Talk:Tom McCarthy (novelist)

message: I have removed the following line from the article: "In 2010 The New Statesman described him as 'the most galling interviewee in Britain.'" Citing a scurrilous insult written by a hostile journalist in the first paragraph of this entry does not constitute biographical information. Many opinions about the subject and his work have been expressed in the media over time, and to choose one particularly hostile one is blatantly biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarcher (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There are a lot of favorable comments and quotes. Who are we to say that this is a hostile comment, and it has been referenced in numerous sources. Google mccarthy and galling, and there are lots of results.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: have added Other interviewers have disputed this. citing http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/books/story/2010/11/03/tom-mccarthy-c-man-booker.html and http://www.thewhitereview.org/interviews/interview-with-tom-mccarthy-2/  I hope this addresses your concerns about balance.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias. 

message: I have removed the following hyperbolic passage from the article as the link directs to McCarthy's own site, and the source seems obscure and is not reliable. 
"described by Untitled Magazine as "the most comprehensive total art work we have seen in years" "85.167.112.152 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources. 

message: Is it possible that the main body of this article may have been written by the subject? I think that it needs rewriting in a more encylopedic, less hagiographic mode. Any thoughts?85.167.112.152 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I don't know who wrote this, but if it wasn't the author, then it was someone who took the time to put together a very detailed (and actually very coherent and well written) biography of him.  And that is the problem as I see it.  This person is noteable, but not overly well known, and I would normally expect to find a lead paragraph that tells us why he is notable and brief biographical information.  Then another section about his writing style, common themes and or critical analysis/reception.  Closing with a chronological chart listing his works and associated details (year published, name of publisher, # of books sold, etc). BUT I hate to see a really well written article be reduced to something lesser just because we think their is undue weight given to detailed descriptions of all his works, among other things.  On the other hand, if the books were deemed notable, they should have their own articles, because the descriptions included in this BOLP read like mini-articles themselves.  Quite a connundrum.  I suposed I would support a major trim down, just not by me ;)  The Eskimo (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Written?

message: This is a cool article, if largely fictional. Then again: isn't all information largely a fictional construct? I vote for the article being expanded to include even more fictional novels *not* written by Mr. McCarthy.
Nelsonst2004 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly about this article is fiction?  If you have info that he did not write some of these books then you should put forth evidence so that the info can be deleted...especially since this is a BLP. The Eskimo (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even if Self Written, this is bad ass. 

message: We aim for a neutral point of view not promotion of the article's subject. WP:COI gives the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. Representatives of McCarthy or McCarthy's agents and are seeking to shape the article for promotion this may lead to editorial administrative review. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedic project. No one editor has ownership or editorial control of an article. Thank you. Span (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/COI

message: If "no one editor has ownership or editorial control of an article," then it is troubling that changes made to this entry are reverted very quickly. The current version is rife with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and bias, indicating that contributions to this article have been made with malicious intent. Nothing about the article--as it exists now or in terms of the discussion on this "talk" page--is demonstrative of a "collaborative encyclopaedic project". While using an article for promotion devalues Wikipedia, using it to grind and ax is just as detrimental to this site's usefulness. Dwarcher (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal procedure is to detail the " inaccuracies, falsehoods, and bias, " on the talk page, if they cannot be corrected on the page itself. While there is no reason why you should not edit your own entry, there is also no reason why it should be hagiographic.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been at least five editors who have done significant reworking of the article. There are many major reasons why an editor should not write their own article. The page has been fairly stable since July 2011. Changes need to be accompanied by edit summaries. An editor cannot just delete half an article without giving a reason and expect it to stick. Span (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocrisy

message: I can find no source for the themes discussed in the article, and considering the discussions above, think the subject invented them. I think the article should be restructured on more conventional lines.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: References are given. Span (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I could see...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.183 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Themes"

message: 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. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography