Talk:Jeffrey Archer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why so little mention of Monica Coughlan's death??

Removed sympathetic details

Emotive details altered: "hounded" by the press, "tragic" aspect of the trial. Maybe further details need thinking about? I think this account still has a slightly sympathetic slant, particularly in the positive assessment of his novels. Raygirvan Apr 24 2005

Sympathetic? Not how I read this article. It seems to be to be a more-or-less continuous sneering. All sorts of unsourced third-hand cocktail party chat seems to have been recycled and flung backhanded. I may take time later to make it a little more professional. Joffan 19:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While Archer is certainly known to have fabricated from time, the article certainly still seems quite negatively biased to me. I personally enjoy Archer's books, and I see to reason to be nasty about them, or his personal life simply because it is the popular thing to do.

Bookthoughts ext link

Removed this ext link, for the 2nd time. Suggest it is regarded as unsuitable - only has a couple of reviews, each about 4 lines apiece. --OscarTheCattalk 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing it a third time. Reviews are badly worded, eg "Kane And Abel is about to men". Surely there are better reviews of Jeffrey's masterworks? --OscarTheCattalk 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed it a fourth time. Reviews on the site still start with wording such as The book starts with a messanger boy being a millionaire. . Full of typos, spelling mistakes, badly worded, few reviews in number. Is there a compelling case to have such reviews linked from this page? --OscarTheCattalk 11:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Charity

"has raised considerable sums for charities"

I have removed this sentence from the introduction, for several reasons. One, besides a brief aside, this is not really mentioned again, at least not in any great detail. Thus it is an inaccurate summary. Second, it smacks of pro-Archer bias. I have no opinion one way or another, but "has raised considerable sums for charities" seems like an entirely Point Of View statement, designed to make the reader feel more favourably towards Mr Archer.

Besides, many celebrities and indeed the public in general support charities to great extent, but this is in no way worthy of being in a summary of them.

I don't see how that is POV. It could use a reference, but if it's true removing it may be more POV than keeping it. 72.130.177.246 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Viceroy of Brunei???

Michael Crick's biography of Archer, "Stranger than Fiction", states that Archer referred to his father (equally incorrectly) as "British consul in Singapore" - again, a nonexistent position. I am going to add this to the article, but I don't know whether the Brunei thing is actually true - it wasn't in Crick's book. Walton monarchist89 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes found in his work

Some examples of books need to be given where it has been recorded that 'Archer very often takes his characters from the upper classes of the UK or New England...' Wattylfc 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare → Jeffrey Archer

The reason for this should be obvious. Articles are generally by common name, not title and should usually be the logical name people would check. The current name is ridiculous. EdwinHJ | Talk 09:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. He is often referred to by his title. Policy is that peerages are used unless never used in real life, which certainly isn't the case here. Proteus (Talk) 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would tentatively support - he is better known as Jeffrey Archer. For people who gained their fame before being ennobled (i.e. most life peers, except the Law Lords), we should always use their personal names, IMO. In many cases, the award of a life peerage to a politician is almost a reduction in status :) I would however point out that the current title is not ridiculous, I just don't think it's necessary. Note: there is considerable variation in page titles at the moment, as can be seen from Category:Life peers - the split between personal name and personal name + title is close to 50:50. sjorford (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose, since the usage of titles on Wikipedia is common. Unless someone can point out to me the exact policy where it is written, I can be convinced otherwise of course as well. Gryffindor 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless he is stripped of the title, the article name is within usual WP practice. Philip Cross 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • He is known as Jeffrey Archer as an author and generally, as a search of a library catalog will tell you [1] the current title of this article is absurd as really no one will look for his entry under this current title. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Typing "Jeffrey Archer" in search would direct the user to the article. Philip Cross 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But what is the point in titling the article in this way? BTW, Margaret Thatcher is not under her long title, nor are all the holders of the OBE or similar awards. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I never quite understood that part either. Do the rules give any specifics, or is this one up for grabs? Gryffindor 23:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.") Proteus (Talk) 00:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There you go the Maggie Thatcher example proves my point. EdwinHJ | Talk 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how. He's usually called "Lord Archer" (and his wife "Lady Archer") in the UK. Proteus (Talk) 08:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
He's usually just called "that lying thieving tory bloke who can't write". Heh.
  • Support It is silly to have a title be part of one's name (they are two different things, unless it is needed for disambiguation). We don't have Francisco Franco's article under "Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde Salgado Pardo de Andrade" nor is Kim Jong Il's article under his full title (I believe the full thing is up above ten thousand words, but I could be wrong). -- MicahMN | μ 04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, otherwise Charles de Gaulle should be under General Charles de Gualle, it could quickly get out of hand. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, peerages are "part of one's name" — Archer's name is now "The Right Honourable Jeffrey Howard, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare". Proteus (Talk) 09:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is calling for de Gaulle to be listed as "General", therefore nothing is getting "out of hand". We are talking noble titles here, not military ranks or what have you. Gryffindor 03:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
support (Sasquatchuk 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Result

No consensus; page not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So full of POV reads like a Guardian editorial

This article is full of POV and irrelevant material(see examples below) and unsourced assertions (for those of you in Rio Linda, the problematic statements appear first, the explanation of what I feel to be the problem follow parenthetically):

  • His implication was that Archer had no need of a prostitute when he had such a lovely wife. (The "implication" is clear in the judge jury instructions which are goofy enough without it having to be pointed out; but "Red Judges" as they are called can't be removed simply for making assinine remarks from the bench all though this one's worthy of "Mr 'Injustice' Graves" in a Rumpole story.)
  • Caulfield died in October 1994 and was spared the embarrassment of having his words come back to haunt him when one of the witnesses retracted his evidence. (Both Caulfield's death and any supposed "embarassment" at a witness' recantation of testimony are irrelevant to the article and Archer's criminal case.)
  • Howard joined in with the applause, though he had been upstaged somewhat by Archer's speech. (How can the writer know how Howard felt about the speech? Whether Archer upstaged him is, again, irrelevant to the article.)
  • proclaimed to the Tory faithful (since he was speaking to a Conservative gathering, it is gratuitous to mention again that the audience were Conservative Party members or supporters, and to label them "faithful" is hardly objective)
  • Archer then rounded off with a blistering attack on the opposition parties Law and Order policies. (whether the attack was "blistering" is not for an encyclopedia writer to decide, and seems to be an attempt to contrast Archer's public statements with his private behavior. In an editorial this would be fine, but this isn't an editorial.)
  • The Department of Trade and Industry, which was run by fellow Tory Michael Heseltine... (Since Heseltine is elsewhere mentioned as a senior Conservative, to call him a "fellow Tory" is an attempt to suggest, without saying it because there is probably no proof, that Archer got a pass from a fellow Conservative leader. It's more likely that there was simply not enough evidence to prove insider trading. While Archer appears to have "parked" stock for a second party [a crime in the US under the Securities and Exchange Act, the junk bond pioneer Michael Milkin was convicted for this in the 80s], I do not know, and the article does not tell us, whether this is a crime in the UK since it is different than insider trading).

Filled with unsourced facts and shabby innuendo this article does in fact read like a Guardian editorial.PainMan 09:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments on the stuff above:

The above comments just show what is wrong with Wikipedia = bland let's not upset anyone: You confuse personal comment with fair comment or provocative comment which can be the role of a good encylopedia. If you don't agree with what is fair comment then simply add the opposing view on the other hand, it could be said that

The Accused: innovative?

Just how much of an innovation is it that the audience votes on the guilt or innocence of the main character? Ayn Rand's The Night of January 16th has a jury composed of audience members, and two endings--one for each potential verdict. RogerLustig 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What???

"Hague was never keen on Archer running for the job in the first place[citation needed] but as Archer was voted top of the poll by the Conservative associations he was forced to go along with that decision."


Can somebody please explain to me how this adds up? In one breath it says Hague would back him all the way, in another it implies that he never really liked him any way. Either William Hague is extremely two-faced or this paragraph- as with many others within this article- are written by people who either love or hate him, as opposed to people who can simply write impartially.

CO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.39 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Hague privately preferred Steven Norris as the London Mayoral candidate but Archer won the popular vote for the candidacy so Hague was forced to go along with a democratic decision regardless of his private feelings. Had Archer stood in the election without his party leader's backing after winning a ballot, or had Hague said "I am against Archer for Mayor of London" after the latter had won the ballot, it would have made Hague look dictatorial, out of touch and appear to be ignoring the wishes of ordinary Conservative party members and associations.

It also would have undermined Archer's legitimacy as a candidate and therefore led to a certain defeat for the party. However, after scandal came to light involving Archer with regards to the 1987 libel trial, Hague had to be seen to be acting quickly, as opposed to the perceived dithering of John Major during the 1997 General Election over the candidacies of Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, who were both involved in the cash for questions scandal. Smith stood down weeks before election day but Hamilton refused to do so and was trounced by Martin Bell in Tatton. So Hague was neither extremely two-faced (He was displaying the standard expediency shown by a top politician in such a situation) and this particular article wasn't biased, just stating a fact.


The Louth byelection campaign

I would like a cite for Jeffrey Archer having claimed to be the youngest MP of all time as this sounds like a claim so manifestly false that it was unlikely to have been made. I've removed a mention of William Pitt the Younger (who was in fact not elected until January 1781), because it seems irrelevant. I also reworded the sentence about local colours: in fact there has been a long term trend to adopting national colours, and no great change occurred in particular shortly after 1969, as the previous wording implied. Indeed local colours persist to this day in some areas. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Michael Crick he claimed to be the youngest MP in that particular parliament, another fine example of an Archer porkie. He was the fifth youngest; the youngest being the 21-year-old Bernadette Devlin.

Former politician

(edit conflict) If anyone wants to return the word former they must source it, SqueakBox 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states "On 26 February 2006, on Andrew Marr's Sunday AM programme, Archer said he had no interest in returning to politics: he would pursue his writing career instead." Surely that's more than enough for describing him as "former"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

We need a source that isnt the article itself. I saw him talk on some video clip tv show recently and it wasnt that clear, besides former makes him sound dead, SqueakBox 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is referenced in the article [2]. If you say "is a former" it's clear he's still alive. We've got thousands of article on retired sportspeople who are described as "former", see the style manual. One Night In Hackney 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but your link doesnt make it clear at all, on the one hand Jeffrey says he wont get involved in front line politics again and on the other that he might return to the House of Lords and is involved in local politics (this was the interview I saw) so I would say this link just confirms we shouldnt say former, SqueakBox 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if he does return to the House of Lords (which isn't likely by his own admission) we can change his status again easily enough. If an American footballer retires we'd change him to former, if he returns a season later then obviously that would be changed back. There's a direct quote from Archer stating "I'm not taking any interest in politics. I'm not involved in politics in any way. My life is in writing now." Being involved in a couple of local party associations doesn't make him a politician, especially considering his quote. One Night In Hackney 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. One difference is sports people have to retire eventually (Archer couldnt be a top athlete nowadays but he could be a politician until he is 120). Do politicins reitre? Certainly not if they go to the House of Lords. For me calling him former doesnt ring true, is unnecessarily controversial and we dont, IMO, have a source for it either so I would argue that as jsut calling him a politician is clearly not untrue that we should leave it as it is, SqueakBox 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to enlist the opinion of someone who can say if a Life peer who doesn't actually sit in the Lords is actually a politician or not, sound reasonable? I'm not particularly bothered either way, as long as "disgraced" doesn't go back in. One Night In Hackney 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I rejected disgraced as inappropriate myself. Though IMO that is why he is now no longer actively involved in politics. I dont think your source is good enough for the word former and that you would need to find a good source that much more specifically says he has retired, but given his involvemment in local parties and the Howard-Cameron statements about not accepting him back into politics right now I dont believe such a source is possible, SqueakBox 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shop lifting accusation

There is no mention of the shoplifting arrest in Toronto, which I think is relevant. Needs careful writing because it is one of those cases where everyone knows he did it but as he was aquitted it is not Wiki to say so! I'll try and find a legit source and get to it if no-body else bearts me to it. Epeeist smudge 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed in the House of Commons, see Hansard transcript here. The The Tribune goes into more detail though, name of the shop and such, see here. Or The Guardian discusses the 3 suits here. Shame Private Eye don't keep their articles online, there's a wealth of content in their back issues. --Oscarthecat 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Private Eye is not always the most reliable of sources, and might fall foul of the need for verifiability. I have restored the reference to the shop lifting incident, and added material not previously included, as well as, I hope, sufficently detailed citations. Will have to find a source for the claim that Mary Archer is Jeffrey's ghostwriter. Philip Cross 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Move article to Jeffrey Archer

This article's name is out of style for living British politicians, even those who have been made members of the House of Lords. Calling it "Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare" is extremely POV as it gives a false impression of seniority and accomplishment and uses the long title rather than the simple name "Jeffrey Archer". Compare for example with the far more senior Margaret Thatcher who is actually of course Baroness Thatcher or Douglas Hurd, actually of course Baron Hurd of Westwell. The standard for living British conservative politicians is not to use this format. Can I therefore propose we move the article to plain Jeffrey Archer? We can always use the long title in the introduction. If any passing admin happens to see this and agree, this could be done right away without discussion since it's clearly wrong, but by all means say yes or no below anyway. Thanks. MarkThomas 00:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done, SqueakBox 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-evidently, I'm happy with this, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it policy that this has to be done by admins? MarkThomas

No. Any user with a username can move any unprotected page by clicking the "move" tab at the top of the screen, so an administrator is not needed in most cases. Wodup 09:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Its only certain things that only an admin can do. Otherwise if you can do it and are acting in good faith there is no problem. In this case the move seemed entirely uncontroversial and you could have done it yourself, SqueakBox 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced either the move was incorrect, or there's plenty of other pages that need to be moved. I suggest clicking on any of the non-bishops on the Members of the House of Lords article. It should also be noted that the majority of the articles the lead includes where the person is a Baron of, which is repeatedly being removed from this article. One Night In Hackney 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could conduct some kind of poll into this? A number of editors are working here at the moment, though IMO he is best known as Jeffrey Archer and therefore using the common name principal the article should stay here. I moved Sebastian Coe for the same reason, both known primarily in non-political roles, SqueakBox 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The style manual is useful here. Margaret Thatcher is specifically stated as being at the correct place, which is where the original confusion seemingly came from. One Night In Hackney 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit lost on your last comment One Night - are you advocating going back to the long baronet title or sticking with simple "Jeffrey Archer" as currently? MarkThomas 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
After review, it's probably at the right place but was initially moved with slightly faulty reasoning. Former prime ministers who subsequently received hereditary peerages are listed as an exception to having full titles, as are individuals who are exclusively referred to by their personal name. I can't see any standard for "living British conservative politicians" that you mentioned above, but he is exclusively referred to as Jeffrey Archer so should remain here. One Night In Hackney 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Google gives Lord Archer and Jeffrey Archer an almost identical ~1.3 Million hits. Checking the search strings on various UK newspapers gives a split usage as well. I don't see you have tried to establish exclusive use per Naming Convention: "use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name" You mention Thatcher but avoid the example it was specifically contrasted it with that of a former conservative politician Lord Hailsham. The point of the example was that the ex-pm case was very much the exception to the rule and the inclusion of Hailsham there to show the rule Alci12 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood, I think I agree - my gut feeling was the Wikipedian "that's what he's known as" one. MarkThomas 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My gut feeling too. BTW, Mark, in terms of your admin and moving enquiry, if we had decided to change it back any one of us could have done so, SqueakBox 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proteus is better off coming here rather than making allegations that my move was vandalsim (by using anti vandalism technology) when the consensus has been clear, SqueakBox 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) The naming conventions are clear: "use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name". He's often referred to by his title, therefore it goes in the article title. There's not really much to discuss. (b) This has already been the subject of a failed move request. I was restoring it to it's original (and correct) location. (c) It's perfectly ok to use rollback when the reason is obvious (and as I was only using it to revert redirects, having used a normal revert on the actual article, it was). If I wanted to accuse you of vandalism, I certainly wouldn't go about it by rolling back your edits to redirects. Proteus (Talk) 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Proteus is correct. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The proposal to move failed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher is known as Margaret Thatcher hence the article is placed at that title and Archer is no different. Nobody will search for this ridiculious title of Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare nor is it a common usage term, ie nobody refers to him thus, so Proteus claim that people refer to him thus is demonstrably false. It does mean if you search on google etc for Jeffrey Archer you wont find the wikipedia article, SqueakBox 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The redirect to the correct title is fine. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You only have to put Lord Archer or Baron archer to get a redirect at worst. As to usage Squeak you have offered nothing but your personal opinion - to call that demonstrative is a unique re-imagining of the meaning of the word. Google itself as I mentioned above or any the major newspaper search engines return hits for him under various names/titles. Alci12 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? You are giving no arguments. Why isnt Margaret Thatcher called Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher? Because it is not her common name. To choose an utterly obscure title for Archer when everyone knows him as Jeffrey Archer is clearly defyingg the common usgae policy we have, and you cant even argue as to why you want this obscure term, it appears, SqueakBox 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The General NC reads Use common names of persons and things. Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication The Convention you tried to cite is WP:NCP but it specifically states The present guideline gives the general principles. In some cases more specific guidelines also apply, for example:...Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) (for monarchs and nobles in a Western tradition The NCNT for Titles of Nobility is the accepted Wikipedia naming convention specific to this area and it says use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.. The rules below do cover it and give a form: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. The onus is on you to provide exclusive proof - I've cited goggle supra and the UK press use (cf [3] -v- [4] [5] [6] all forms interchangeably; against that and you have simple given your opinion. Alci12 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends, I think, on whether he is most notable as an author (as which he does not appear to use his title) or as a politician. There is a case for the former. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Proteus gave the reasons. There was a poll. The fact that Margaret Thatcher is misnmamed is not greatly relevant. The redirect to the correct title works fine. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the correct title merit an NPOV tag?? - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It isnt the correct title as I have explained in my arguments. Maintaining that you are right without giving a single argument is hardly a reason to remove it and the neutrality of this article is most definitely disputed because of the badly named title, SqueakBox 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I cited all the policy above which you totally ignored as it contradicts your uncited opinion.Alci12 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
He is far better known as a writer, arguably second best known as a convicted perjuror and only third as a politician. His notability as one of the UK's most successful writer's is at the heart of my argument. There are well over 1 milion google hits for Jeffrey Archer and just over 2000 for Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare. What poll? Whatever poll it is now out-dated and should never have accepted this bad naming anyway. We have a responsibility to use the common name and not the most obscure we can think of. can you please give us some solid arguments, Kitty, as you havent given us a single one so far, SqueakBox 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The "poll" referred to was an enormous one, and the current policy was the result of months of argument, negotiation and voting on various different proposals. And you're searching for the wrong thing: try "Lord Archer" in Google if you want to see how often his title is referred to. (Incidentally, I get less than 750k hits for "Jeffrey Archer", not "well over 1 million".) Proteus (Talk) 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The only poll I see is the one above under #Requested move. It came out 2,5 to 2,5. I agree with the closer that this is no consensus to move; but it is neither enormous nor decisive. (And it was 18 months ago; WP:Consensus can change) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The naming conventions poll, not the article move poll. Proteus (Talk) 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The argument here is at least in part over how the naming convention applies. I wrote some of the language quoted, and I agree in substance with all of it; and it seems clear to me that this page could be moved without contravening the present conventions. The question is whether Jeffrey Archer (like, say, Henry the Lion) is often enough used instead of his title to be common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer tot hat question is clearly yes because he was first known as Jeffrey Archer, as an author is solely known as Jeffrey Archer, is world-famous as Jeffrey Archer (very popular in the US) whereas he is only known as Lord Archer in the UK and even this usage is considerably less common than Jeffrey Archer, SqueakBox 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) The naming conventions are clear: "use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name". He's often referred to by his title, therefore it goes in the article title. There's not really much to discuss. (b) This has already been the subject of a failed move request. Proteus was restoring it to it's original (and correct) location. This is the equivalent of John Buchan - but a less competent author. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as I've pointed out, the guideline here isn't "most common name": the untitled form is only to be used if it's overwhelmingly more common than the titled one: a sort-of most-common-name-biased-towards-the-titled-form rule, if you like. The rationale, as I see it, is that the titled form includes the titled one (Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare includes Jeffrey Archer, unlike, say, Anthony Blair, which doesn't include Tony Blair — a search for "Jeffrey Archer" will bring up the beginning of the article title). Thus you haven't got to show that "Jeffrey Archer" is the more common usage, you've got to show that it's pretty-much universally used. Secondly, as your user page says you live "on the edge of a Caribbean city in mainland Latin America", I'm not sure how much knowledge you have of contemporary British media usage, but certainly in my experience he's usually called "Lord Archer" (or "the disgraced peer Lord Archer") when he's mentioned on the news or in newspapers. He may be a famous author, but he's also a famous (disgraced former) policitian, and so his title has a currency of usage far greater than other literary peers (P. D. James or Ruth Rendell, say). If you thought he was always called "Jeffrey Archer" then I suppose that explains your persistence recently, but I can assure you that's not the case. Proteus (Talk) 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of the internet, Proteus? If so why would you think I have any less knowledge of UK media than you or any other British person who reads the news daily, and especially as I work in the British media as well its likely I haver a better knowledge than many. What an incredibly ill-informed comment, as if we were still living in 1990. Overwhelmingly the most used term is exactly how I would describe Jeffrey Archer, and this is much more so if compared to Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare (as opposed to say Lord Archer). If you like we could consider moving the article to Lord Archer, it would be infinitely better than what we currently have though inferior to Jeffrey Archer, SqueakBox 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. That is not per MoS. (compared with rather than compared to) - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my time conducting a survey for you, but your professed knowledge can't be that good: a quick search of Times Online and BBC News Online reveals a plethora of references to "Lord Archer" (and "Lady Archer", for that matter). Proteus (Talk) 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well we dont write our encyclopedia based on what the media says, thank God. As an author he is known as Jeffrey Archer and nowhere otehrt han here is he known as Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare. If you dont want to "waste your time" on this nobody is forcing you to, SqueakBox 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth does what he's known as as an author have to do with anything? This isn't Authoropedia. Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If Archer is best known as an author (still not proven either way), the case would be precisely parallel to Bertrand Russell, who is under the name he is known as mathematician, philosopher (and author, come to think of it). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well MoS doesnt say find the most obscure title you can that nobody else uses when you dont have to but Jeffrey Archer is still what the press fundamentally call him and what he is known as in his books, which have sold more than any of the literary greats to whom he is compared here, SqueakBox 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it says to use "Name, Rank (of) Title" when someone is known by a peerage. Hence Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (who's generally called "Lord Nelson") and Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson (who's generally called "Alfred, Lord Tennyson"). If you don't like it, take it to WP:PEER, don't just rant about how it's a rubbish rule and ignore it. Proteus (Talk) 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I havent ranted but do remain civil yourself. isee the alleged poll consensus was no such thing and you have clearly failed to priove that your obscure name is anything other than that. Archer is primarily an author so why would I go to PEER about this? If you dont remain civil its going to be difficult to continue this discusiion, SqueakBox 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you keep going on about "consensus" on this talk page. Well I see you (obviously in favour of Jeffrey Archer), User:One Night In Hackney (wavering, and eventually coming out just-about in favour of your move) and User:MarkThomas (who doesn't want the long title because it gives a "false impression of seniority and accomplishment" — hardly a NPOV reason for choosing a page location). And of course all of us against it. That doesn't look much like consensus to me. Proteus (Talk) 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now there is no consensus either way, SqueakBox 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
What a fantastic reason to stick to existing naming conventions you've come up with! Proteus (Talk) 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think only in Wikipedia could such a silly debate take place. Everyone in the UK knows him as "Jeffrey Archer", that's what the media calls him and that's what he calls himself on the front cover of all those millions of books he's sold. Let's use the name everyone else uses. So Moved. MarkThomas 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Your editing reason is POV title suggests a POV of insinuating that Archer is more important than he otherwise is He has the title and all the privileges, precedence and seat in the legislature that implies - that's a simple matter of fact. Removing titles from those who have them due to your dislike of either the individual or titles as a concept is blatant pushing. We had a poll, the move vote failed - ignoring that and moving it yourself without consensus is disruptive. Alci12 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Polls are not binding Alci12. The needs of Wikipedia always come first - and clearly there is a need here. I may be wrong or not wrong about the implied POV in giving the baronial title but I'm not wrong about that being the name he is most known by, which is pretty much standard on WP. Given that he even calls himself that on all of his published works, I can't see what your problem is. There is no "disruption" - I am seeking to permit WP to state the obvious. MarkThomas 10:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Polls are a means to see if there is consensus for changes WP:CON where there is or has been a dispute. Moving the page the first time when the talk page shows shows there had been a dispute + vote without giving time for a debate to see if consensuses changed then when it became clear that it was still in dispute to keep page moving is hardly helpful. Charlotte Bronte published as Currer Bell iirc but I'm not in favour of that being her article name either. Archer published most of his popular books before his peerage so hardly a shock that they don't have his title. The Thatcher example is hardly comparable. She only became a peer in political retirement and has had an essentially low public profile since. Archer became a peer while he was still politically active and continues to be widely referred to by his title in the press (previously cited), reference books and publications down to the National Gallery which use the standard format [7] Basic google searches as I've mentioned above split usage fairly evenly - something that is not the case with Thatcher. I can see a lot of assertion but can't see you've cited to prove your case. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a viewpoint not an argument. Alci12 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm listening to your points, but I don't find them convincing - you may be right about "Lord Archer" being as common, but that's not the same as "Baron thingie of somewhere or other, etc". This one's a no-brainer. It's just incredible nitpicking fuss-pottism to insist on some arbitrary Wikipedia standard for naming Barons. This is a famous person with a famous name, let's use it. MarkThomas 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, SqueakBox 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of policy is that it's a reasonable attempt to make the collective whole work, avoid re-fighting the same issues at each and every article, and bring consistency to the way we present articles.. I feel you're advancing personal preference and not engaging in policy or citation of usage. As you must be aware all peers but dukes are 'called' Lord X but its not specific at all. Various peers have the 'same' title of differing ranks or with varying territorial designations and it's sloppy and misleading to lump them together without clarification. So articles are at Rank X not just Lord X. Correctly the only Lords Archer were Thomas Archer, 1st Baron Archer (1695-1768) & Andrew Archer, 2nd Baron Archer (1736-1778) but there are at present two people who are called Lord Archer (just as many Jeffrey Archer entries return other people called JA) So we distinguish between Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare & Peter Archer, Baron Archer of Sandwell. This is an encyclopaedia where we try to be correct after all. I cited you the three relevant policies that support not using the common names. If the common use guide meant what you are trying to read it as then Diana, Princess of Wales would be at Princess Di or Lady Di or some variant. It's not; it's at her correct title. Common Use is not absolute at all nor has it ever been. Alci12 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of the nobility, such as Lady Thatcher, are called by theirt common name and common use is fundamental policy. Jeffrey Archer isnt Mark's preference, its his name, whereas Diana was Diana Spencer never Lady Di. The idea that Jeffrey Archer is an ambiguous name is laughable and evidently not true, SqueakBox 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to metion all the non British people who only know himm as Jeffrey Archer. This is clearly a case of ignoring PEER and using the common name which he is known by, SqueakBox 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, see Margaret Thatcher as an example. MarkThomas 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Alci12 and Proteus are absolutely right. There is no consensus to move this to the wrong page name. John Buchan is a much closer analogy. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not the wrong name, it's one of two possible right names. It's also the name by which he is best known in two of his notable fields of endeavour - book covers have "Jeffrey Archer", and he was "Jeffrey Archer, MP". And to use an unscientific tool, Google fight, "Jeffrey Archer" is over six times as common as "Lord Archer"; mainly the newspapers use the peerage title, in general use people talk of Jeffrey Archer just as they talk of Margaret Thatcher. We could, I suppose, suggest Prisoner FF 8282, HMP Belmarsh, but that would be a bit WP:POINTy. He is a peer who became well known long before his peerage, and the majority of the public refer to him as Jeffrey Archer. He could of course solve our problem by having the decency to resign his peerage, as a convicted perjurer, but that's also another matter. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Alci12 and Proteus have both asked that you prove that he is known exclusively as Jeffrey Archer (in accordance with MoS) - which you have not attempted to do. The onus is on you. Meanwhile you are changing the title without consensus which is very wrong. Even Vintagekits does not do that (all credit to him). - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What has Vintagekits got to do with anything. He has never edited here. The onus is not on anybody to prove the untrue claim that he is only known as Jeffrey Archer (any more than we would have to prove Margaret Thatcher is only known as Margaret Thatcher) but there is abundant prove that he is known as Jeffrey Archer, which you must known already Kitty, given you are a not so young Brit and Archer has been in the public eye for decades now and is known as Jeffrey Archer and not as the title you want to put on the article, SqueakBox 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The article should be called "Jeffrey Archer" unless there is another Jeffrey Archer and then it should be called Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare.--Vintagekits 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There are no other Jeffrey Archer's notable enough to deserve an article right now, SqueakBox 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the subject's wishes matter here, but I'd note that his official website never uses the title, and in fact only even mentions the peerage once, as a single sentence in his biography. On the other hand, the BBC's usage of the honorific presents an argument for the lengthier title. JavaTenor 21:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to agree with Proteus here. Using the BBC as a source, I count ~2,000 hits for Jeffrey Archer and ~1,600 for Lord Archer. Hardly a significant difference... ugen64 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

As long as {{spoiler}} exists, and as long as this article describes a short story with a suprise ending, it should be labelled. There are arguments against {{spoiler}} as a whole, although I consider it civility to the reader, who can choose to avoid the paragraph; but I see no argument for having it elsewhere and not having it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal categories

I have removed the British and English criminals categories. Not unfair classifications exactly, but they are rather broad. The perjuror and incarcerated celebrity categories are more precise. Philip Cross 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Olymipian?

On Archer's book covers it mentions that he is an olympian - which is more than "was moderately successful in athletics" as stated. Sinisterial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinisterial (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that if it's mentioned on Archer's book cover then it must be false! Take a look at this YouTube clip for some other claims he's made against the facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSwAbaAaS7o Timrollpickering 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

As much as the man is a complete lying, talentless piece of s***, I feel that the article has a very negative slant to it, which, although quite amusing to most people who dislike him, is still not on in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't be surprised if Have I Got News For You would quote from it, and everyone knows what they think about him... --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would concur with that. The article does not seem very encyclopedic in tone. Paulleake 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see the article does nothing but quote the facts. That the facts reflect so badly is not the fault of Wikipedia. --88.96.3.206 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we may all agree that he's a rather dodgy character. But is there anything positive about the chap that we should be covering in the article? --Oscarthecat 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The 'NPOV tag has been on the article for a while now. What in particular needs revising, in order to remove this tag? --Oscarthecat 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to read the entire article, but just from the first paragraph "What is most peculiar is that a man with some talent and certainly proven marketing skills felt the need to fabricate, or at very least "embroider", certain facts of his life, to the point that he became a Walter Mitty-like character." is irrelevent to the facts of the article, and is far from neutral. A quick glance through reveals other similar throw away sentances. Asp 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Really! How bland can Wikipedia get!!!! "What is most peculiar is that a man with some talent and certainly proven marketing skills felt the need to fabricate, or at very least "embroider", certain facts of his life, to the point that he became a Walter Mitty-like character." happens to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.34 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall View of This Discussion

To me much of what goes on here in this discussion is so typical of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Wikipedia freaks confuse what they call "POV" with fair comment - Archer is generally regarded (rightly or wrongly) as a total lying tosspot,sorry but it is true that people think like that - this now does not come across at all in the article. It is so bland.

Now, it may be that there is an alternative view (that to some he is much maligned) but this should be included alongside the general (if perhaps wrong) view.

Wikipedia is fast appproaching the situation where we will have to say: "Hitler was quite a nice chap" and have nothing said against the man. What a bland,sexless and vapid place Wikipedia is becoming with the POV thought police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.34 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about that rant but I add this: apparently we must (see below) be neutral - which seems to mean that anything bad about someone must not be reported/included.

All we have to do is report the good AND bad - that is true academic neutrality:

some people think A some people think B.

it is NOT neutral to ignore fair comment or thoughts that are generally held.

For example (to ram this home): some people in the world think George Bush is the devil, others think he is doing his best, others think he is great- what Wikipedia should be doing is reporting all the views - not saying "oh we can't say anything bad/nice because it's not neutral...."

When will Wikipedia become truly academic?

Former MP, surely

Why does the info box show him as a Member of Parliament, when he longer is? I don't think this is normal for (British) Wikipedia entries, is it? Earthlyreason (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It shows him as a former MP and this is normal, but it's only slowly taking off. It appears on John Major (along with his senior posts) for one. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Family tradition

The behaviour of Jeffrey's father and son could be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) James Archer is mentioned in a box on the right, as a son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I have added copious references, and think the tag could now be removed. The only fact I can't verify concerns his attendance at Mc'Whirters funeral. I also removed the marginally relevant Rand reference as I couldn't be bothered to check it. Richdrich (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoplifting

Though it is unproven, the shoplifting allegation mentioned above is so widely known that it seems very strange that it appears nowhere in the article (or rather, has been removed). Ben Finn (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Archer's expertise

I think the bit in the intro about Mary Archer being "a prominent scientist in solar power" is misleading. It is true that she was chair of the national energy foundation for a few years, but that was a largely political appointment, as with her appointment to the Addenbrooks Trust - just because she is on a hospital board does not make her a "medical expert". I understood her background was organic chemistry? The Mary Archer page is not much help either. Does anyone have good info on this, eg, published papers? MarkThomas 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Archer was identified as a specialsit in solar power at the time of her husband's perjury trial. I removed prominent though. I had assumed when writing the queried passage that her former academic position at Cambridge rather justified the use of the word. Philip Cross 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Her husband had nothing to do with her 'prominence in Science' - her own talents got her onto the firm at Wellcome (hahahahah!) 79.77.114.191 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Elena Ciao Cheskew79.77.114.191 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Early career

Have reinstated section on 'Arrow Enterprises' as I feel it is relevant: Archer was running Arrow Enterprises at the time of the near bankruptcy in 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gham1970 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

brother Thomas

[8] says he has a brother Thomas, but I wasnt able to find a source for it, so I have removed it. Is it correct? Can we find a source for it? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

2009

The "Bibliography" has a 2009 publication of Archer's. This looks like spamming. 2009 is in the future, at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC) The "Clifton Chronicles" are now mentioned in the article, all with publication dates in the future. This is spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.61.128 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is generally a jumble; the account of Trial a mess; discussion of novels out of place

There is no coherent account of Archer's perjury & "perverting the course of justice" (known in the US as obstruction of justice). The article is a jumble with no clear narrative or breakdown into a concise sections.

The facts of the libel case, and Archer's victory in it, are mentioned in one part of the article. More time is spent on Archer's defense by Conservative politicians than the facts of the Daily Star's claims.

His criminal trial is mentioned in another part, but is cluttered up by an account of play Archer wrote and performed in. First we are told that a friend, Ted Francis and his former assistant (who kept a secret diary) provided the "evidence" (to the confusion of American readers, court testimony in England is also referred to as evidence) which led to his conviction. We are given no explanation as to why an employee would keep a "secret" diary of her boss' movements. Nor is it explained why she waited approx. fifteen years before deciding to come forward with it.

Also there is no description of the trial. We are told far more about the above-mentioned play (including an implication that he lifted the plot largely from the 1957 Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich film Witness for the Prosecution, it being mistakenly asserted that the film was based on an Agatha Christie novel, when, in fact, it was based on a play of hers (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051201/); I corrected this obvious error).

In a biographical article, the conviction of a politician of serious crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice should receive more coverage than his fictional writings. But they do not. Also, more time is spent on an alleged case of shoplifting in Canada rather the major crimes for which he went to prison. We are given, in one sentence, the denouement of the criminal trial, but paragraphs on his novels. We are simply told that he was convicted because he got the date of his alibi wrong (in the libel trial) and that he was sentenced to four years in prison. We are told more about which prisons he served his in than about the trial.

We are told that while Archer was convicted, Ted Francis was acquitted, but we're not told why Francis was charged in the first place nor why the personal assistant wasn't. Presumably, she turned state's evidence and was given a pass, but no where is this discussed. Also, the statute of limitations of perjury should have "tolled" after seven years. Obviously the general statute of limitations has been removed from British law or certain crimes have been exempted. Yet, again, we are told nothing of this. The writer seems to think that Archer receiving "cold porridge" hair treatment as his daughter's birthday party is more important.

I don't think that synopses or analysis (or plot spoilers!) of Archer's novels are germaine to his biography. He's what was once called a writer of "pot-boiler" thrillers and family sagas. No one would claim he's a major British writer. Imho, his writings should get a brief mention, that's all.

As is noted on this page, the article is filled with unsourced assertions that obviously need to be fixed or removed. Also, I noticed that the few references that are in the article are all from the Guardian and the BBC both bitterly hostile to the Conservative Party and its leaders. Surely, a more balanced set of references (and sources for the articles) would result from consulting media coverage from both sides of the British political divide.

A major rewrite is needed. The article, imo, is hardly up to the standards of a high school term paper, let alone an encyclopedia article.

PainMan 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have little knowledge of English law.

Not "state's evidence" - "queen's evidence" when it existed. Statute of limitation does not apply to criminal law - no limitation in criminal law

Guardian and BBC mention shows your political leanings and shows you are prejudiced just as much as anyone who does not agree with you here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.34 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the last couple of lines under the "Daily Star" trial section, there is mention of one of Jeffrey Archer's books and his portrayal of General James Oluleye. This should be removed or verified. Clearly someone has attempted to sneak this one in; however, I do not know if there is merit to this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgcss (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea Nastiness

John Le Carre's novel The Mission Song sounds like La Carre might have got ideas for the story from Archer's nasty little Equatorial Guinea affair. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And those guys who wrote the Bible obviously got that Cain and Abel story straight from Archer. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Archer in fiction

Private Eye is mentioned here and that's not fiction, is it? I don't know if we should move it somewhere else, or we should retitle the section. Corporalflashback (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Shurely "Godfrey Bowman", not "Jeremy Bowman"? - CAW - 15 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.53.75 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can Archer "legally be called a liar"?

The Perjury and downfall section states that Archer can "legally be called a liar". No citation is provided.

Whilst it is legally safe to call him a liar (as a convicted perjurer would almost certainly lose a future libel case), the statement seems like a great exaggeration.

Hyperdeath (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He can be demonstrated to have lied, at least once. Therefore he's a liar, and can be legally called one. Richdrich (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is editorializing, even if true. Wastrel Way (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Man, this conversation is proceeding slowly. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall We Tell the President?

The 1977 book should not be represented as part of the Kane and Abel series, which began three years later. The 2008 rewrite of this book has specifically been retrospectively made part of the series; whether it should be considered to be an entirely different work is questionable but the original does NOT belong as part of Kane and Abel. 75.200.43.27 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer's mental health

A user is insistent about including a comment on this issue by a Psychology Professor at a major English University. In my view this material is inadmissible.

1) The source is a tabloid newspaper previewing a documentary a decade ago on Channel 5. The first programme controller of this British television network only a few years before the broadcast agreed with the statement that its forthcoming output could largely be described as "films, football and fucking". Channel 5 does not have the public service remit of the other terrestrial channels in the UK, and could not therefore be thought of as a generator of reliable sources suitable to be used on Wikipedia.

2) Psychology is not quite the same discipline as Psychiatry, and the individual cited could not make such a diagnosis as a practitioner on his own. More to the point, if the professor in question was a psychiatrist he would only be able to make a diagnosis of any condition Archer might be suffering from in a consultation where the patient is examined. Obviously, this proviso has not been met.

I have been deliberately oblique because disputed claims made in the biographies of living people are not meant to be cited or repeated on talk pages. Philip Cross (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The claims are in the source, which could be linked here. The addition was inappropriate for a lead section, and the tabloid source cited is insufficiently reliable, whether it belongs in the article or not. Whether anything on Channel 5 can be used or not depends on the programme - most reliable source publishers don't have the public service remit, and like the BBC and Channel 4 there are serious and sensationalist programmes and anything in between, which may or may not be made by the broadcasting companies. Peter James (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You are quite correct to point out that Five is not alone in transmitting dubious material. No one, apart from individuals interviewed in this programme, appear to have made such a claim about Archer, unless one takes as literal a figure of speech used in 2001 by a well-known journalist who gave evidence in Archer's 1987 libel case. There is a potentially reliable source in a Scotsman article which reviews the programme, but the claim about Archer hardly meets WP:BLP where is stated, among other things that articles about living persons have to be written conservatively.
The claim about Archer should not be returned to the article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Leads should concentrate on facts, not opinions, and on BLPs doubly so. Many notable people have their detractors, that doesn't mean their detractors' opinion should feature in the lead. The factual nature of Archer's crimes are justifiably listed. What is frankly entirely speculation, from a individual who is not in a position to make any medical diagnosis (i.e. has not had Archer as his patient) is unjustified and does not meet the high standards WP:BLP demands. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Archer's brother

I have removed a couple of unreferenced sentences:

  • The illegitimate birth of Archer's brother concerns Archer's mother, and the brother himself, not the subject of the article.
  • The brother does not appear to be notable
  • The brother does not appear to have greatly impacted on the life of the subject of the article.

It is out of place to include material concerning the private matters of an individual who is not important here, but who is a living person and entitled to privacy.

Amandajm (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Page title

All other WP pages for Lords & Ladies that I've seen have been styled John Doe, Baron Doe. Shouldn't this one be Lord Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-Super-Mare. This one would include the territorial designation for a reason that escapes me (best guess would be similarity to existing Lord with non-territorial style, perhaps Astor?), but is visible here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/ . Bromley86 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If his title had been thought a necessary inclusion, the page name would be Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-Super-Mare. It isn't automatic to include a subject's peerage, if any, in the main heading. Another example would be David Owen. Philip Cross (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that assumes that whoever set the page up was thinking about consistency across WP and that they set the page up after that consistency was established. Once something's in place, it's often overlooked by subsequent editors. In response to your David Owen, I'll raise you all 18 of the links on the House of Lords page in the Leaders and Ministers section. Of course, there are other examples of the unexpanded format (i.e. David Steel & Margaret Thatcher). I wonder if this is an old vs. new issue? Bromley86 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Arms?

Is Jeffrey Archer armigerous? That is to say, was he granted a coat of arms? If so, was it before his elevation to the peerage or after? Does anyone know the blazon? If so, I can draw the arms for inclusion. Kiltpin (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

The tree in this section appears to me to be Progeny, not Ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.117.170 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is ancestry, though why it's included I haven't a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.91.2 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Layout

I've tidied up the layout of this article, as it was a bit messy. I've organised it by career, separating Archer's political career from his literary endeavors. I've also added some further references. I've tried to find a balance with the references, to counter any accusations that sources are primarily the BBC or Guardian newspaper.

Under 'Books', I've kept "Shall We Tell the President" under the "Kane and Abel" series, but specifically referenced the revised 1986 version of the book to distinguish it from the 1977 version, which has nothing to do with "Kane and Abel".

Archer's website link is now only included in the 'Writing' info box, as it mostly refers to his writing career, rather than his previous role as a politician. Gham1970 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall We Tell the President?

There seems to be some confusion as to where exactly Archer's second novel,Shall We Tell the President?, should appear in a list of Archer publications. I've reinstated it as a 1977 publication, as this was when the book was originally published; however, I have noted that a revised version came out in 1986. Although the revised edition features characters from the Kane and Abel series, I don't think it should be included as part of this series. If anyone decides to add it to the Kane and Abel series, can they please ensure the original version remains under 'Other novels', with a 1977 publication date. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gham1970 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeffrey Archer. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeffrey Archer. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Rowed in the 1962 Boat Race

The article claimed: "he was part of Oxford's unsuccessful crew in the 1962 University Boat Race.{{cite news |first=Fran |last=Bardsley |title=Lord Archer meets book fans |url=http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/4266347.Lord_Archer_meets_book_fans/ |publisher=Oxford Mail|date=3 April 2009 |accessdate=8 April 2009}}." An IP editor has challenged this with a comment in the article (diff). I've deleted the claim because (a) it seems unlikely that a 5'10" sprinter would be a successful oarsman over 4¼ miles (b) Crick doesn't mention it in the "Blues" chapter of Stranger then Fiction, and (c) I suspect the April 09 Oxford Mail mention is based on what Wikipedia was saying at the time (diff). If anyone disagrees, please do add it back, with a trustworthy reference. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is also backed up by the Wikipedia entry for the List of Oxford University Boat Race crews and Archer is not listed in the 1962 crew or any other year. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Spent three years at Oxford"?

The article states that the diploma he read for was a one-year qualification, and that he spent a total of three years at Oxford. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Hanoi Road (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Description of Jeffrey Archer: The Truth

I am not sure it is fair to talk about "the BBC drama Jeffrey Archer: The Truth (2002)". Drama would seem to imply that it was to be taken seriously, but it is clearly meant as spoof/satire, and its own article describes it as a "satirical comedy drama". Dunarc (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Take 2

A question I posed some weeks ago was arbitrarily deleted. I wonder by whom, and why. I am asking it again. If Archer's diploma course at Oxford was of one year duration, why did he spend three years at the university? The article alludes to this, but makes no explanation. I think it deserves one. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeffrey_Archer/Archive_1&oldid=1091860946"