Talk:Annabel Abbs

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Annabel Abbs.jpg

‘conflict of interest’ user contributions
So this one user whose user page says there’s a conflict of interest adds only positive comments and press from her controversial book and removes details of the controversy and published news sources reporting on it. Seems a bit weird tbh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.160.246 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Annabel Abbs removing perfectly acceptable criticism
The user 'Streetzy'- with a professed conflict-of-interest (it's worth noting Abbs's most recent book is written as 'Annabel Streets'...)- keeps removing the Irish media criticism of her approach to writing about Lucia Joyce. She might consider the fact that just because she doesn't like it doesn't make it unsuitable for Wikipedia; if she wants to put some positive press for balance (along with the extensive list of awards and praise already included...), why not do that? The fact of the matter is, the criticism will probably keep finding its way back into the article, not least because, in Ireland at least, her book ruffled the feathers of a fair number of people and this fact deserves observation, noted as it was in two prominent publications. More to the point, deleting the criticism firstly under the guise of 'The extended paragraph is not to do with Abbs career and is a personal view on one of her novels', secondly with 'Deleted misleading subjective content and added more recent information' and replacing it with the disingenuous and quite self-serving line 'The novel, which caused some controversy in Ireland where two reviewers objected to Abbs’ imaginative speculation...' (note the specifying of TWO to minimise the scale of the criticism, and calling her approach 'imaginative speculation' where the critical reviews plainly establish that, to many readers, such was insufficient to describe what they considered the very offensive nature of some of what Abbs presented in the book).

For the record: another clearly invested "contributor" attempted to remove the criticism under the following pretext "Libelous, originating only from a single source, irrelevant to this page and therefore inappropriate. Tantamount to vandalism of the page." The criticism is not libelous, having been published in national newspapers as indicated; did not originate from a "single source" (seriously, can you read?); is, in that it directly relates to a controversial book written by the article's subject that otherwise, per this article, would appear to have been nothing but lauded and honoured (unbalanced coverage, particularly- and very suspiciously- on an article with a professed COI involved), entirely relevant to the article; thus not at all inappropriate nor in any way representing "vandalism of the page". This is merely being recorded to indicate the unseemly extent of Abbs and her devotees' entirely inappropriate attempts to whitewash the feelings of Irish critics of her book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.123.16 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Recently a lot of detail about Irish media response to Abbs's irresponsible handling of Lucia Joyce's life has again been removed, and looking at the contributor's history leads to a talk page message left on an IP user's page (that of a previous contributor here) thus:

Hiya, I just wanted to message regarding the Wikipedia page on Annabel Abbs. I wanted to know how we can resolve the issue at hand, endlessly editing the page back and forth ad infinitum is not a great solution. I have been tasked with maintaining the page in a way Annabel is happy with, and I want to know what parts of your edit you wish to be included. The main page is very brief in its content and does not give such a massive focus to any one topic in the way you are attempting to edit it to. I agree I was a bit brash last time simply deleting the entire section, but have restored it to a short section highlighting the issue and linking to the article at hand. Hopefully more to your liking. I just feel attacking her character in the way it was, is a bit overzealous. Hopefully we can come to a consensus.

Cheers!

Whilst this is perfectly polite, one must take issue with "I have been tasked with maintaining the page in a way Annabel is happy with"- Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool, and just because the author doesn't like what some people had to say about the book doesn't necessarily justify the removal of content pertaining thereto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.194.99 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced?
Where's all the criticism of Abbs's book on Lucia Joyce gone? Looking at past edit back-and-forthing here, it seems her management or she herself is editing this article (one of the editors even has a conflict of interest notice on their user page, and another is called 'Streetzy' and her married name seems to be 'Annabel Streets' per her latest book) to minimise what was said in the Irish press... pretty shabby she's allowed to get away with making this some kind of personal advertisement- just look at all the plaudits mentioned at length, but they don't permit a few sentences with more detail on the criticisms made?- prior to the 2020 American release of the book, quite embarrassing to Wikipedia standards honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.115.184 (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added an assessment of the book from one of the only serious analyses of it (this lack of attention seeming odd considering the plaudits it gained):

"In A Companion to Literary Biography (ed. Robert Bradford, Wiley Blackwell, 2019), prize-winning Joyce scholar Professor John McCourt, of the University of Macerata, trustee of the International James Joyce Foundation, and co-founder and director of the International James Joyce symposium held at Trieste, wrote that "With Abbs, the perverse cycle of interest in Lucia comes full circle. We are back in the territory of fiction fraudulently posing as biography", and concluded it to be "a prime contender for the worst Joyce-inspired 'biography' ever." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.115.184 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent vandalism of the article by Abbs's team
Since February, there have been three attempts to remove the information on criticism of Abbs's book on Lucia Joyce by user Hungrypanther (whose only edits pertain to this article and that of Lucia Joyce, which also mentions Abbs's work and criticism thereof), evidently a member of Abbs's team "tasked with maintaining the page in a way Annabel is happy with", as above. Abbs and her representatives must understand that removal of sourced information specifically relating to her work- particularly in light of a lack of critical attention given to it, is unacceptable. The user has justified their attempts at removing the information thus:

"removed irrelevant information on the book of another author" (not at all irrelevant, John McCourt is an expert on Joyce and was a contributor to a published source from a respected publisher)

"removed malicious and irrelevant information, nothing to do with the life and career of the author. Personal vendettas should not be played out over wikipedia" (the information is neither malicious nor irrelevant, save in the mind of someone desirous of unilaterally presenting Abbs and her work positively; the only justification for the over-emotional presumption of a "personal vendetta" is that Wikipedia standards ought to be maintained, and an author not have carte blanche to have her agents repeatedly delete sourced information simply because she would rather it not be included, despite being entirely valid)

"Removed information nothing to do with author's career. Please keep to the facts and take up any personal concerns directly with the author or publisher" (the information is certainly "to do with author's career"; the information is taken directly from a published source and is therefore "factual" in that it directly presents what is given there with no extrapolation or interpretation added; "personal concern" only enters the equation with regard to the factor mentioned in the point above, viz. Abbs attempting to control her Wikipedia article in a very dishonest manner to hide any criticism. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and will not be permitted simply because Abbs demands it.)

In short: presenting every minor positive achievement but not allowing any balance in the article is impermissible. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and whether or not Abbs is "happy with" the article is immaterial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.66.245 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Worth pointing out recent edits- most reverted- by user "JemimaSampson" are strongly indicative of being part of Abbs's "team"; all her edits- sandwiched between attempts at promotional/ tone-"improving" here- are to incorporate mention of "award-winning" or "acclaimed" author Annabel Abbs in other articles.