Talk:Francis Wheen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents 1 Spelling inconsistency 2 Complaint over the Guardian Chomsky retraction 3 Falkender libel 4 Criticisms 5 Deletion of Criticisms

[edit] Spelling inconsistency

Since it said "Francis" in the article but "Frances" in the title, and since it says "he" rather than "she", I moved this to "Francis Wheen". Did I get it right? Michael Hardy 21:49, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've seen both used. I'll do a proper check. Secretlondon 22:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

• You are correct. Secretlondon 22:57, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Note: Yes, it's spelt Francis! By the way, as his son, Bertie, I know he gets annoyed when Frances is used... XD

[edit] Complaint over the Guardian Chomsky retraction

This passage is also reproduced in the Aaronovitch and Kamm articles. While acknowledging that the letter was doubtless 'collectively' written, shouldn't the resume be on one page alone? Philip Cross 22:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falkender libel

Wheen's irritation was reported in Private Eye at the time, if anyone has access to a hoard of copies. Philip Cross 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

The Private Eye column in question was (as most of their columns are) anonymous, so it is not really much of a criticism. Does anyone have any better ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.6.171 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Criticisms

I've deleted the criticism section because it only links to blogs, which don't seem like very good sources. Also, the criticisms themselves stem from Wheen's writing for 'Private Eye', but because most of the articles therein are anonymous, there is no way of verifying his authorship. This is not to say that there shouldn't be criticisms of Wheen, but they have to be relevant, properly sourced ones. ThinWhiteDuke79

The source for Wheen writing this article is Private Eye itself. A letter in the magazine acknowledged that Wheen was the author of the section attacking Hari, and explicitly criticised him for not declaring his huge conflict of interest. All the blog comments stem from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.41.39 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that those 2 links do not verify anything written in the 'criticisms' section, not the claim (which is unmentioned in either Guardian or Kamm link) or the quote referenced, so i've deleted it again. Either it has to be substantially reworded to claim something other than it is or it has to be substantiated and sourced properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.159.57 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, these two links do not verify any of the criticisms they are supposed to provide evidence of. Both refer to criticisms of PRIVATE EYE for their criticism of Johann Hari, but the speculation that this criticism might relate to Francis Wheen is just that: speculation. These criticisms cannot be included until (1) rendered relevant and (2) properly verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.6.164 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, please provide a response before reinserting 'criticisms'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.227.121 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)