|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry Williamson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Martyby 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)martybyMartyby 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)hello, does anyone agree that Williamson's support for the Nazi philosophy is considerably overstated in the article? I believe that his love of the English country and of honest, open approach to political, social and economic life was much more significany - viz The Children of Shallowford and The Story of a Norfolk Farm. essentially he was rather fooled by the outward trappings of Nazism and really approached it in a naive and wishful way.
126.96.36.199 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Particularly I wonder what's with the giant box of "far-right in the United Kingdom". From the bottom of this article you'd think Williamson was a prominent Nazi who happened to toss off a couple of novels on the side. What possible relevance is there to a large list of groups he didn't belong to and in some cases isn't even a contemporary of? 188.8.131.52 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction to "Tales of Moorland and Estuary" Williamson refers to his opposition to the second world War and the tendency of the white race to destroy itself in an unjustified war. This is probably the key to his support for Mosley- motivated by appeasement rather than hatred, although he probably felt that the War was in Jewish interests. I believe that his politics were important to him- and to the neo-Fascist websites like "Friends of Oswald Mosley" who claim him as their own. However the quality of his literature is very good and, being predominantly on nature subjects, unaffected by his politics, and a reader ignorant of this background would not know from his texts. Streona 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As a tribute to this major British writer of the 20th century, I have ventured to add a selected list of printed works about his life and work. May I suggest to his many admirers, especially the members of the flourishing Henry Williamson Society, that it might be worth considering the feasibility of combining all the bibliographical material about Henry Williamson, including his works and the essential reference works by Anne Williamson, under the single heading of Bibliography, with suitable subsections (as for HW's friend T.E. Lawrence, for example): 1. Works by Williamson. 2. Secondary sources. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Removal of "reference"
National Vanguard Magazine has recently been used as a reference in this article. Until then it was an external link. This magazine fails the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources WP:RS. Non-reliable sources are "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature." As can been seen from their web-site, the magazine advocates white supremacist and anti-Semitic points of view. The tone of the Vanguard article suggests that the author, who has in the past been involved with the BNP and UKIP, shares this point of view. Citing extremist publications like this one risks the Wikipedia article failing WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.
There are many reliable, published sources for biographical information about Henry Williamson, which are listed in the article. There is absolutely no need to quote from a racist publication.
I might add that I am very familiar with the life and works of Williamson, having read almost all his fiction and have also visited his house at Ox's Cross and his other residences in Devon. Hohenloh + 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I welcome discussion of whether any and all documents on an objectionable website should be excluded from Wikipedia. I now see that the site in question is indeed published by an American white supremacist organisation (of which I myself also disapprove), whereas the cited article itself seems to me quite unobjectionable. I became involved in this by upgrading an existing external link into inline citation, an issue on which I have a purely technical interest. Thus, I objected to having my whole series of reasonable edits totally reverted without proper explanation. It does appear that "there are many reliable, published sources for biographical information about Henry Williamson, which are listed in the article." However, this article has only four inline citations, of which two are from third-party sources--and both of them could be classified as objectionable anti-semitic organisations. Might I suggest that, before (or while) removing them, you undertake to provide a few more acceptable and more reliable citations from the more reputable sources which you prefer. Incidentally, my web search revealed a 2010 statement that "Dr Mark Deavin left the BNP in the late 90's and is working as a historian specialising on Harold Macmillan". Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)