Talk:Nicholas Lezard

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism

How old is Nicholas Lézard. What is his year of birth? ixo (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote Nicholas Lezard posted on Facebook, as cited by The Canary, is as follows:

"I'd crowdfund an assassination plot were it not for the ACTUAL FACT that there is a detail of MI5 agents tailing him, on the direct instructions of Tory HQ, making sure nothing bad happens to Corbyn, and that he stays head of the Party for as long as possible, which, given his miserable lifestyle, is going to be for fucking years."

A bad joke, rather than a threat against Corbyn, and not at all notable. The Canary website does not meet with policy as outlined in

How do you know that it was a joke? Little Professor (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lezard has apologised on twitter and said the comments were meant to be "satirical". Presumably so were John McDonnell|'s "assassinate Thatcher" comments in 2010. Still no RS coverage about the effectively private comments by Lezard, unlike those made publicly by McDonnell. He also apologised. And for comments about the IRA. (Typos corrected above.) Philip Cross (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backpedalling and claiming offensive/threatening statements were just satirical doesn't seem to stop inclusion of those remarks elsewhere on Wiki. As you've linked to above, John McDonnell's statement about assassinating Thatcher is included in his article, even though he later claimed it was just a joke. And Donald Trump's statement about Hillary Clinton being the "founder of ISIS" is included

here even though again he later claimed he was just being sarcastic. In reverse, Thangam Debbonaire

's article contains a section about a random twitter user telling her to "get in the sea" (a reference to a well known meme) which she interpreted as a death threat - the author of the tweet subsequently apologised and explained it was a meme and not a threat, yet it is still notable.

An assassination threat is in itself notable, even if the subject subsequently apologises and claims it was a joke.

Also the statement was made on a public Facebook page, so not "effectively private."

The whole "reliable sources" policy is a subjective minefield as you know so I won't get in to that, other than to state that

The Canary's wiki entry notes that it has a larger readership than the Spectator, and it has been accepted as a news outlet by other sources[1]; in addition Media Lens

also had coverage, including of the official response from the managing editor of the Guardian explaining that Nicholas Lezard's comments were "completely unacceptable. He accepts that his behaviour was ill-judged and inappropriate"

I think you're wrong here, Phil. I won't revert your changes but would ask you to reconsider Little Professor (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Philip hasn't responded to what seems to be some very fair criticism would anyone mind if I reverted his changes? 84.13.151.229 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why talk about Nicholas Lezard, doesn't he talk about himself enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.109.173 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section introduces the catalyst for whatever controversy apparently ensued, then fails entirely to give any details of said controversy. This not unnaturally raises the question of whether, no controversy having apparently arisen (given the omission of any details supporting the notion that there HAD been any kind of controversy), there is any necessity for a 'controversy' section, save in the eyes of the type of ardent Corbyn supporter who wants any minor transgression against him noted for posterity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.122.172 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]