Talk:Jeffrey Archer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents 1 Literary Merit 2 Back to the Lords 3 Secret Diary 4 Removed sympathetic details 5 Charity 6 Proposed move 6.1 Result 7 NPOV? 8 Hyperlink for "A Matter Of Honour" doesn't go anywhere? 9 Bookthoughts ext link 10 Viceroy of Brunei??? 11 Themes found in his work 12 Correct title 13 Article is generally a jumble; the account of Trial a mess; discussion of novels out of place 14 So full of POV reads like a Guardian editorial 15 The Accused: innovative? 16 What??? 17 Jeffery Archer Mayor Clip 18 The Louth byelection campaign 19 Proposal: Move article to Jeffrey Archer 20 Former politician

[edit] Literary Merit

I took out the line "of little literary merit", as this is not a particularly distinguishing feature when compared to much of the best-seller list.

As to whether or not he did sleep with her, that's uncertain...Our lad was, probably still is, quite the fantasist & prone to invent stuff when the truth is perfectly good enough.... but faking an alibi for the wrong date is priceless!

Malcolm Farmer

[edit] Back to the Lords

In July 2003 he was released on probation, after serving half of his sentence and went straight back to the House of Lords at Parliament

I'm removing the last clause as I think it's nonsense. He went home then saw his probation officer and then went to penthouse flat on the Thames. He is still elligible to sit in the House of Lords, but AFAIK he didn't go there yesterday. Mintguy

[edit] Secret Diary

"The personal secretary had apparently kept a secret dairy of Archer's movements." Heh. *edited* -CamTarn

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] Result

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hyperlink for "A Matter Of Honour" doesn't go anywhere?

The hyperlink for "A Matter Of Honour" doesn't link to a summary of that book, like most of the other links in the bibliography. Instead, it links to the biography, which is where it started out from. Is there no summary article for "A Matter Of Honour"? --tharkun860 26 Jan, 2006

[edit] 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. --OscarTheCat^talk 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Read And Write Reviews On Novels By Jeffrey Archer

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? --OscarTheCat^talk 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? --OscarTheCat^talk 11:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Correct title

JHA's correct title is Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare of Mark in the County of Somerset. I have changed the introduction.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Jeffery Archer Mayor Clip

Does anyone have a link to the clip where jeffrey says 'Oh, yes, the BBC. You're very fair. "What do you think of Jeffrey Archer, Mr Crick?" Clip, clip clip. Just you wait until I'm Mayor of London. Then you'll see!'

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)