Talk:William Liley

Liley's Suicide

Liley's suicide is documented in Casper's book.

[[User: Calibanu] 11:58, 15 April 2006.

It was made public information by the Coroner and consequently was publicized in newspapers throughout New Zealand. It was, and is, no secret. As an atheist, Sir William had no superstitious scruples about suicide. Please don't refer to my father as "Liley". His abbreviated title was, and is, Sir William, and you are being rude. Silverfern 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If Silverfern is herself a member of the New Zealand pressure groups Voice for Life or Right to Life New Zealand, as her father was, then could she acknowledge that and therefore declare her confict of interest in her vandalism of this entry? [User Calibanu] 11.20, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not and never have been a member of any anti-abortion group in New Zealand. I do not share my father's views on abortion. I corrected, rather than vandalized, a grossly misleading and denigrating article. My mother, Lady Liley, Sir William's widow, described Monica Casper's book to me as "appalling". I do not who you are, Calibanu, but you are not a member of Sir William's immediate family. I am. My father was an atheist and would have been offended to be described as religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfern (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Liley's Religious Beliefs

...as are his religious beliefs...

User: Calibanu 13.40, 11 November 2006

As Sir William's third daughter, I can assure you that he was an atheist. His widow, my mother, can confirm the same. Casper is no relation to the Liley family.

Furthermore Casper's attitude towards Sir William is suspect, because in her book she refers to him as "Dr. William Liley" rather than by his correct title of "Professor Sir William Liley". Thus, she discourteously ignores both his status as a Professor and as a Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George.

Also, would Calibanu please note that it is discourteous and incorrect to refer to a knight as "[surname]" rather than "Sir [ preferred given name]". Silverfern 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Monica Casper's work was published by a reputable academic source, and it is careful to cite its source materials in a detailed bibliographical and reference section. As such, it constitutes an objective reference compared to mere uncorroborated and subjective allegations to the contrary [User Calibanu] 11.24, 12 September 2007.

My source is my own memories of my father and more significantly, communications with my mother, Sir William's widow. She told me from she first met him at Otago medical school, he was always an atheist, and that she considers Casper's book to be "appalling". She is still alive, as are all my siblings. Why don't you contact her yourself, rather than reading a book by someone who never met him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfern (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Liley's first name

Sir William's first name was Albert. The given names of his father, my paternal grandfather, were Albert Harvey. It is extremely surprising to me that anyone would presume to write a Wikipedia article about my father yet not bother to get his first name, his religious affiliation or lack thereof, or the correct way of referring to him and recognizing his knighthood, correct. It suggests a very presumptuous and arrogant personality. Silverfern 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Monica Casper's books

Dr. Margaret, Lady Liley, has personally stated to me that Monica Casper's writings on the subject of Sir William are "appalling" and that she is disgusted by them. They should NOT be regarded as accurate or appropriate references on the subject of Sir William Liley. Silverfern 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

No sentence in a wikipedia article should begin with "It is a great pity...". This article is entirely too flowery and congratulatory, not to mention slanted towards the pro-life point of view. It still needs more work, I will come back to it if I have time. Joie de Vivre 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All reference to the abortion debate could be removed. It was a very small aspect of his work. (Silverfern 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I find the changes to this entry amount to censorship. It is recorded fact that Liley was the first president of the New Zealand anti-abortion group SPUC (Society for Protection of the Unborn Child), along with my documentation of past tributes to his work from that movement. This is an unsatisfactory situation, and I wish to complain about it. User Calibanu 11.43, 26 June 2007

If neccessary, Silverfern should be barred from any further Wikipedia article interference, given the objections that I have raised about her conduct above. Not to do so would be to compromise contribution quality and succumb to ideologically driven censorship related to content. [User Calibanu] 11.27. 12 September 2007.

Sir William's participation in SPUC is irrelevant to his life's work. It was not the reason he was distinguished and honored. It appears that Calibanu is the ideologically-driven contributor, but he or she has not even bothered to contact the best authority on Sir William, Sir William's widow. Perhaps Calibanu knows that Lady Liley would refuse to talk to him/her? If Calibanu really wants to add information about SPUC to Wikipedia, why not on a page dedicated to that purpose, rather than on a page about Sir William? It appears that Calibanu's feelings about Sir William are hostile and spiteful. He or she is clearly a biased and hostile source and as such, entirely unsuitable as a biographer of Sir William. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfern (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Silverfern's latest outburst is what one would expect. Neutral and objective biographical accounts are supposed to comprehensively record details. If Sir William Liley's anti-abortion activism was indeed irrelevant to his life, then why does one US anti-abortion organisation, the American Life League, still distribute a series of interviews with him, and other anti-abortionists, that is available online today? Again, I request that Silverfern is permanently blocked from any further contributions to Wikipedia, especially when it comes to any further vandalism conducted against this entry. Calibanu (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

This reference can be found at: R.Sassone (ed), Sir William Liley and Professor Jerome Lejeune: The Tiniest Humans: Stafford, Virginia: American Life League: 1977: http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10152&search=TiniestHumans Calibanu (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu