Talk:Anthony Horowitz

I want to know more about Anthony Horowitz

i want to know more facts—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.33.176 (talk • contribs).

Do u know if hsup fooe had any brothers or sisters? Bcause I'm doing some research on him and i figured that the best place 2 come would b wikipedia. Cheers, GJDJ 13—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.99.239 (talk • contribs).

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

I'm in the process of making quite a few changes to this article (going to do some more later today). If you have any queries or disagreements, please put them here rather than changing the article straight away. Thanks — U-Mos 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor change: the reference to Crime Traveller and Vanishing Man being "generally derided" to "sometimes derided", which I think is more accurate: e.g. if you check the imdb user comments for Crime Traveller, 10 of the 12 are favourable, some strongly. OK? - Robina

Actually I just made changes to the intro and the sections about his books; I left the TV writing bit mainly as it is. U-Mos 11:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Poisoned Pen

In 1999 a dutch translation of a book by Anthony Horowitz for adults was introduced at the Antwerp book affair. It was called "William S." in ducth (ISBN 90-572-0102-X) and should be a translation of a book called "Poisened Pen" by Anthony Horowitz. I can't seem to find any references to this book whatsoever on the internet though. Does anyone know anything at all about this book? Was only the dutch version ever released but never the english? It's an excellent book that asks the question what would happen if William Shakespear lived in the late 20th century. I'm certain Anthony Horowitz wrote it: his picture is on the back and he came to sign it personally at the Antwerp book fair. Jan Jacobs 17:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was only published in Dutch and/or Flemish because Horowitz is mostly famous for his children's books in his home market, and I don't think his publishers would have wanted to try to promote a novel for a more mature audience that was written by someone tagged as an author of children's literature. - chsf 18:46, 2006-10-14 (UTC)

He's not English entirely he's Anglo- German!!!

How English does the name Horowitz sound? Witzis a classic German suffix on names. He may be a part of the 60,000 strong community of Anglo- Germans primarily made up of POWs from the German army in the First and Second World Wars who decided to remain in England when the war ended and inter- married into the British communities.

Can anyone confirm his heritage in detail?

82.20.49.215 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he's 100% English, whats the matter? Can't accept that he's an amazing author and he's not German or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.50.188 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When is he born?

The article says 1956 and the template says 1955

Change his Age Please

The page says he's 51 but he'll be 52 in a few months so we should change it. PaZzApOtAtO (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lights...Camera...Alex Rider?

How many Alex Rider books are ther in the series?Flern Harrison 03.05.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.58.29 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Six going on seven? 217.44.118.112 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I don't have time right now, but this article could do with a cleanup - much of the author's history is somewhat garbled, or out of sequence, or irrelevant (e.g. his dog being run over three times - maybe somewhere, but not in "Early Life")... I'll check back in a few days if I have time. EAi 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How Many Alex Books?

I thought there were going to be 13!! But a friend from school said there would be 8. Any ideas?RiderFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.89.93 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

there might be 13 books, but there are currently 7. So neither of you were wrong! And i DO think that he is going to make more Alex Rider books because I read in an article that it bugs him to strat something and then not finish it, AND IT BUGS ME TOO! So since the last book (SNAKEHEAD)is unfinished, because Alex Rider hasn't completely quit MI6 or died, then he is probably adding on to the series.. But I don't think it will be soon... I hear that he has started to add to the Raven's Gate series. I HOPE THIS HELPED!!!

devil's doorbell----->raven's gate

did anyone notice that those two novels are exactly the same? 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Guitardude3600 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)``

Questions for Answers

What were your achievements? What are your most famous works? What kind of degree did you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.102.110 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think Anthony is going to be looking himself up on wikipeida and even if he did, answer your questions here? If you want to ask him something, write to his publishers and they will send him your letter.194.81.189.21 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Crocodile (or "crocidile") Tears

Can anyone add a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracoster (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

crocodileee

Anthony Horowitz talking about "homosexual marriage"

Anthony Horowitz was a guest on ITV's The Agenda. One of the topics debated on 4th February 2013 was about gay marriage. Here is some of what he had to say about it -

I think it's upset an awful lot of people completely unnecessarily. I'm not even sure there are that many homosexual men and women who actually want to get married. And I think it's a case, once again, of government being in the wrong place. This is a church matter. And what has been attached to this argument - which really worries me - is a terrible sense that if you, for a single minute, question the idea of homosexual marriage you must immediately therefore be a raging homophobe. And there is so much hatred and so much dislike going on - according to the Sunday papers one Conservative MP has even been receiving death threats because of his points of view. And I find that in a civilised country - our country - to be really really shocking. ..... (gay marriage) is an idea that also offends a great many Christians in this country. ...... A marriage involves man, woman and God .....Damson88 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

An article in the Telegraph suggested that Horowitz supports marriage equality:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9883079/Anthony-Horowitz-on-potentially-ruinous-TV-appearances.html

However on 27 February 2013 Mr Horowitz confirmed on Twitter that his opinion had not changed one iota.

https://twitter.com/AnthonyHorowitz/status/306679614120554496 Damson88 (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding video link to extract from ITV programme "The Agenda" broadcast on 4th February 2013. If anyone still doubts that Horowitz is opposed to "homosexual marriage" please explain. Here is the relevant link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5rc0FaL-a8 Damson88 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We aim for a neutral point of view as an encyclopaedia. As editors it is none of our business whether we approve or disapprove of a subject's personal views. In the Telegraph article he writes "I have no objections to gay marriage". In the Twitter feed he wrote "My opinion has not changed one iota" - not that he condemns gay marriage. In the Agenda debate Horowitz is putting a much more nuanced (or unclear) argument than 'say no to gay marriage'. He says that many Christians are upset by it and feel railroaded, that the conservative party have no right to impose it and that there is a debate to be had. He is not a Christian. Damson, you cut of your above transcribing of the Agenda debate to cut out the nuance:

Horowitz: A marriage involves man, woman and God. Now look, that's not my view.

Frostrup: why does it involve man, woman and God?

Horowitz: That's what it is.

Frostrup: Gay people didn't used to be able to get involved in civil partnership and now they can. Why does marriage have to be just men and women.

Horowitz: It doesn't

The Telegraph article was published three weeks after the TV debate, re-stating his non-opposition. Using the Agenda debate to state that he takes an anti-gay marriage stance would count as synthesis. Please don't use this WP as a soapbox for your stated campaign against perceived homophobia. Thank you. Span (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Following your comment I've added a slightly more complete transcript, which you may care to peruse. Don't forget that my edit to the main page stated nothing more than "Horowitz made clear his strong opposition to marriage equality in a debate on ITV," with a reference.

Ed Balls: ... I think in 50 years time we'll look back and say 'did we really have a debate where we said your sexuality will decide whether you can get married or not?' I think in 50 years time - cos the world moves forward - we'll look back and say 'well you know of course it's the case that, if marriage is a celebration, you should be able to celebrate that whatever kind of marriage you have, and this shouldn't be about discrimination.

Horowitz: Marriage isn't just a celebration, marriage is more than that. That's the whole point. A *civil union* is a celebration. But a marriage involves man, woman and God. Now look, that's not my view.

Frostrup: why does it involve man, woman and God?

Horowitz: That's what it is.

Frostrup: Gay people didn't used to be able to get involved in civil partnerships and now they can. Why does marriage have to be just men and women.

Horowitz: It doesn't

Frostrup: We're not a church-run state, we're a secular state, So it's not a church matter.

Horowitz: Yes, but when you have X million Christians in this country who think differently, you should not have a prime minister forcing this sort of things down their views (sic) It's really what Amanda began by saying.

Frostrup: You can't be a little bit equal. And so you can't have a situation where you go 'yes it's OK for you to be together and it's OK for you to have civil partnerships and it's OK for you to adopt children' - which I think is very very important because one of the church's arguments against gay marriage is that marriage is for the raising of children. Now, you know, biologically nowadays there are ways for gay couples to have children. And even when they adopt them, they are still raising children. If we can raise children in a decent environment where there's an opportunity for parents to stay together then we should be encouraging it ...

Bradby: I just want to ask you one thing, though. Which is one of the things that faith groups say is that inevitably although they've got these protections by the time you get human rights legislation kicking in they will have to conduct marriages and they don't want to and that makes them nervous. What do you make of that argument?

Frostrup: I just think that, you know, actually the church in recent times - and I have to say, you know, I'm not a religious person - but I think absolutely recently the church is backing itself, first with women bishops which I was talking about the last time we were here, and now with this issue - the church is separating itself from the secular state to which it has remained attached for a very long time. And I think it's starting to get to the point where if the church can't move with the way that the world is moving and the way that our morality is moving - which is more inclusive and better, I would say - then we should start looking at why we're funding church schools, because you're going to end up with a situation where you're teaching pupils things that go against the grain of the law of the land.

Bradby: Anthony, you were arguing very strongly. What do you make of Mariella's argument here that really, you know, you can't have a little bit of equality?

Horowitz: Well that's not what I'm saying - and once again I'm being cast as a homophobe which, of course I'm anything but -

Bradby: No, no, nobody's doing that, no.

Horowitz: Somehow this argument always seems to come. You're either pro or anti homosexuality. Or you're a bigot, or not. I am taking the view that we have forgotten in this society how to tolerate intolerance....

The programme went out on the evening before the same-sex marriage debate in the House of Commons, and I think it would have been very clear to viewers, no doubt including some MPs, that Horowitz was opposing marriage equality legislation. Damson88 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't agree. In my view it is synthesis to conclude what would have been 'very clear cut to viewers'. The main topic for him is the process by which the bill is being managed. Span (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Ed Balls, Horowitz distinguishes between marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples by saying marriage involves a man, a woman and God. How is that anything to do with process? Of course it's not. Damson88 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And, as transcribed above Frostrup asks "Why does marriage have to be just men and women" and Horowitz answers "It doesn't". This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. We do not represent agendas. Span (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I note you did not respond on the "process" issue, but what do you think Bradby meant when he said "Anthony, you were arguing very strongly?" Do you expect us to believe he felt Horowitz was arguing strongly for non-opposition to gay marriage? And what do you suppose Horowitz meant by "when you have X million Christians in this country who think differently, you should not have a prime minister forcing this sort of things down their views?" Bradby believed Horowitz was strongly opposed to marriage equality, and obviously not that he had an equivocal position - certainly not that Horowitz strongly supported marriage equality. Damson88 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean by over-simplifying the question. Horowitz is not 'strongly supporting' the bill, that doesn't mean he is condemning gay marriage. He has stated that doesn't. It is not a binary question. The debate is in the context of bill going through parliament. When I say that Horowitz's main points are about process, I refer to comments like "million Christians in this country think differently, you should not have a prime minister forcing this sort of thing". This is a comment about the process he feels Cameron is undertaking. I'm not 'expecting' anyone to 'believe' anything. I am interested in Wikipedia presenting neutral biographies, not written to fit an editor's agenda. Editorialising is not how we work. Span (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to anywhere in the television debate that Horowitz made it clear that he supports gay marriage?

Horowitz argues in the strongest terms against the Government's legislation, but I cannot find one instance of anything clearly in support of gay marriage, can you? So, once again, what do you suppose Tom Bradby meant when he said "Anthony, you were arguing very strongly?"

It is a principle of Wikipedia that it does not censor the truth. Damson88 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This debate is the reason that primary sources are not relied upon at WP. With BLPs "material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research". It's important to get it right, as reflected in the Loose Ends clip. You are arguing that because he is not supporting the bill, he is condemning gay marriage. That is synthesis. Span (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood. I never made that argument Damson88 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Horowitz's views on social issues

Mr Horowitz has recently graced the media with his take on a number of issues, so I propose to start a new section on this.

Adding to his views on marriage equality legislation (ITV "The Agenda") he was on a recent edition of Question Time (BBC One) and then on Radio 4's Loose Ends. The radio programme is available on the BBC iPlayer for a short while longer. He speaks, amongst other things, about Foyles War, appearing on Question Time, and Wikipedia accuracy. At one point in the Loose Ends programme he expressed concerns about being unfairly thought of as a right-wing bigot Damson88 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)