Talk:Francis Wheen

message: 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)
thread_title: Complaint over the ''Guardian'' Chomsky retraction

message: 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)
thread_title: Falkender libel

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of Criticisms

message: I have removed the following section:
Whilst it seems a reasonable and rounded statement in many ways, a blog is not a reliable source. Until a reliable source can be found (per WP:RS) this should probably stay on the talk page...
What is the Wikipedia policy on citing Private Eye as a source? Richard Hock (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but blogs are not acceptable sources according to WP policy, and neither is Private Eye in fact. Philip Cross (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of better references to support criticisms section 

message: For the benefit of readers who are not intimately familiar with British writers' political persuasions and manifestos, the "Political views" section should state forthrightly what Wheen's political views actually are, rather than making obscure oblique references.  Surely someone who has been commenting on public affairs for that long has left behind some reliable-source documentation of what his views actually are.  121a0012 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political views 

message: Wheen has been featured in news stories surrounding the Charles Napier criminal case.  Not sure the best way to include this in the article.  Wheen has waived his right of anonymity, and gone on record as a victim of Napier, but as Napier pleaded guilty and there was not a full trial, I don't think Wheen he has formally given evidence in any way.  How should this be phrased?   (There is a short interview on the BBC news article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30591158)   Indisciplined (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are of a cautious disposition then you should consult a libel slash privacy lawyer who will take a deep breath, do nothing for some weeks, then tell you not to go there, and send you an eye wateringly large bill (almost certainly without the further courtesy of another wait of some weeks).   Otherwise, I would have thought that a (n appropriately succinct, please) sentence beginning along the lines, "Wheen has supplied (detailed and) personal endorsement of allegations that ....", and covering the thing with source notes accessing published sources, might do the job.   Then again .... I don't doubt that the nice folks at Private Eye could counsel you on the basis of larger quantities of relevant experience than the rest of us can muster.  The allegations in question might even already have appeared on one of those pages near the back of The Eye that at my stage of life I find embarrassingly soporific.   Happy Christmas Charles01 (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Napier trial 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Francis Wheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.republic.org.uk/Who
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103185929/http://www.chomsky.info:80/onchomsky/20051031.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051031.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified