts. Part 2 is The Children's Crusade. Also, the two main male characters in The Traveler are Gabriel and Michael, while those in S.D. are Luke and Simon. (Incidentally, the title of Part 1 is In the Machine.)

On the Night Shade Books forum on the subject, I learned about an essay by John Twelve Hawks that could be bought on Amazon. In that rant, he sounded like Cunningham's character "Walt" in Part 2 of S.D. Both The Traveler and S.D. have some messianic ideas (although the messianic folks in S.D. are the murderous terrorists while those in The Traveler are the good guys). Also, Hawks refers in his rant to a security guard watching variations from normal behavior on a video monitor and having to decide whether to call the police--like the beginning of S.D.'s Part 2 where the lady hotline worker has to distinguish crank callers from violent terrorists.

Well, that's about it. Couldn't an experienced author get into an alter ego as into one of his characters for the purpose of writing under an assumed name? It is interesting that the GOB has similar criticisms of both books.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.215.108 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Cunningham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Cunningham. 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:

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

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) 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Cunningham&oldid=1206844511"