# Talk:The Salt Path

Is this accurate? From Raynor Winn's own description in The Salt Path it would appear that the couple were defrauded by an old friend, and so they argued before the courts. The courts did not agree, but it still seems harsh to describe their financial loss being to due to a bad investment. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced to the BBC have you got another secondary source that says otherwise? Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
No doubt the BBC liked to term it as such, but according to Winn's own account in The Salt Path, they thought they were doing a friend a favour by guaranteeing a loan. Because other things were happening in their lives, i.e. Moth's illness, they were late with filing objections to the court when the friend defaulted. This is clearly explained in the book. I refer you to the book. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I have read the book, but we would need a secondary source to support this, not her own book. I'll see what I can find. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I’ve just read the book; it was an investment in the friend’s business, not a loan. They were presumably prepared to lose the investment, but had not realised they would be liable for the debts when the business failed. Laplarks (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
if the observer is to be belived the book is not a reliable account of the source of their financial issues.©Geni (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
So this is the source that vandal was talking about... 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I already added a summary-style report of the article in The Observer. I expect that other newspapers will now investigate and report further in the next few weeks, confirming or refuting the various claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The claims disputed by The Observer are essentially the background to the narrative of the book, i.e. how the Winns came to lose their home, and whether Moth actually had CBD. The book's narrative basically concerns the walk. Everyone reads the book with sympathy because of the twin terrible events that were claimed to be its background; that may now well change, but there is no dispute about the walk itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The editor involved has now repeated the behaviour, ignoring this discussion. That is frankly unacceptable conduct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Your preferred version includes The background of the book in Winn's personal life and the story narrated in The Salt Path was not entirely true. Both of these are poorly worded, so I replaced them with Some of the events in the book were disputed and some of the events in The Salt Path were not factually accurate.
You seem to be claiming that this somehow introduces the implication that the events of the walk itself are disputed. It does not. It simply says the same thing, better expressed. Barry Wom (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing at last, it should have been before your latest edits. At the top of this thread I state in terms "there is no dispute about the walk itself" so you have no basis for suggesting that I think they're in dispute, that's nonsense. You have repeatedly insisted on removing the accurate and concise description "background" for the two key background claims in the book, namely the nature of the repossession and Moth's illness. You have given no good reason why this clear and plain term should be removed, to be replaced with the vague circumlocution Some of the events in the book which is patently less clear. We should put the "background" back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I've added "background" to the lede.
You have no basis for suggesting that I think they're in dispute. I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm pointing out that the rewording doesn't introduce the suggestion that the events in the walk are disputed. Barry Wom (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring that. The issue is of confounding the background events with the main narrative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Note also that charity etc responses to Winn are off-topic to this article, which is about the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor has now twice attempted to add titles of newspaper articles and vaguely-related meanderings based on the report in The Observer. Perhaps the heat of the "scandal" has made it seem that discussions of general topics are somehow relevant. But no, this article is about a book: not about the author (that's another article), nor about the trials and tribulations of authors of memoirs in general (not sure that would even be an article, but perhaps it would be Memoir); and it is certainly not about how newspapers decide to spin out material in order to sell more copies. If a newspaper report says something about The Salt Path or Winn then it has relevance; if a newspaper sub-editor* devises a lengthy and appealing headline, that is about the newspaper's editing process, not the book. Relevance to this book, this particular book, is the criterion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

* In British newspapers, the titles of articles are generally chosen not by the (investigative) journalist concerned, but by a sub-editor, a newspaper employee not specially familiar with any one story, but trained to make articles presentable and appealing to the newspaper's readership.
I believe that the section showing a sample of the discussions arising after the Observer article, as in the "Reactions" section of this version is relevant and appropriate. Chiswick Chap disagrees, has removed my addition, and accuses me of vandalism and edit-warring when I reinstate it with my rationale.
The discussion in these articles, and elsewhere in the media, is a direct follow-on  from revelations/allegations about the truth of statements in The Salt Path, and is therefore relevant. Those articles would not have been published had there not been doubt cast on the veracity of the book.
The views of other editors would be welcome. PamD 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I have not remotely mentioned vandalism, that's ridiculous. As for your not complying with WP:BRD, that is readily verified by anyone who cares to look at the article history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the opinions of other editors would be welcome. It is true that the articles listed "follow-on" from the one in The Observer, but that is a matter for an article on The Raynor Winn autobiography controversy or some such topic. As far as the book is concerned, there are so far only two relevant facts: 1) Winn made two claims about the premise for the book, and 2) The Observer seems to have refuted one of Winn's claims (about the repossession of her house) and cast some doubt on the other (the nature of Moth's illness). If any other newspaper finds more relevant facts – say, that The Observer was wrong, or that there is more evidence that it was correct – that would be relevant both here and at Raynor Winn. Listings of article titles created by newspaper subeditors are, I'm afraid, not; they add nothing to the debate and specifically say nothing about the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Adding a bunch of tangentially related newspaper headlines is inappropriate. Barry Wom (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the many 'piling on' articles are not relevant.
But I think that today's Observer article should be included, as it has new relevant information: Moth told his landlord in 2021 that he would be dead by Christmas (corroborated by another witness). The illness then miraculously disappeared (again) after another walk.
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/moth-told-me-he-was-dying-when-a-doctor-had-said-his-brain-scan-was-normal 80.43.138.82 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)