Talk:A. N. Wilson
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I have replaced this paragraph:
- However on August 31, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Hiller had admitted his part in the hoax.
The paragraph had a reference to this CBC story but by my reading he doesn't admit it in that article - it says:
- Hillier admitted to the paper he thought Wilson was "despicable" but claimed innocence.
I've replaced rather than removed it, though, because it seems Hillier has now confessed. The earliest reference I've found is this Sunday Times article from a few days after the CBC article, and I've added it to the article. Andy Smith (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Spot on. The first story was the whole of page 3 in The Sunday Times. The follow-up that Hillier was the culprit was at the bottom of the front page in the next week's edition. Bearing in mind the publicity (which was picked up by other papers too), I thought a mention in the lead section was appropriate. Tyrenius 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bio or Hoax Article
It's quite shameful that some editor would think documenting a juvenile hoax deserves more weight on this page than Wilson's entire life and work. There is no need to go into such detail or to reproduce copyrighted material which tells us much more about the hoaxer than about Wilson. Please establish a separate hoax article if you feel this matter is notable. It has nothing to do with Wilson's own life or accomplishments, and I am in favor of removing the section entirely. There is also a policy on the biographies of living people, which should make the objectionable nature of this section obvious to those who don't see it prima facie. Kjaer (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. The Betjeman hoax is well-documented and is almost certainly the only thing many people know about Wilson! It is not worth a separate article and would probably be nominated for deletion if such was created, and end up being merged back here. The hoax now takes up less than three lines of text - hardly a large amount - and certainly not "more weight on this page than Wilson's entire life and work". It is everything to do with his life and accomplishment - he fell for it and published it! As it stands after your edit, one has to guess at what happened. I fail to see how you think BLP policies have been infringed here. Incidentally, the article is rather short and Wilson deserves more detail of his accomplishmenst than the article currently provides. Emeraude (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
No, if Bevis Hillier insults A. N. Wilson, then the proper place to detail the insult is in Bevis hillier's arrticle. The insult is not "about" Wilson. It is about Hillier. Imagine the article on Pope John Paul II. Would it be proper to list every insult made about him in his article? Sinead O'Connor's ripping up his picture on Saturday Night Live? If I insult you, that does not establish any notable fact about you? Were there no Hillier article, and had Wilson sued and lost, one might make an argument. But as it stands, WP has guidelines for bio's of living people. Anyone who wants to know the scatalogical immaturity of Hillier can look to hilliers article, to which I will provide a link. Kjaer (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A. N. Wilson revert name of article
I think A. N. Wilson is entitled to name himself. He doesn't go by Andrew and he doesn't go by Alfred. The policy in article names is to go by usage, and then to disambiguate where necessary. Why was there no discussion of this change here?
I intend to change the title of the article back, unless there is opposition, please comment.Kjaer (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to change the name back but was unable to do so due to bot fixes, so I have added this article to the requested name change list for an admin to fix.
The article should return to its original title which it has had since its creation. The author uses A. N. Wilson as his published name, the usage is universal, no discussion was held on the name change and the disambiguation is unnecessary.Kjaer (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Too many opinions
It seems to me that these lines:
is an example of popular intellectual history at its best.
He has written over twenty novels, many of which have won prizes. Of recent titles, perhaps the strongest is My Name is Legion, a fiction about the current state of British journalism and of Christianity.
are too biased/opinionated and do not meet Wikipedia's standards in biography. The phrases 'popular intellectual history at its best' and 'perhaps the strongest is' are clearly opinions. Also rather than writing 'many of which have won prizes' someone could quantify how many and which prizes - or if there are too many just mention a couple as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen some correspondence regarding this article... lets be sure to ensure that all edits, for example, the information removed in this edit actually should be sourced. Thank you for your help, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)