Talk:Francis Wheen

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.33.54 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 January 2008‎

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)

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)

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)

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)

In need of better references to support criticisms section

I have removed the following section:

==Criticisms==

Wheen has been dubbed "the Rottweiller of Decency" for his alleged habit of attacking people who displease the so-called 'decent' left associated with the Euston Manifesto. He was accused of hypocrisy when in Private Eye he vehemently attacked a review by Johann Hari of the pro-war book 'What's Left' by Nick Cohen, impugning Hari's journalistic standards, without declaring that he is a close personal friend of Cohen's and thanked at length in the book under discussion. Critics charged that this is the sort of unethical behaviour that Wheen condemns so often in others. A letter in Private Eye later argued that the magazine, via Wheen's writings, "attacks honest journalists just because they criticise you and your mates."

References

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)

These are well-sourced criticisms. This isn't meant to be a hagiography, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.160.141 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Political views

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)

Charles Napier trial

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)