Talk:A. N. Wilson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Any plans to include his nasty anti-Israel writings? http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000234.html (that's just one of many examples.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.118.230 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What 'accomplishments'? His nasty anti-Israel rants? His moronic and ignorant attempt to topple Darwin from his deserved place as a scientific giant? 92.11.238.246 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 86.129.153.252 (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Under the section "Published works", it says he has "completed" biographies. Why not "written"? Is there a hidden meaning behind that word? --P123cat1 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article taking apart Wilson's latest amateurish work about evolutionary biology: [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the New Scientist "‘Radical’ new biography of Darwin is unreliable and inaccurate". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from yet another biology professor: [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His biography of St. Paul, done by a man without the necessary languages or scholarship, and after no original research, was journalism, I'd say. I'm biting my tongue, trying to keep this just a category error. For "value added" all he adds are wild surmises, preferably scandalous ones.Profhum (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism has standards also and can include original research. Being completely dependent on secondary sources makes one's writing tertiary. Even tertiary writing can be good (choosing appropriate secondary sources and using them wisely). Even secondary writing can be awful (misinterpreting primary sources, not choosing appropriate primary sources [e.g., falling for fake sources]). Given the nature of Wikipedia, entry editors can quote or paraphrase reviews written by respected figures in the field in question and ideally published in peer reviewed journals. We cannot flat out say a particular work is a hack. --Erp (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Howlers' include all of the following errors:

1. Page 11: "...mother to nine children...";  Charles and Emma Darwin had TEN children as listed on page 187.

2. Illustrations opposite page 278: "...Emma Wedgwood, the mother of his nine children,..."; the Darwins had TEN children, all 10 of whom are listed at the bottom of  page 187.

3. Page 313 (i): "Francis...married and had one daughter, the poet Frances Cornford..."; this only refers to the second marriage of Francis Darwin, who - by his first marriage - had a son Bernard Darwin: see point 5.  below.

   Page 313 (ii): "George, the Cambridge maths don, had four children..."; George Darwin (and his good lady wife) had FIVE children, and not 'four'.

   Page 313 (iii): "Of Darwin's nine children..."; as indicated in point 1, Charles and Emma Darwin had TEN children as listed on page 187.

4. Page 327: "Gwen Raverat, daughter of George Darwin, recalled how her sister Frances..."; Frances Darwin, later Cornford was Gwen's cousin, and NOT her 'sister'; also on page 427 in the Index, Frances Darwin is referred to as being 'George's wife'! (She was NOT.)

5. Page 331: "Frank's wife Amy Ruck (who died, as did the baby, giving birth to their first-born)..."; the baby concerned lived until the age of 85 in 1961 as Bernard Darwin, the well known golf-writer! [Francis/Frank Darwin subsequently became a father again from his second marriage.] 

6. Page 350: Pallbearers = the author* lists 8 pallbearers, when in fact there were 10; the two left off the author's list being Wallace and the Reverend Frederick Farrar.   The best source for the funeral is "The Times" report:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/1882/News/Funeral_of_Charles_Darwin

(*Janet Browne in the second part of her biography recorded 9 pallbearers!)

2.28.70.214 (talk)

Is Wilson a creationist? He made stupid arguments like there are no transitional fossils [4]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The many excerpts from reviews seem to have been selected by someone who disdains Wilson. One or two of W’s books are represented here with quotes of reviewer praise, but they are brief and in the minority. Nasty comments from reviewers of other books are more numerous, so that the reader gets the impression that Wilson is an incompetent fool. But of course we have no way of knowing how typical or otherwise these nasty reviews are, and a person does not get to publish so very many books if nobody at all thinks their writing is worth reading. In other words, the piece is strongly biased in effect, whether or not that was the intent. 2fennario (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note the reviews cited give both praise and negative criticism. Note according to this article some of his books tended to get praise and some received a lot of negative criticism (and one of the reviewers, Katherine Hughes, gave both praise for one book and negative criticism for another). A strong bias would be if either the negative reviews or the positive reviews were omitted and such from reputable writers or publications existed. So do you have reviews from reputable publications or writers that gave praise for his two works that received so much negative criticism? --Erp (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]