Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Leather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled stuff

[edit]

"Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects ..."

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP 85.210.145.172 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

[edit]

Someone is editing from various IP address in Bangkok, and repeatedly removing the sourced allegations about use of multiple Twitter accounts. If this doesn't stop, the page will need semi-protection. Lone boatman (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for one week, more having to do with the legal threats than the section removals. It won't work to block the IP hopper for the legal threats, so the only way to "block" them is through protection.
I am troubled by the Criticism section itself, though, which was added recently (by an IP). First, it has its own section and takes up a signficant chunk of the article prose. Second, it is based on one article, almost an op-ed, by one writer from one paper. I would feel more comfortable from a BLP perspective if it did not have its own section, was trimmed, and other sources supporting it could be found besides The Guardian.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original IP. I've now created an account. Considering the subject matter you might not believe this, but I'm just a random member of the public who doesn't like cheats. Yes, it has its own section, but that just seemed sensible to me. As for the size of it, perhaps it could be trimmed but in my opinion the overall shortness of the article shouldn't make too much difference. On the Johann Hari page there is a large section entitled Journalistic controversy, with sub-sections on Plagiarism, Orwell Prize withdrawal, and Wikipedia editing. I will look for other sources supporting it though.KoKingsmill (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, congratulations on creating an account. Second, I don't suspect people of agendas when they edit unless there's a persistent pattern (not present here). Third, it doesn't necessarily matter what other articles do. Finally, thanks for looking for more sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the first deletion of this section as I felt it was inappropriate. The only amendments I made to the page after that were to insert a couple of citations - I'm certainly not in Bangkok!
Some of my reasons for the deletion were as follows:
"Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopaedic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism);
"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons).
The article used as a reference seemed (at least, to me) to be more of an opinion piece. In fact, I see other parts of this reference article have now been amended/removed, which discredits it's credence further.
The size of the added section is disproportionate to the remainder of the article and does not offer a balanced view. I still feel that without other reliable sources, it should be removed, particularly as it is a BLP. Sagaciousphil (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to make the criticism less undue. I've removed the section header (along with another) and merged the material into the section about his career. I've also shortened the material. I'm still not completely comfortable with having only one source to back up Cohen's claims. I've also removed the infobox as it had virtually nothing in it. His nationality is superflous as we know where he was born, and his website is in the External links section. So, all it had was the thriller genre.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another source (Daily Telegraph, another national newspaper) for the quote about multiple accounts. Lone boatman (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil, regarding you saying that you deleted the section because you felt it was inappropriate, if that's the case then why didn't you describe it as such instead of calling it vandalism?

Anyway, coming to this: "Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopaedic" It says in the preceding sentence: "Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." Also as it says on that page: "Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia." I am happy to go along for now with what Bbb23 has done, which is to merge the information from that section into the rest of the article.

Regarding the reasons you found for removing it, this part is not relevant: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" - The Guardian is not a tabloid.

As for the first two sentences of that paragraph, I disagree that it is poorly sourced. And it doesn't have to offer a balanced view: if a person receives criticism and little praise then an article should reflect reality.

I found the following links yesterday which I've been reading through: http://maxdunbar.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/harrogate-crime-e-book-fun/

That one led me to this one: http://www.theleftroom.co.uk/?p=1731

And that one led me to this one: http://harrogateinternationalfestivals.com/crime/shop/wanted-for-murder-the-ebook/

So it seems there is an audio recording of that quote from Leather and him talking about using sockpuppets. As for the rest of the information in that Guardian article, although I don't know much about Cohen he does seem to have been around for a while, so between him and The Guardian I'm sure they would understand the risk of getting sued for libel and so would have evidence to back up the rest of that article. KoKingsmill (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major improvement

[edit]

I have been watching this page for a while and see that there is some controversy surrounding Cohen. I think the way that it is written in the article is borderline appropriate due to the WEIGHT. However, since it has been sourced as part of his marketing campaign, I would go for leaving it in the article in its current form.

Also, I have done some major improvements including adding his books and screenplays (I sent an email requesting an image - we'll see if I get a response). Hopefully this will take away any previously expressed concerns about NPOV.--Morning277 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Morning277, I feel the way you've incorporated Bbb23's amended wording into your comprehensively re-vamped article is (for me) a more than acceptable compromise/solution. You must have done a tremendous amount of work on this! Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was not difficult as there is tons of press out there on this guy. --Morning277 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False Friends publication year mistake

[edit]

False friends came out the start of August 2012, I have read it, So I'm going to change it. EoghanG93 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional quote from Telegraph

[edit]

I've added a small quote which was featured in a Telegraph article. It seems that Stephen Leather really doesn't have any morals. And like Sagaciousphil who has a strange idea of what vandalism is, Leather has a strange idea of what a troll is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKingsmill (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations

[edit]

I'm re-adding this section but will only mention what is relevant to the article (all else can either go on the sockpuppet investigation pages or on personal Talk pages). I will try to write in a neutal way.

There have been two sockpuppet investigations launched relating to accounts that have been used to edit this article. One concerns Morning277 (and a whole load of affiliated accounts), and the other concerns me (!), Morning277, Sagaciousphil, David Quantick, Natalieolson, and Wastedyuthe.

I suggest that if there are any editors that can genuinely be considered to be neutral that they check over the edits made by the above accounts, with the aim to try to ensure that a Wikipedia article page is reliable.

These are the relevant sockpuppet investigation pages for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277/Archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KoKingsmill

KoKingsmill (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How should the lede be crafted?

[edit]

There is a dispute of the current lede. I removed :In 2012, it emerged that Leather had used sockpuppet accounts to write favourable reviews of his own books on Amazon, and waged a cyber-bullying campaign against writers that had criticised his work.. I wouldn't even have this in the lede in the article's current state. I am here from the BLPN board. --Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the non notable blog entry about paying to clean up after trolls. If this becomes some big scandle and is widely covered, feel free to revisit it here. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, but these events are the chief reason that Leather has come to public attention so a brief, well-scripted and well-sourced account of them in the lede seems fully justified. Jprw (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Telegraph source being called a non-notable blog,WP:NEWSBLOG covers this. I prefer Jprws version of the article and have restored it. 149.241.56.23 (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is. If this gets widely covered, then maybe revisit.--Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the initial discussions about this material. As far as I know, this is still the same incident (for want of a better word) which is being re-visited/perpetuated. I have re-read through the three sources and my concern is the article should be accurate. Leather has admitted using sockpuppet accounts - not to posting 'reviews' of his books but rather to bolster interest in them on forums. As far as I can see, none of the sources state he wrote fake reviews; R J Ellory is the person who admitted posting fake reviews. The most recently added reference [1] does have a comment added by Vinjamuri (the author of the piece) where he states he may have mis-represented Leather and that it is just an op-ed column. It's on the third page of comments.
As I said above, my concern is the Wiki article should be accurate and report facts without being blown out of proportion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LimitlessSky2012

[edit]

The above user has made one contribution to WP, (see here) which, apart from containing an incoherent edit summary, removes a reference in the lead to a series of negative incidents – which are covered in numerous reliable sources – that brought Leather to public attention in 2012. User LimitlessSky2012's behaviour appears suspicious and I propose that the reference be restored. Jprw (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jprw - as far as I can tell none of this is new and is just a re-hash of the incident previously discussed above. The incident seems to be well covered already in the article. The actual wording used in the additional article you cited (David Vinjamuri, Forbes) is "Leather acknowledged using sock puppets to generate buzz for his books" not quite the same as writing fake reviews - sorry, I guess I am being a tad pedantic. As to whether User:LimitlessSky2012's behaviour appears suspicious or not, I wouldn't know - but surely everyone has to make a first contribution to WP at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaciousphil (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Whoops, sorry, hadn't realised I didn't sign it, I was distracted by someone coming to the door! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's for the time being give the benefit of the doubt to LimitlessSky2012. But other serious issues remain. For example, the subject of the article is on record as stating that he paid 700 dollars to have an editor "clean up" his WP article, see here. Since paid advocacy is a serious WP violation, I will add some banners to reflect this, and also try to get the ball rolling on reinserting well-sourced public domain information that may not paint the subject in the best light. As a general comment, the article as it stands reads like a glowing endorsement / advertisement, i.e. it strikes exactly the type of sanitised / imbalanced / non-neutral tone you might expect from an article that had been "cleaned up". Jprw (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jprw, can you link to paid advocacy is a serious WP violation? I missed the memo, but thats not that unusual. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. And this to. --Malerooster (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jprw - As I mentioned above, none of this is new and the incident has already been discussed previously. Do you have further sources showing more significant coverage of this as I haven't found any additional coverage of this since the prior discussion you were involved in on this talk page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was discussed previously and the article was allowed to remain sanitised? How was that progress? The subject's activities have brought a lot of adverse publicity for WP (it is the only reason I and, I suspect many others, have ever heard of him) and is even in danger of bringing the encyclopedia into disrepute. I have had one description covering those activities (see here) linked to Forbes, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian, repeatedly removed. There remain serious issues with the article (e.g. the lead is embarrassingly one-sided, and reads like a marketing blurb) and it is clearly non-neutral. Jprw (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry to appear to be repeating myself but I'm becoming a little confused. I do admit I'm not totally au fait with WP:BLP and indeed many other Wikipedia guidelines, so please bear with me here. As far as I can tell, consensus was reached a few weeks ago that until further reliable sources were obtained which would indicate 'significant' coverage of this incident the status quo would remain (see 'How should the lede be crafted' above). I was naturally alarmed by the statement "The subject's activities have brought a lot of adverse publicity for WP (it is the only reason I and, I suspect many others, have ever heard of him) and is even in danger of bringing the encyclopedia into disrepute" so have spent time searching for evidence of further adverse publicity. I don't seem to be hitting on the correct search terms as I can still only find the sole reference to the op ed piece you quote, which is the one discussed previously. Could someone point me in the right direction as I think this is the third time I've asked about the new/additional sources for this. I apologise if I am interpreting this incorrectly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these and other points in a new section below. Jprw (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious goings-on

[edit]

I'm reluctant to get pulled into a discussion on this page as I realise that there is a good chance that some of the editors I will be debating with will have been paid by the subject. And the artificial tone of a number of editor contributions I have read here (two examples: 1) Thank you, Morning277, I feel the way you've incorporated Bbb23's amended wording into your comprehensively re-vamped article is (for me) a more than acceptable compromise/solution. You must have done a tremendous amount of work on this!; 2) As to whether User:LimitlessSky2012's behaviour appears suspicious or not, I wouldn't know - but surely everyone has to make a first contribution to WP at some point?) has only reinforced this suspicion. But anyway, here goes, and I would say that the issues I am raising below should be quite obvious to any neutral, genuine editor.

1) The above "consensus" is meaningless, given that there is clear evidence that the subject of the article has paid WP editors to "clean up" (by which I take to mean sanitize, i.e. remove negative content) contained within the article. I suggest that the article be reappraised by Editors who have had nothing to do with the article at least for a 12-month period before it became known that Leather had paid someone to sanitize it, and that unregistered / new users be barred from editing it until further notice.

2) Why is the Telegraph piece (specifically describing the pay-off) not included?

3) Why is the description covering Leather's dubious activities (see here) linked to Forbes, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian, repeatedly removed?

4) Why has no-one addressed the point that the lead reads like a marketing blurb? I suggest that a number of people arriving here for the first time would find it embarrassingly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry, as well as imbalanced (some mention must surely be made of Leather's dubious activities? And let's remember that the refernce to these was removed by an unregistered user, who made only one contribution to WP).

To sum up, the integrity of this article has it seems clearly been compromised and a fresh approach may be needed to achieve the necessary balance and neutrality. Jprw (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lede seems fine to me, except for what I assume is a missing word in the second sentence. No different than, say, the lede in our articles on Stephen King or J. K. Rowling but with significantly fewer accolades (as would be expected). The "Writing career" section does go into some of the controversy, but, per BLP guidelines, expanding on that theme would require sources that aren't so, well, tabloidy. (If you can suggest specific sources, please do so.) Ditto for bringing those details into the lede. I skimmed the sources in the diff you provided and didn't see anything about him specifically writing reviews, which, again per BLP guidelines, we need to accurately reflect what our reliable sources say. (If you can point out a statement in a specific source, I'll gladly take a look.) If the sources out there are correct, he's certainly involved in some shady "marketing"—scare quotes intentional—but BLP articles require a significantly higher standard when it comes to criticism. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jprw, you seem to be painting with a really wide brush here. I promise I have not recieved any money to edit here and have zippo interest in this person. I can here from the blp board and consider myself neutral, end of disclaimer. As I mentioned above before, we err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. Does that mean we sanitize the article and include no mention of this person writing reviews about himself and whatever else he was up to? Of course not, but we do it in a measured and NPOV way and don't give it undue weight compared to the rest of the bio. I don't think the "controvesey" belongs in the lede, but thats one birds opinion. What do others think?? --Malerooster (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues that I raise should be of concern to all WP editors. It is our duty to strive to ensure that the integrity of Wikipedia is not compromised, and to take all necessary corrective measures to rectify matters when it has been established that it has. Proof that the subject has paid WP editors to sanitise this article can be found here [2]. I welcome other editors' suggestions on how best to deal with this matter (I also confess that I am not entirely sure what the official procedure is for addressing issues like this and would also welcome other editors' advice on this). Jprw (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing violates our conflict of interest policies, is grounds for blocks and bans, and may even be illegal in some areas. If you believe some editors are being paid, it would probably be best to bring this to the conflict of interest noticeboard along with your proof. A screenshot from Facebook isn't going to cut it, though, as that that's not considered a reliable source for articles or for proving guilt of paid editing. Woodroar (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Woodroar, paid editing doesn't always have to be a COI, not that I am a fan of it or have ever been paid to edit, though I would take somebodies $ in a flash if offered :). --Malerooster (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I was using "paid editing" as shorthand for "being paid to push an agenda on Wikipedia", something the OP is suggesting, and I (obviously) should have been more clear. The reward board is a more neutral example of paid editing. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding Leather in the real world – so conspicuously absent from his WP page, now to a laughable degree – rumbles on...[3] Jprw (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reliable sources

[edit]

I have removed the reference given concerning the Press Complaints Commission ruling as it was a blog, so I believe is not considered a reliable source - please let me know if my interpretation of this is incorrect. However, as I can see others wish to have the information included, I have left it in the article marked with a citation needed tag. I did spend quite some time searching the PCC website to find the adjudication, but it does not appear - as yet - to be listed. Obviously, once the PCC make it public, that can then be used as a reference. Hopefully this will give an acceptable compromise until it can be reliably sourced? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have since removed it as I cannot locate it in any source that is reliable. Also, the paragraph it is located in is about an article Cohen wrote accussing Leather of someting. If there was a complaint about Cohen and if he was "investigated," then this information would belong in HIS article. The only exception I would see is if there is a source stating the Leather made the complaint. As teh complaint does not involve Leather, it doesn't belong. --BookLoverBrit (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing editorial standards

[edit]

What a magnificent enterprise in digital marketing this Wikipedia entry is. Less than a year after Mr Leather was featured in half the UK press - Guardian, Observer, Telegraph, Paid Content, Bookseller, Spectator (none of which it appears below are suitable sources) - for sockpuppetry and abusive online behaviour there's not a single reference to the disquieting affair on this page - just long lists of awards and latest releases. I don't suppose there's any point changing anything here as, within a day or two, it'll all be sanded back to resemble a promotional website once again. It's a shame to see Wikipedia, such an admirable project, exploited so brazenly for an individual's commercial advantage.

I'll have a go at trying to make it more accurate again - and before any paid shill tries to claim that the mountain of articles about Leather aren't reliable enough, I'd like to draw their attention to WP's policy on the verifiability of newspaper and magazine blogs i.e. they're perfectly acceptable if the person writing them is a professional. If the shills strike again, I'll have no option but to report this mess of a page.Truthteller88 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the section in question should be reinstated, though in all probability A Certain Editor will no doubt drop by and delete it in short order without providing any credible reason. Salmanazar (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The shill has returned - keeps going on about "consensus", even though at least one editor has only edited Leather's page and the page of Jeremy Duns, the man who first exposed Leather as a fraud - and I've filed my report.Truthteller88 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Truthteller88: Please be more careful when referring to other editors. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my last comment, but my point still stands - people with an agenda are the bane of WP, and this page is a perfect example. As certain editors insist that the sources aren't reliable, I would like to once again remind them that [blogs written by acknowledged professionals are considered verifiable] and the sources linked have been used on two different Wikipedia articles and yet they're not good enough for Mr. leather's article.[[Truthteller88 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian op-ed is something other editors are going to object to. But there are alternatives that won't be vulnerable per WP:RS: [4], [5], and [6], for starters. This aspect of Leather's activities obviously merits coverage in our article on him; there is ample sourcing that meets WP:RS enabling us to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purely looking at this page and the article it would seem that consensus was that the sockpuppeting and marketing ploys should be mentioned yet there is nothing in the article about them at all. There seem to be a number of sources which even quote Leather directly. disclaimer : I don't read Leather, neither a fan nor not - just not my genre. I have no skin in this game other than Wikipedia.-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 15:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here after being given one of Leather's Spider Shepherd books it struck me that more than half of the "Writing career" section was taken up with a social media marketing kerfuffle. this seems like WP:Recentism when the author's career apparently goes back to 1988, long before internet social media existed. I have moved it down to its own section where it looks less like undue weight is being given.Charles (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stephen Leather. 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:

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) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Leather&oldid=1203527293"