Talk:Ian Hislop
Ian Hislop (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 23 January 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ian Hislop article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100127093236/http://www.findmypast.com:80/BirthsMarriagesDeaths.jsp to http://www.findmypast.com/BirthsMarriagesDeaths.jsp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101208072251/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/people/profiles/you-ask-the-questions-such-as-ian-hislop-you-look-like-a-gnome-why-do-people-find-you-sexy-717546.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/you-ask-the-questions-such-as-ian-hislop-you-look-like-a-gnome-why-do-people-find-you-sexy-717546.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129111411/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4958 to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4958
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121205160358/http://www.churchtimes.co.uk:80/content.asp?id=81265 to http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=81265
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
- 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. —
- Second ok, first ok but useless. Third and fourth no good. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ian Hislop/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think the quote about Gervais' quip; "What does he know the little pug-faced cunt?" is taken out of context here, as it was a response to Hislop calling Gervais' stand up "rude and offensive", and therefore an obvious punchline to a joke, rather than a mere crude insult. Anybody agree? |
Last edited at 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Gervais is completely up himself, so who knows? 2A00:23C5:6787:1000:990D:8C27:2873:734F (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Children
I see little relevance in identifying (a) the London Borough in which his children were born or (b) the fact that they both studied at Oxford. PDAWSON3 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)PDAWSON3
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ian Hislop. 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:
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to https://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=960 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911094148/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/h/7301/Ian+David.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/h/7301/Ian+David.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 15:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sentence in Sonia Sutcliffe article
The Sonia Sutcliffe reads "According to an interview with Cherwell magazine, he had in fact expected to be imprisoned", citing this source. Ignoring the fact he doesn't appear to have actually said it in the interview, is there any truth to it? Why would Hislop be prepared to go to prison when it was a libel case? Furthermore it was a libel case against Private Eye not him personally. Posting this here with a link on that article's talk page, as this page seems more likely to get a reply, as I believe the sentence should be removed. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:50E:5AA8:D5BD:B89B (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
After some investigating it appears the toothbrush anecdote was an unrelated contempt of court case, according to an interview with his wife. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:50E:5AA8:D5BD:B89B (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Categories - moved from other talk pages
For context: extracts from previous discussion - moved from User talk:Mathsci, where the full comments [which deal with other matters too] may be found.
|
---|
If you disagree about my clean-up, you're free to object to it (if there are valid reasons: reading noping}}!!) not including me in the discussion? Cheers (if somewhat less jovial than usual), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC) ]
|
- Hi @Mathsci, and thanks for your message.
- Per should not editwar.
- There is a tension here between guidance and established practice. On one hand, WP:COPDEFsuggest caution in categorising by non-core attributes. On the other hand, established practice involves much more intensive categorisation of people, such as that on Ian Hislop
- I don't think that these issues can be easily resolved. For example the alumni/people-educated-at categories are very rarely the first thing we think of a person, and if WP:COPDEFwas applied very strictly, then those categories would be emptied, which amounts to a form of deletion. However, I think it is very unlikely that such categories would be deleted at CFD, so emptying them would not reflect consensus.
- Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is unacceptable WP:FORUMSHOP. Mathsci, there was a discussion on your talk page, which you've recently blanked (and where you did not answer to my questions), with edit summary "read". I find it unhelpful that you come here to continue this without leaving me a notice (and that I must thus thank BHG for giving me a ping); and without addressing any of my arguments (such as those BHG also points out). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)]
- @RandomCanadian & @Mathsci: please discuss this on the article's talk page ... and until there is a consensus, please retain the status quo ante. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Renewed discussion
Moved from BHG's talk to avoid having the discussion on three separate pages... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you object to Oculi (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)]
- @Oculi: That's 13 years ago; and most of the arguments would probably not mean anything by today's standards. Besides the alumni categories (which are clearly not-defining, however you put it), there's also "British people of Jersey descent"; "British people of Scottish descent"; and "British Anglicans". The first two are not defining characteristics (the national origin of this subject's parents do not seem to have much if any influence on his claim to fame - he was born in Wales, fwiw: probably another instance of a cat-tree that needs to be trimmed/deleted too); and the final one, while it gets slightly more than a passing mention in the article (and is much more of a viable category than the others), is still not something that is "commonly and consistently" used by sources to refer to this subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)]
- The additional problem of alumni cats is that, unlike the false equivalence you are making with nationality and biographical dates, is that they are unlikely to be plausible search terms (WP:DEFCAT really makes me think of categories more as "keywords" than anything else, and well, "British journalists" is a plausible keyword to describe someone), and they are too frequently entirely unsourced and/or not even mentioned in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)]
- @