Talk:Graham McCann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dubious thread on notability

Alas - is not notable as an author. Gets mentioned a total of once in the NYT:

Mr. McCann is a talented writer, but his prose sometimes reaches the kind of critical density that Mr. Allen has hilariously parodied, to wit: 'Jokes are obliged to compete in the market-place of pleasures associated with laughter, and for that reason their materials must be less privileged, less personally limited, and their ludicrous context must be wider than obtains in daily extemporaneous provocations to laughter.'

Thus, this stub seems to be deletable. Collect (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You really should read up on what makes an article notable before you take what I think is a rather sob-optimal step. Was the NYT the extent of your search? (And at least one review by them should flag up at least a minor level if notability) try a basic Google search, from which several reliable sources can be seen on the first results page. To also try and claim in the PROD that he has only written two books when the incomplete page contains five seems disingenuous in the least. I'll do five minutes digging to fill this out a little more, which is what you should have done before slapping a rather lazy PROD tag on there. – SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tell me when and where McCann was born? Raised? Educated? Anything actually biographical about the 29 year old entertainment writer? I assure you that my record about AfDs is that I generally oppose deletion. In this case, I found essentially zilch personally about the person, and yes - I did a lot more than single NYT search. When the PROD was placed - only the two were mentioned in the "article." Do you realize quite how many books a year are issued on "entertainment" topics? The concept of a "biography" is to inform readers about the subject of the biography. Sorry. Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I do have some of that information, but I'm always wary of what is essentially trivia in a BLP article. His notability has feck all to do with birth or education, and more to do with his 13 published biographical works, let alone his appearances on television discussing the topics he's written on. If you had an iota of bloody patience and allowed the research I said I'd do, we could all have avoided the stupidity of a petulant AfD filing. – SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Um -- a single line article with zero reliable sources affirming notability of the person is a ripe candidate for AfD. Why do you call this "petulant"? Collect (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

AfDs should never be filed based on the state of the article at the time, but on the notability of the subject. The list of sources gathered posted at the AfD in ten minutes and on a dodgy mobile signal (let alone the 13 published works we have, many of which are widely used as supporting sources in FAs and GAs) are more than enough evidence of notability. – SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm Graham McCann, and I don't see any point to this entry, I don't want it, I don't encourage it and it's not even accurate. Please DO delete it and give me some privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE respond to me? Why on earth have you made this entry, this badly researched and largely inaccurate entry, in spite of there being no strong justification for doing so? Is it out of boredom or institutionalised compulsion? I've spent all of my adult life avoiding publicity and guarding my privacy. I've wanted my work to be available, yes, and so I've been persuaded to promote it on occasion through conventional ways, but that's all that I've promoted - my work, not me. I doubt that you can understand how deeply I resent this intrusion, and how offensive I find it. But it's profound. I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging.

Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why on earth have you made this entry,? Why? Because you (apparently) have become one of Britain's most reputable biographers and writers on popular culture. You've authored some key books and publications and meet our content guidelines. We write about notable writers here, and we've only included information which is reported elsewhere, do you mean to say that it's all false? If you were deadly serious about not wanting to be known to the public you'd not have tried to make a lot of money out of the public from writing about people as prominent as Cary Grant. You should have thought about that before you decided to write about those prominent people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who hides behind that silly pseudonym of yours, or why you appear so confident about your authority to judge, abuse and order people around, even though, as far as I can see, you're just some volunteer without any known expertise or qualifications, but your presumptuousness is now going too far, and that line above about intentions and money is one gratuitous piece of abuse too far. I'm not sure if your fellow volunteers are embarrassed or amused by your actions as a self-appointed judge and jury of all things and people on here, but they really ought be concerned about quite how out of control you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassed or amused? Without somebody like me here a lot of our articles would soon rot and be taken over by idiots. I can assure you that I'm generally well-supported here, in fact some 50 odd people have recently supported me on something I'm running in October. On the contrary, you ought to be concerned by how pompous and downright rude you are. I'm well-qualified thankyou very much, just not some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author. You're quite a repellant creature aren't you? If you dropped the nastiness and started speaking to people as equals and showing a bit of respect it might be reciprocated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly revealed all the chips on your shoulder here, haven't you. It explains a lot. Hopefully someone beyond your '50odd' friends will soon intervene before you give them all a bad name.92.23.93.50 (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

By all means identify what exactly is false or damaging to you in the article. I agree that in terms of a biography it is not great, but we only basically say you were a lecturer and what you've written. If it is you Graham, you're notable on weight of your publications, and an author I have much enjoyed reading on several occasions, so if this is you it's pretty disappointing. If we gave away personal information about where you live, your family, or making claims that you'd had an affair with Margaret Thatcher or something I could understand more why you might be deeply offended.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit late to change your tone, welcome though it is. Besides, I would've thought you would have been only too pleased to see the back of an insubstantial article on "some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university". I'd hope that you, as someone who takes pride in researching and writing entries in a thorough and disciplined way, would regard the article in question as, at best, 'prematurely published'. It was put up there with only the sketchiest knowledge of me or my writing and just left to fish for information. I don't really think most writers on here, who take pride in how they do things as well as in what they do, yourself included, would countenance that. Even ignoring the 'notability' question, purely on information and research, I find all of the 'why's he upset' responses disingenuous. The reaction strikes me more as a case of standing up to Wikipedia as a community rather than simply taking this one article on its own terms. I get that. Loyalty to colleagues is admirable up to a point. But beyond that point it looks as if no one outside of that community matters. The doors are slammed in one's face and one is told to 'shut up'. I'd like to think, in a cool hour, it would be easier to sympathise with this outsider's point of view, and feelings. (And although I've been asked repeatedly to 'prove' I'm me, I still haven't been shown how to do that. I will if somebody tells me how, although I'm not sure what the point would be. I don't want to be sneered at and insulted and have my motives for writing books impugned via email as well as on here.)92.23.93.50 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I still think though that this is you Collect, the recent sarcastic response with " '50odd'" was exactly the tone of the response to the "shaming" thing over the Cary Grant article. It's exactly the sort of thing you'd say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I was actually having a conversation with someone else before that was closed. That's one of the reasons why it's so exasperating on here - there are multiple interventions with no apparent co-ordination. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad at least you can see that I am one "who takes pride in researching and writing entries in a thorough and disciplined way" . I didn't start picking on you, I stated the case as to why it was considered acceptable content. It was the tone of your comments which prompted that response. I have family who studied at Cambridge and Oxford, as well as people I know and respect on here, but I was starting to picture a lordly professor thinking he was speaking to vermin. Perhaps I was a little harsh with telling you to shut up, but we often get people ranting on about articles on talk pages here and attacking the editors and we're sick of it, given that we're all volunteers here. And to me it looks like you were put up to this by an editor who has been campaigning to get this deleted... It's not so much sticking up for wikipedia as a community, as defending articles which we believe meet notability requirements. Graham McCann in my opinion is a notable author, who has written some excellent biographies which are staples in research on people like Grant and John Le Mesurier (which we promoted to Featured Article status). We're trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia so to not have an article on McCann, we see it as poorer off. Biographical coverage of McCann is sketchy, that's not our fault, but reflective of what is covered in sources. This article stems from the Cary Grant article which I researched from a very poor state months ago into something which I think is a reasonable summary. The McCann book was one of the more decent biographies used for that and was a surprising red link in the article, and somebody thought it worth starting, and I agree with it. It came from "Grant's biographer Graham McCann mentions that Maureen Donaldson, a lover of Grant in the 1970s, claimed in her book that his mother "did not know how to give affection and did not know how to receive it either." at the beginning of the Grant article. Geoffrey Wansell is still a red link and I would guess that he would also likely meet requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that the contempt shown on the delete page is a sign of who provoked whom. Anyway, I really don't understand this strange game of talking to me as if I'm not who I say I am, and not explaining how I can prove who I say I am, it's not helping at all. The 'red link' thing is yet another sign of the fact that people inside Wikipedia assume people outside know all about the private language. I have no idea what any of that means.

As to the errors and misleading comments in the article, I keep being told that these will be amended but no one seems to do so, and as I'm in dispute about it I shouldn't be expected to do so myself. A writer who genuinely wants to have an accurate article would not be so incredibly defensive about such things. I don't know who is the writer in this case but there's an obduracy there that would anger and frustrate anyone in my position. Take just one tiny example: the claim that I've written numerous articles on politics and culture for the Daily Mail. I haven't. Where's the evidence to the contrary? There's a footnote citing one article. I can't recall writing more than two, and neither was on politics. I've written quite a few for other publications, including the Guardian. There's no empirical way that the Mail would ever end up being regarded as the right one to single out in that way. I'm not trying to provoke anyone but I cannot see why something riddled with these sloppy and sometimes inexplicable errors and assertions is not drafted and re-drafted before publication. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Start a new section at the bottom of the page. Bullet the list with * and explain exactly what you think are errors and problems with this and it is more likely that it will get sorted out. But there's little chance that the article will be deleted because of the sheer number of notable publications and writing work. And it's also difficult to take the desire for privacy seriously when you have your own website and a reasonable length biography on in. Anybody can claim to be anybody on the Internet, and this was recently attempted to be deleted by a User:Collect, so we're naturally suspicious and dubious of this. I can increasingly see though that there's a good chance that this is you, especially as your IP is in the Cambridge area. Re:Red link - articles are linked with a [[]]. When we have the article it shows up blue, when we don't it shows up red.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This source is of a Daily Mail article written by you, the writer here is just going by what the source states. Was that a one-off then? I know if I had a biography on here I'd probably not want to be associated with that rag!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well exactly! And how is 'going by what the source states' giving the writer the idea to claim I've written 'numerous' articles on politics and culture' for the Daily Mail?? The source 'states' one article.92.23.93.50 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You really have a very contentious and overly rigid idea of publicity. Many people have personal websites, it doesn't mean they're all making some Faustian deal with fame. It doesn't mean that they are giving up all their rights to any control over their lives. I have a website for my books, not me, mainly so that there's one link for them if someone is seeking them out. The 'reasonable length biography' of which you speak merely lists my books and a few publications, and is evidently not of sufficiently reasonable length to counter your previous observation that any biographical details are 'sketchy'. I don't immerse myself in social media, I don't tweet, which I would if I was the fame hungry money grabber you depict me as.

And this 'you've gone on television a handful of times so therefore you've courted publicity' argument is really crude and simplistic. There is a fairly clear distinction between those who go on television at the request of specific programme makers to supply specific information about specific subjects (rather than about themselves), and those who go on to project themselves as themselves. One can do the former and still try, and make a case for, withdrawing immediately again and keeping one's private life to oneself, while one can do the latter and actively embrace all of the further opportunities for self-promotion that follow. Not everyone who occasionally has done a tiny bit of TV is desperate for publicity.

I've turned down many invitations to appear because I hate doing it passionately - as should be discernible from seeing my discomfort. It was only when my refusal prompted certain producers to hire someone else to read my work and then present it as their own that I reluctantly agreed to certain appearances because, as should be clear on here, I don't like my work being misrepresented. If someone wants to patronise and insult and claim they know other people's motives better than they do themselves, then they clearly don't require any encouragement to go on doing so, but I'm sure many mature and fair-minded people will see a difference, even if they disagree about the extent of that difference, and would certainly not resort to this kind of gratuitous abuse. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to help you and constructively find a way to improve this. If you're going to continue to be hostile then I'm done here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Good, thank you. Things like the biography/website digs I'm entitled to defend myself against, but I'll be genuinely grateful to anyone on here who wants to deal with this constructively.92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request

SECOND DELETE REQUEST: I've been asked to post this in connection with the delete nomination dated 2 August.

I am the subject of the article and I do not believe that I am any kind of public figure, or at least not one who is of anything like sufficient prominence to justify an article about me.

This article has infringed on my privacy. I am not a current writer, I am not seeking publicity of any kind, I want to live my life in private. Perhaps this is a culture in which such a desire has come to be seen as unusual, but I can assure you that it is sincere. I find this article an unnecessary and profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy, actively creating or increasing my public profile against my wishes.

Second: It is a poorly researched article that provides only a partial, imbalanced and in places, in my view, strangely misleading impression of my past work. The list of my published output, for example, is strikingly incomplete. What is mentioned is questionably imbalanced: for example, two of my oldest books lead to negative critical quotes about my research and judgement; the vast majority of reviews I've ever had make a point of praising my research and most have been admiring of my judgement, and yet none of these quotes have been included even as balance, even though the one book that IS acknowledged as being 'praised,' and attracted many of such positive critical comments, is accompanied by no such quotes. That's unrepresentative. After dwelling, for some peculiar reason, on my four earliest books from the last century, the author covers the rest in the most superficial way, again providing an extremely dubious and skewed impression of a career. He also mentions that, for my book on Dad's Army, I 'conducted numerous interviews with cast members' - well, yes I did, but this implies that I didn't 'conduct numerous interviews' for my other books, which I did. That's an odd thing to do, and it's misleading, too. You can't claim my work deserves inclusion and then treat it in such a capricious manner.

There are many other signs of ignorance and poor research. I have not, for example, written 'numerous articles' on any subject for the Daily Mail. As far as I recall I've written about a couple for that paper in my entire life. I've written numerous ones for certain other papers - which are not noted. That's misleading. The author appears not to know the period in which I wrote for the Financial Times - these are all things that one is supposed to ascertain and double check BEFORE publishing something on someone - you don'y just go clodhopping over a living person's past career.

Then there's my academic work. Because the only detail the author appears to know about (apart from my - unspecified - period as a Lecturer) is my past work for the University of Cambridge's 'summer extension programme' (not that I've ever heard it referred to as that), that's all he's included. It's even wrong to claim that this particular work is ongoing - it isn't. It's something I consider as an offer from time to time. It's wrong to describe it as current. Then there's absolutely no further detail on a long academic career - no positions other than a fellowship (there were many), no research details, no academic output. This, again, is a strikingly incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging section.

I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute. Surely, in a cool hour, you can sit back, reflect, and appreciate that any claim to my supposed 'relevance' is so contentious that, considered on its own and also in relation to the great distress it's causing me, and will continue to cause me, it's not worth keeping it. I haven't seen any sign of anyone at Wikipedia who is able or willing to imagine the issue from an outsider's point of view. My point of view. I hope someone will now do this. This has caused me so much hurt, so needlessly, for such a trivial, insubstantial and patently unimpressive article. Please drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to that dash-dash signature thing, so here you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

WOW ! an unique & very interesting case http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4307480/Writers-reveal-Wikipedia-s-insidious-Kafkaesque-control.html
Welcome to the Wikipedia world, Mr. Graham --Ne0 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

TV work

He's also appeared on TV and acted as a consultant to programme makers. Two of these are listed at the BFI, but I've seen him in other work too, which should be findable somewhere. (Possibly in the Heroes of Comedy on LeMes, I seem to remember. – SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

His work as a consultant is likely worth citing, but I don't think his appearances on TV as an expert are, any more than his having written a lot of newspaper articles. These have come to be "common doddle" as my grandfather used to say, for people who've published in any field - both the papers and the radio and TV are voracious. On the other hand - tucking this in here rather than making a new section - his personal bio says he was TV critic for the Financial Times; that would be worth including if it can be independently cited, even with a couple of bylined articles, and I find articles by him in FT being cited, but they seem to date to 2003 and the newspaper's own online archive peters out. Is there anything in Questia or Highbeam that preserves the byline? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed the TV work to just that of consultant, and added the FT info. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

what I have learnt

Mr. McCann is not writing dissertations about notable people - he is relating what he learns in conversations with others, not "interviews" as done by a police officer, but as in conversations with friends. He is not seeking to "give readers 1000 facts", but is trying to make readers feel they personally know the people involved.

His job is to write popular books about popular people, and, as such, is part of a very good and admirable group of authors.

His job is not to "fact check every word told him in conversation", but to convey to readers how talking with others feels. This is not "sociology" and has exceedingly little to do with "political history."

One of Wikipedia's chief failings is the belief that anything published by a "reliable publisher" has specifically been "fact checked" and is thus a "reliable source" for any claims made therein. One does not "fact check" conversations with a friend and expect that to help tell a story which people wish to read.

More than anything else, people want to feel they know the person in a biography as though he or she were a next-door neighbor. And to that end, I feel Mr. McCann (whom I would likely love to converse with) is ill-served here. Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM – SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Um -- yet your insist on "DUBIOUS" in a section title here. Pray tell, in what way am I advocating, advertising or promoting anything whatsoever here in my post? In fact, I am simply concurring with the person who is the subject of this biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No. 2, "Opinion pieces". Your edit is not aimed at any constructive steps toward improving the article, it's just another bitch-fest for you. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and do something useful. – SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First - WP:AGF. Second - note that I apparently agree with the real living person who is the topic of the BLP. Third - note that my positions here are in accord with non-negotiable policy. As for saying that following WP:BLP is a "bitch-fest" - I fear you really should have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far, and your ongoing comments show a,lack of constructive approach. Secondly, your initial comment wasn't anything to do with BLP; it was, just moaning for the sake of it. DROPTHESTICK is a sensible course of action for you to take. I'm done here: I have little desire to continue any further waste of time and effort with you. – SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Notability has nothing to do with whether or not someone's books are high-brow academic works; IMO that's clearer even than the issue you raised in connection with the first AfD, whether there is material to write a well-sourced biography as opposed to a summary of the subject's work/career. A case can be made that lack of biographical information should preclude our having an article on a person, although I disagree and from my check of the notability guidelines at the time, so does policy. But the former is confusing our standards with reliable sources with those for notability, and I can't see any basis for it in policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the person has zilch biographical information to speak of online. That the "article" is substantially a list of books only. And the person himself seeks removal of the BLP. What we are left with is, at best List of books by Graham McCann with reviews. Past practice has been to allow deletion of BLPs in cases where there is a reasonable question of notability and the person has requested such deletion. Collect (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What you COULD do is just remove this appalling badly researched, almost non-researched, article. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny how you don't have the decency to discuss this with the very person who is the undeserved subject of your ill-informed article. I guess, in your astonishing arrogance, you think you know better than I do about myself. What a disgrace you are.92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you could retain a certain level of civility by not insulting others, that would be so much better. I had not seen your comments until the last insulting one you posted. To explain: I am just one of several editors that has worked on this article. if you are who you say you are (and you would best to identify yourself at the OTRS facility to get yourself on a decent footing), then welcome, and thank you for providing us with some excellent and enjoyable works. I have several of them, and not only have they been enjoyable reading, they have proved most useful in expanding some of our articles ( I think we may even have had brief email contact on one of them a few years ago).

If there are any errors in what is shown on our article (which is entirely possible) they will have been picked up from the third party sources used. If you wish to challenge any of them on a factual basis (for example, wrong date of birth, you no longer work at a particular institution, etc) the best way is to take it up with the OTRS team, who will be able to guide you through the steps to take. Without that, we, the editing community, have no idea that you are actually who you say you are (although we work on the basis of assuming good faith in our dealings with others, that can only go so far, as I am sure you can understand. Best wishes - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the insulting one. You are invading my privacy and your arrogance appears to know no bounds. Take that fatuous reply: "If there are any errors in what is shown on our article (which is entirely possible) they will have been picked up from the third party sources used." You really think this toytown encyclopedia is above criticism, don't you? I should know my own damned life and career! Who the hell do you think you are? You don't stick an article online and then hope someone who knows what they're doing will correct it and expand it. You think I teach where you say I teach? No, not now, but you won't remove it. You think I still write? No, I don't, but you still state that I'm a 'full time writer'. Why on earth are you invading the privacy of someone who is not well-known, does not crave publicity and whom you clearly don't know? This is a huge cause of distress to me and you act like some pompous guardian of absolute truth. Take the article down, learn how to do research and move on.

92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave you with the only advice I can: take this up with the OTRS team who will be able to help you, as I obviously cannot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried that. What one gets is a purfunctory invitation to dive down the Wikipedia rabbit hole via a series of links that lead nowhere constructive (presumably in the hope that one will give up and leave the self-appointed arbiters of relevance in peace), then patronising offers to allow me to provide the substance for my own unwanted article, and then, that tried and trusted meek exit line, 'We're only volunteers'. I wonder how many other people this disgraceful enterprise drives to despair. Far too many, I suspect. Maybe someone should have a go at 'verifying' it. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're really Graham McCann, prove it. Otherwise shut up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell me how and I will. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"Otherwise shut up" - I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows how his volunteers behave on here? I doubt he's proud. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

We Don't feed the trolls. You should read WP:Civil and implement it. Your approach has not helped your cause or credibility. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Distressing material

OK Mr. Ip. AKA Graham, as you didn't take the hint, list exactly what you find problematic with the article below, what exactly you find distressing or false and the article can be tweaked if necessary. I know you mentioned not contributing to the Daily Mail but your own biography on your site says so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Here he is "not contributing" to the Daily Mail about his Wikipedia article featuring you as a "spectacularly arrogant fellow". 80.235.147.186 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

His website is now password protected as I just found out.--PremKudva^Talk 10:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I merely informed the diva that he couldn't just make demands like that on wikipedia, when he is so obviously considered one of the best known biographers in the UK. If he had a problem with identity or intrusion why didn't he use a pseudonym and detatch himself entirely? He seems happy being Graham McCann and appearing on TV to promote his books when it pleases him. The article certainly does not pry into his personal life or cite text which isn't already written in his book publishers or any other sites. We simply relay what has been stated elsewhere. I was the one who tried to help him correct the article and iron out issues. In return, McCan came across as extremely rude and bitter, throwing his weight around. "Apparently deleting errors is not considered ‘constructive’ by Wikipedia." is a blatant untruth as I made an effort to try to fully resolve any inaccuracies. That the Daily Mail would publish such a silly article based on nothing but his own contempt for policy on wikipedia says it all. It was banned as a source several weeks ago on here and removed from thousands of articles for a good reason. I had nothing to do with the banning of it as a source, but if they choose to publish an attack "revenge" article like this it's extremely poor journalism. "My personal case is, of course, a trivial one, and I am well aware of the irony in going public about wanting to remain private, but there is a much bigger aspect to this issue that compelled me to contribute to this debate. Wikipedia, as it is currently run, is simply and literally out of control, and a potential menace to all kinds of institutions and individuals" is also laughable as if he really knew what went on it's generally those institutions and people themselves that are a menace to the site in tampering with content to promote themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have read all the exchanges on this. I must say, if we go back to the very start, I think McCann certainly had a point on 24 July 2016 when he said he would prefer his biography not to be included on Wikipedia, especially as it contained inaccuracies. He later made a very direct request to have the article deleted but it was still maintained. Refusal to accept his numerous interventions on the talk page as his own was obviously not helpful and annoyed him further. Maybe our policy of basing BLPs on secondary sources alone in such cases should be re-examined. I'm not sure whether the article should now be maintained or not but I do think we should pay more respect to people who complain about their biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. People who want to hide bad news (not that McCann was trying to do that) about themselves are free to censor WP? I think it was right that his article was kept for some fairly obvious reasons, including the fact that he is a notable individual. The claim of trying to remain out of the public eye is an odd one, given the lengthy interview and photograph in the Daily Mail. It may "only" be a writer here that requests the deletion of his article, but what if it's a major politician? - The Bounder (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ipigott and disagree with The Bounder. First, all living individuals deserve to be treated with more patience and sensitivity than I think has been afforded Mr McCann, especially since not everyone is familiar with WP's bureaucratic policies (and nor should they be expected to). Second, there is a distinction between individuals who are unquestioningly notable and those whose notability is at least debated (as in this case). This all points to a wider issue of legal privacy which is dealt with very differently in different jurisdictions. In the UK (where MrMcann is based), all individuals (no matter how famous) have certain legal rights to a private and family life and in 2018 these will be strengthened by an enforceable right to be forgotten. WP editors should remember that they do not have any legal authority or popular mandate to prejudice those human rights which have been debated and enacted through lawful democratic means. VeritasCurat (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am obviously not talking about how McCann has been treated: we have not treated him at all well, but I see that two AfD discussions ended up with a "Keep" result, rightly, I think. There are no,"human rights" in question (whatever they are) and, putting it in perspective, please remember that the information we show in all our articles is a mirror of what's is already in the public domain, including material that has come from the subject's own website. As for the 'right to be forgotten', we shall see how that particular piece of European legislation fares in post-Brexit Britain, but if Mr McCann decides to pull that particular trigger in order to get rid of this rather bland article, it will mean Amazon and other online book sellers will have to remove his publications from their website, and thing like yesterday's Daily Mail article, all his other journalistic writings and any academic works he publishes will expunged from public record too. – The Bounder (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: this isn't by any means a fully fleshed out biography of Graham McCann. It is largely a list of his work. It doesn't give his date of birth in a reliable secondary source, which is a sure sign of WP:GNG problems. In its current form, the article could be deleted without a great loss to Wikipedia, although it has survived two deletion debates in 2016. Is the game worth the candle here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would diasgree that a lack of DoB = GNG problems. Not everyone releases that information into the public domain, and obviously Graham McCann is one of those people (and a smart move too, given the amount of phishing and fraud nowadays). The two AfD discussions came to a consensus, and I do not think it at all appropriate that we consider removing this simply because of the Daily Fail's hissy fit because they're embarrassed about their unreliability. (Any sensible news organisation would rise above it, issue a statement in defence of their standards and audit thir processes to see if they are fit for purpose; it takes a special kind of snowflake organisation to react in such an aggressive way that they attack the other side rather than looking to themselves.) - The Bounder (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised by the two keep !votes in 2016. This article is more like a LinkedIn profile of Graham McCann than a proper biography. He is a successful writer, but the article doesn't say much about him beyond listing what he has done. If the subject made a request through the proper channels for deletion, it wouldn't be the big deal that some people think it is. The current version of the article is on the borderline of satisfying WP:BIO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Then we shall agree to disagree. I think the decision was a correct one, given the widespread coverage of the individual in numerous publications, and his continuing (self-chosen) media appearances in the mainstream press. - The Bounder (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sticking my head in here as one of those who argued for the article to be kept and worked to improve it. McCann's body of work makes him notable. I regret that he feels otherwise, and I regret how he was treated when he citicized it and asked for it to be deleted, and I said then (in the 2nd AfD) that I hoped he would try OTRC again. (I also wish he'd share with us some of the sources he has access to that I didn't, such as other reviews of his work that he mentions.) But I disagree strongly with the view that we should not have an article on someone whose work makes him notable because we lack sources on their life, and with the view that notable people should have their articles removed because they don't want to have an article. We owe it to our readers to have articles on notable topics. We also owe it to McCann and other people (and this extends beyond the living, in my view) to make them good, neutral articles that accurately reflect what reliable sources have, and to treat article subjects (and other people who contact us), kindly. But kindness cannot extend to removing articles on notable people, or people whose vital statistics and private lives haven't been publicised. In fact it's more important for us to keep poorly sourced information about things like when someone was born out of our articles than to worry that we are not including such information in all cases. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the second deletion discussion, an IP editor (who I will assume was indeed Graham McCann) said that the article was a privacy violation. This isn't very convincing if the article was merely listing his publicly available works. The article could do with a lot of improvement, however.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)