Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Coe

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

Date of birth

[edit]

Born 30 August 1973 or 19 August 1961 ? --Bogdantudor 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) born 1961 according to the current page version (which agrees with the Library of Congress Name Authority File) so I'm removing the contradiction warning. Dsp13 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

[edit]

How is Coe's atheism established as a notable part of his public life? This is a WP:BLP entry so we need add personal details with caution. The reference cited says he's an atheist in passing, once. It does not discuss his "atheism" at all, nor does he come out and self-identify as an atheist. The very fact that this was a one liner in the entry is quite telling. Can you please explain why the one liner is needed here? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the online version of the reference. In relation to Coe's religious beliefs it reports, "There was no such epiphanous moment, he says, and besides, he's an atheist". This relieves any WP:BLP concerns, especially in a non-contentious area like this. Notability only rests on coverage by a reputable source, it does not require the subject's own words (although this quotation sounds like indirect reported speech) or lengthy discussion. Overturning consensus by removing a well cited assertion regarding a subject's faith perspective would require much better justification than your apparent belief that atheism requires self-identification through a coming out process followed by protracted personal statements in the media. I agree the current placing of the statement is awkward and gives it undue prominence but removing it looks like WP:SOAPBOX censorship. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "come out" I did not mean a "coming out process". The point is that we don't add every piece of information about someone's personal life that has been cited in passing in reliable sources to BLPs, especially when these pieces of information are not things that the living individuals have discussed themselves publicly. "Incidental coverage" of something, does not satisfy WP:N, by the way.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the quotation marks around incidental coverage come from? Not from anything in the guideline you've cited, which suggests that the kind of reliable sources that fail notability are, "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories". Personal information of direct relevance to Coe's work provided by a lengthy profile in The Guardian qualifies as a notable detail from a reliable source, at least in my opinion. What to include or not include in an article is always going to be a subjective matter, determined by a discussion like this. What I suggest is that for now we respect consensus by allowing an established edit to stand, reconsidering the matter if other voices support the view that Coe's religious beliefs are not notable or that a Guardian interview with him is not a reliable source. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not argue against straw men. The Guardian is clearly reliable (let's drop that please). For any subject to meet WP:N it requires more than incidental coverage, which apparently is discussed as "trivial mention" on the policy page (at least presently). See - "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I see a trivial mention of atheism. Now, I'm well aware that is the policy for notability pertaining to stand alone articles and that it does not directly address what should or should not be included in articles about subjects that are notable. But, then again, no policy discusses that in terms of "notability". I'm not going to waste hours arguing over this, but I see absolutely no encyclopedic reason to mention this here. If the subject's views on religion, or atheism were discussed beyond trivial mention I wouldn't care at all about the inclusion.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jonathan Coe. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Coe. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace?

[edit]

The article claims he was born in Bromsgrove, the blurb on the jacket of 'The Rotter's Club' says Birmingham. 31.52.252.71 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the the Wikipedia entry on Moseley, Birmingham describes him as a "local author"... CatNip48 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Coe&oldid=1206570945"