Talk:Zoe Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

A "humour piece" is a type of article. Whether or not such an article is funny is subjective, but it can be objectively refered to as a "humour piece" if it is written in a certain style and intended to be humourous. MuttGirl 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Strobes will note the "corrections" to this article in the next issue...
What kind of a ghastly cretin amends their own Wiki entry in such a manner? Objective journalism - shurely?  :) Darth Doctrinus 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's just a fan who was doing the weird fan thing of taking the name as a pseudonym. Either that or someone who actively dislikes Williams and was trying to stir things up, possibly by writing to the Eye themselves - it's an odd coincidence that the "Zoewilliams" user added the Eye as a reference to an article only a week and a half ago.
I've left a message on the user's talk page to see if we can clear it up, but "Wikipedia article edited by unverified account with same name" does seem pretty weak and inconclusive stuff for the Eye to run with, or to include in a Wikipedia biography. --McGeddon 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Eye Article was about another journalist, Peter Hitchens, not about Zoe. Her alleged self-editing was merely mentioned as a postscript. As such, it's definitely not worth including in her biography - after all, it's not deemed worth mentioning in Hitchens', and he was the subject of the article. So - I'm removing it. Eliot 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW she didn't seem the type at university to blow her own trumpet that much... and also far too clever to consider changing her own write-up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.217.52.130 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 March 2007.

Yes, I have removed this note about Williams' self-publicity again. It might be funny for a while, but not in an encyclopedia. Also, a sentence in Private Eye is hardly 'much publicity'.Onaraighl 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting quotes

I will include SOURCED quotes when I want, regardless of anyone elses pet project to delete them.

[edit] Quotes

"Williams writing for The Guardian on March 29, 2007, claimed actor Rhys Ifans shouldn't have apologised for making a joke about paedophilia" - why is this any more notable than any of her other articles? If there was a controversy surrounding her article, a source would be useful. --McGeddon 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So what, whats your problem? --Dean1970 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was controversial enough for a child protection agency to weigh in after the joke was made, get over it buddy. --Dean1970 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If there was a controversy surrounding Zoe Williams, then that's fine, please write about it and give some sources. But if you're just choosing two random articles to give us two random quotes from, this doesn't seem a particularly encyclopaedic or insightful way to expand the article. --McGeddon 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article itself quotes the (NSCCP). In fact, Ms Williams took issue with them too, perhaps I could expand it to include that? --Dean1970 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. You're keen to tell me what to do on wikipedia, why don't you expand on it by adding other quotes and placing them in between the two i've added. That way theres a little distance from the two I added.

p.p.s. The NSCCP phone number is 0808 800 8000, why don't you call them, repeat the joke, and see if its 'controversial'? --Dean1970 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just keen to make sure that Wikipedia articles adhere to established Wikipedia guidelines for article quality. Quotes are fine if they illustrate some wider point about Williams' or her work, but isolated and apparently random selections serve no purpose. (Even Wikipedia articles on comedians avoid lists of quotes.)
And I agree completely that the joke was controversial, I'm just saying that it doesn't have anything to do with Zoe Williams, apart from the fact that she wrote about it once. If the NSPCC reacted to her and she got caught up in the controversy, then it could be regarded as encyclopaedic, but it's obviously meaningless to keep track of "journalist has an opinion of a single news event" in a Wikipedia biography. --McGeddon 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If my sourced quotes really irk you so much just delete them, I'm not going to argue the toss with you all day. --Dean1970 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just not convinced that they meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I've deleted them, but if you want to add a proper prose section explaining William's views about free speech or the environment, then please do. --McGeddon 10:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If she digs free speech so much I doubt she'd mind me exercising mine on this page? --Dean1970 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would care to add her regular and long-running columns in 'Now' magazine? She's not so classy as is made out in the article! (this is from an anonymous source)


Hello. My trivia was also removed by Mc Geddon. Here is the trivia for the record.

   * Her favourite animal is the Tawny Owl.
   * She likes wooly hats and bonfires.
   * When she was young she wanted to be a beekeeper. Michaeldrayson 12:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)