Talk:Anthony Burgess/Archive 1

Brinsford Lodge (places of residence)
Citation provided, and Brinsford Lodge page updated.

Quest for Burgess image
It seems that a public domain photo of Burgess remains elusive. Can anyone advise whether it would be permissible, under Wikipedia rules, to include on the Anthony Burgess page an image of the front cover of the Roger Lewis biography of Burgess downloaded from Amazon?

New plea for a Burgess photo
A public domain image of the writer is needed for the Anthony Burgess Wikipedia page. Can anyone oblige?

???
Didn't Burgess work with the british government making propaganda and whatnot? that's what i heard.

??
He enjoyed a miscellany of sexual partners from other lands, however, including Buginese, Japanese, Welsh, Malay, Chinese, Siamese, Italian and Singhalese Those links are ridiculous. Why should 'Siamese' link to 'Prostitution in Thailand'? That's beyond me. Such useless links have no reason to be. :)

Appeal for a Burgess photo
The page would benefit from a Wikipedia-acceptable, public-domain photo of Anthony Burgess, if such an image could be found.

The need for a Wikipedia-approved image of this important writer has become urgent. Is there not a single photo of Burgess anywhere in the public domain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.246.240.14 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2006 UTC.
 * Not that I'm aware of, no. Most of the images are owned by various media outlets, and those that are not are probably owned by Liana. I know some folks at the HRC in Austin, and I keep meaning to ask around about it. Microtonal 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything Microtonal or anyone else can do in the direction of tracking down a Burgess image will for certain be greatly appreciated by Burgess readers and scholars worldwide...

Brinsford Lodge (odyssey)
I'm intrigued by the reference to Brinsford Lodge in Wolverhampton (1946). Can anyone offer any further information on this claim, as it may inform the history of the Brinsford Lodge WP entry, if subtantiated. RichardEll 13:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia!
The trivia section takes up over half the article. Delete or serious edit required (I daresay it 'trivialises' his achievements)
 * One of my pet gripes is the large amount of trivia and pop-culture references in Wikipedia articles, however having read through the trivia in this article, most of it seems pretty interesting, and much of it not so trivial. Perhaps we could break out some of the subsections into their own sections?  For example, I find the work methods points quite interesting, and I think one of the things that makes Burgess notable is the sheer quantity of his output.  Presumably this point could be made outside the trivia section, and the points included there.  Perhaps we could take the following steps:
 * draft a new table of contents
 * move as many of the interesting trivia points as we can into the new sections
 * edit, prune, and tidy
 * if any sections seem disproportionately large break them off into their own 'main articles' (this is how, for example the articles Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh and Vincent van Gogh's medical condition came into being)

What do you think? Stumps 08:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree. Perhaps a great deal of the 'trivia' could be inserted into the main biographical chapters? Such a task would be somewhat daunting though. Doktor Waterhouse 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

re Habits Section. Health is of cardinal importance to Man, but why don't we leave the farts aside? I sure am glad I don't have to read about Burgess's flatulence and bout of chickenpox (in 1969) in Encyclopedia Britannica. You are genuflecting to the Gods of Gossip, gentlemen. (I seem to remember he also picked his nose.) Lahoratius 14:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Book Cover Images Violation of Copyright Laws?
Aren't the book cover images listed in this article a violation of copyright law? Clearly book covers are copyrighted to protect the graphic artist... Stevenmitchell 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnthonyBurgess InsideMrEnderby.jpg
Image:AnthonyBurgess InsideMrEnderby.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use removal
The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. - M  ask?  07:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-check
There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples:
 * Plagiarism? Sounds POV to me. Can this be rewritten to sound more objective? David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Health section/circumcision status
In view of Burgess' date and place of birth and his (Roman) Catholic origins, it is hardly surprising that he was not circumcised. However, two things occur to me:

1) how does the writer of the article know; and

2) what the does it matter?

Surely, this is hardly relevant, let alone being grist to any "normal" encyclopædia writer's mill!

Hair Commodore 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! Alfista inglese 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, are we going to write that about everyone who isn't circumcised? But "A lot of talk, no workshop" as we say in Sweden,so I'll remove it and not just talk about it. Zeck 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed it had crept back in, so I removed it again. Salmanazar 09:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Information
Under Tax Exile, Burgess' son is listed as killing himself, however, under Death, it claims that he died of natural causes. Neither statement has a citation. Njj4 (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

health
dengue is not sandfly fever. Sandfly fever is Leishmaniasis. Assuming that one was wrong about dengue being sandfly fever, I left dengue and erased the "sandfly fever".

201.17.56.112 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Carlos Daniel Llosa

Article issues
I'm not well versed regarding Burgess, but I have tagged the article with several issues and removed a large block of what amounts to non-encyclopedic, irrelevant, uncited and in some cases, speculation that was grouped into subheadings such as Habits (smoking, sex, drinking, health (including he had problems with flatulence, a cyst on his back and had chicken pox as a child), finances, transportation, and an extensive listing of places he lived. None of this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The article does need a lot of work to bring it into an encyclopedic tone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow. Assuming that information is correct and properly sourced why would it be non-encyclopedic? Whatever of that is mere speculation has to be removed of course - however what is sourced and documented can be part of the article nevertheless.--84.174.200.44 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The overriding point is that it was uncited and some of it was speculative. Beyond that, the topics covered in the sections I removed isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia article about a writer and his written work. An exhaustive listing of places he lived has no relevance unless all the places are connected to his work. A health section that makes points of flatulence, chicken pox and a back cyst is irrelevant to an article about a writer and his work. All of that was essentially unsourced, irrelevant trivia. WP:TRIV states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts and WP:IINFO states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The sort of lists that I removed from the article fall squarely in these categories. I mean come on, flatulence? Unless Burgess was notable for his farts, this doesn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed, for the reasons stated above, has now twice been returned with no citations added, nor any attention paid to cleaning up or even attempting to bring the quality of this article up. One reverted managed to add three fact tags to a large portion of unencyclopedic, irrelevant trivia and claimed it is sourced from his novels and memoirs. While some of this may have come from those works, they are not sourced and cited, per WP policy. I am removing it once more, piece by piece, and will give rationale in the edit summary. If it is again returned with no other work done to the content, I will place a request for comment on this "Habit" section and its appropriateness in a Wikipedia article. No one has bothered to respond to this attempt to discuss this article's problems. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove the material again--at least, not just yet. There's a good faith effort underway to add appropriate sourcing, and it would be in keeping with Wikipedia to give that a chance to happen. I'm sorry that I'm not moving fast enough for your taste--adding three fact tags just this morning--but I'm trying.


 * As to the content of these passages--with all due respect, I have to ask: have you read much of Burgess's work? The man is notable for a cold critical eye and a brutal self-honesty. What you, perhaps understandably, dismiss as "irrelevant trivia" is, in fact, the raw material of some of his finest work. Burgess himself discoursed at length upon his flatulence, his back cysts, his smoking habits, his taste for illicit sex, and so forth; moreover, he made a point of giving many of his characters similar attributes, and has also discussed that at length.


 * These things may seem petty, gross and mundane, but Burgess made art out of the petty, gross and mundane. These things are as relevant to his work as heroin addiction is to William S. Burroughs.


 * That being said, I agree with you that better sourcing is called for. I'm rolling up my sleeves. Hope we can work together on this.-- P L E A T H E R talk 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to wait for some improvement on this. Part of what is at issue, at least for me, is the stark listing of these things. They almost read like a laundry list. It would be a massive improvement for it to be worked in as the article covers such things. For example, his sexual interest. Remember that a large number of people would come to this article to learn something about Burgess and his work, and to make it meaningful to the reader, it would be a huge improvement to see it discuss these points that do seem to be irrelevant trivia out of context included with why it is relevant. For instance, if his sexual proclivities, interest in drugs, whatever, are related to his work on A Clockwork Orange, then relate it to that and how it is explored in the work. As it is, all of the habits and places of residence are lists of facts, despite that some of them do make mention of where they appeared. Since it is raw material for his work, explain it to the reader who passes by. This is essentially my objection to how it fits in the article right now. That, and the real lack of citations (including things that are quoted). Thanks for jumping in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly three weeks and the only changes to this article include a brief paragraph added, some fact tags and heading changes. Is there movement on this article? If not, the out of context trivia needs to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion
Over a month ago, on July 23, I made the posting above this one regarding the content of this article. My concerns were quite clear. As presented, this material is unencyclopedic and lacks context. I noted that WP:TRIV states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts and WP:IINFO states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I made specific points about how it needs to be presented. An editor agreed to work on the article. Two edits were then made. The first one was the addition of three fact tags. The second one changed the "Habits" section heading and added exactly this: "One of Burgess' literary achievements is as a memoirist. His two volumes of autobiography (entitled Little Wilson and Big God and You've Had Your Time, respectively) are notable for their unflinching self-examination, but also for the frank assessment of how aspects of his personal life informed his work. While the bulk of his fiction is not overtly autobiographical, several characters share the attributes or life experiences of their creator."

Nothing else was forthcoming to improving the article. In fact, after the above mentioned two edits, only four edits were made. One was a housekeeping edit. None changed, added, or improved the content of the article. The editor who agreed to work on the article was active on Wikipedia in the mean time. I made a posting on August 13 that no movement had been noted on the article and if there wasn't any forthcoming, the cruft needed to go. I then gave it 11 more days, with no response or movement on the article.

I then worked on the article, removing unsourced trivia that had no apparent context, converting some of the listings into relevant prose from what was present. I explained the changes as I was making them, including summaries noting "unreferenced; relevance and context not established, bare listing unencyclopedic". Removal included mentions of pets, favorite foods, chicken pox, back cysts. Again I ask, how is this relevant? I removed a listing of places that he lived, which are already worked into the body of the article as it progresses. It's repetitive.

The issues still remain. The presentation of these lists of "habits/personal experiences" are presented, in the majority, as lists of trivia. They have no context. The majority of this material is unsourced. I would refer the editor to WP:CITE, which explains what sourcing is, how to cite it, and what needs to be referenced. The article has instances of quotes by, or about Burgess, with no citations made. These issues must be addressed. The article, as it was reverted earlier, has exceeded 91 KB, which is two to three times larger than the recommended article size of 30-50 KB.

Finally, this is the second time I have been patronized relative to this article and its issues. It is not incumbent upon me to have a deep understanding of anyone to read an article and be left with questions of why given material is relevant. If the article doesn't assert the relevance of it, then the shortcoming is in the article. It is incumbent upon the authors to make the relevance of any given set of facts apparent. Lest you forget, this is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to inform the reader about the subject in a manner consistent with encyclopedia articles, with full references to assertions of fact and for quotes. This article does not do that. At present, it reads like fancruft, full of fun facts that someone says is imperative to understanding Burgess, but it does not tell me how or why. Why is the cyst on his back relevant to my understanding of the author? It has unsupported assertions. One example: "High nicotine ingestion was the cause of the Bürger's disease Burgess suffered, and of the lung cancer that killed him." That most certainly would require a citation. I've yet to see a study that establishes that high nicotine ingestion causes cancer. Smoking may be connected, but the nicotine itself has not. That, however, is one small issue. The overwhelming issue is that I read this article and ask how this material is relevant. The only answer I have at this time is because someone who wrote on Wikipedia says so. That isn't a good reason to retain it. I am reverting back to the version that was undone. If it is returned as is, then I will open a RfC on this article and we will go through the dispute process. Let me remind everyone that this material doesn't disappear. But it has to have proper citations and assertions of relevance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a third party opinion here, but having just scanned the article and its earlier incarnations, I'd have to agree that this article leaves quite a bit to be desired as far as clear information goes. The issues raised should be addressed ASAP and if one person is willing to do so, others shouldn't impede those efforts. Unless there is actual vandalism, a case of apparent COI or POV pushing, no one should blindly revert. If an editor is attempting to fix the numerous issues that no one else seemed interested in changing since the tags were placed on the page and did so in a competent manner, the least the "offended" party should do is approach the editor before reverting because they simply don't like a certain version. I'll delve into this a bit more when time permits, but in the meantime, I'm going to encourage others working on this page to communicate their displeasure before hitting the revert button and work towards building the project together. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks. This article has serious issues. I've outlined them above. My changes are an effort to address that. There has been ample time to begin to work on these issues. It is non-productive and bad faith to stick one's head in the sand and say "OH!! But it is IMPORTANT. It's fine the way it is!" Not in the way it is presented here, it isn't. The article isn't fine the way it is, it is a mess. Large listings of trivia about Anthony Burgess, out of context to the article's main body, with no attempt to relate why it is important. Look again. Some parts of that content parts of it were reworked and converted into prose content rather than lists and aren't gone. Some of what I removed is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE. The places of residence, for instance. Other parts of it are simply ridiculous. I don't need to know that Anthony Burgess had a cyst on his back or chicken pox. With no context in the article, that information is inane. Parts are unreferenced. A large number of small quotes of his, or about him. THOSE NEED INDIVIDUAL CITATIONS. They've been marked. They weren't addressed. I don't need to know he farted to "understand" his work. He isn't unique. A whole bevy of authors work autobiographical details into their work. Unless you make an effort to related why these trivial details are essential, then they are just so much fancruft. A stark listing of facts without context is trivial. Stop just reverting and either enter into a productive discussion of these issues or leave it alone. There is no vandalism here and it is completely and totally bad faith on the parts of anonymous IPs to slip in, revert, call it bordering on vandalism and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I have left requests at WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Columbia University for other opinions on this issue. Please stop edit warring anonymously regarding this article and allow input from other editors. That removed content has not vanished, allow time for others to evaluate the two versions. They have the appropriate links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick outside opinion - seems to be far too much uncited information just listed with no context, especially in the Personal life as influence section. I don't doubt that much of it is important, but the text of the article doesn't sufficiently explain why, if at all in many places.  The info should be converted to a prose format and it significance to Burgess' work be explained.  In the current format it appears like a string of unrelated facts in places and that makes it hard for the reader to get anything useful from reading them.  Trivia sections are discouraged.  The article does not need to be a repository of all known info on Burgess (especially when so much of it is uncited) and the reader would be better served with relevance explained in more places, imo. Sassf (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, to take an above quote from the talk page "As to the content of these passages--with all due respect, I have to ask: have you read much of Burgess's work? The man is notable for a cold critical eye and a brutal self-honesty. What you, perhaps understandably, dismiss as "irrelevant trivia" is, in fact, the raw material of some of his finest work." - excellent, then the article must explain to those of us who have not read much of Burgess' work why these things are in fact so important. It should not be assumed that reader's are Burgess experts, the wiki article should explain to all readers the importance of his work and the relevance of various biographical minutiae to this work, not just list facts for fans and assume readers can work out relevance on their own accord due to familiarity with the literature .Sassf (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Without going into a huge amount of detail, which is outlined on the article's talk page, the article, in my view had, and still has, some major issues regarding content, sourcing and relevance. I addressed this in late July and was assured that an effort would be made to bring it into guidelines, which was less than forthcoming. I then made revisions, which included removing a large amount of apparently irrelevant and out of context trivial lists of "facts." Anonymous IPs have since reverted it, claiming it borders on vandalism. Please look at this version, prior to my recent changes, and this version after I had done some work on it. The latter version isn't perfect, but seems to be an improvement to me. Anonymous IPs continue to blankly revert my changes, with comments such as These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work and This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism and finally, just calling it vandalism. I removed lists of personal habits (like flatulence??), places of residence (which are already discussed in the body of the article), health trivia (he had cysts on his back and had chicken pox?), and a listing of his pets. My issue on those points relate both to relevance and sourcing, and needs to be put into context as to why this is essential to the article. The IPs seem to think that unless the reader knows these things, they can't possibly comprehend an Anthony Burgess work. My question would then be "Why?" Does the article not need to outline the why of this? A newcomer to the article would require that education and not just be confronted with such overtly trivial facts. Please, PLEASE, take a moment to look this over and comment. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the page for a period of one week. Per WP:V, editors are perfectly correct to remove unverified information. The article at the moment is a huge sprawling mess and Wildhartlivie is admirably trying to change it. Blindly reverting the changes does not help anyone or the article and serves only to discourage further work as editors may feel their efforts would be better appreciated elsewhere. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the main problems with the article relate to its length, to the degree of detail given and to the lack of context given to a large amount of information. Comprehensiveness is a great thing to aim for, but I think this article goes beyond that. Too much information is given in list form, which offers no context and by the method of its presentation creates the impression that it is trivial.  If it is not trivial, it needs to be worked into the article in flowing prose that provides context.     If the relevance of a particular piece of information is not clearly demonstrated, it is the fault of the article and its author/authors, and not the fault of the reader.   This article seems to assume a prior understanding of Burgess, rather than assuming that the reader may know nothing about him.   The value of the information contained in some sections - example "Mischief" is not self-evident.  If it's important, the big question is "WHY?" and the article should clearly provide this answer. Whoever wishes to keep information like this in the article or who claims to have a greater insight into Burgess than other editors has a responsibility to respond to other editors who may question it, and not to just hit the undo button.


 * Citing/verifiability is almost absent. Despite the length and degree of detail, there are 9 specific pieces of information cited to 4 different sources.  Some featured articles have more citations in a single paragraph than this article has in its entirety.  Several featured article writer articles  (for example :Rudyard Kipling, James Joyce, Mary Shelley with 253 citations, J.R.R. Tolkien, Edgar Allan Poe) show the standard all articles are measured against, especially in terms of verifiability and presentation of information.   This article is well below standard.  There is nothing ambiguous in our policy of  verifiability.    This edit summary says "These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work. This material IS sourced, as a glance at the indexes of the two biographies will confirm."    I think that there is clearly an unfamiliarity, but it relates to the anonymous IP's unfamiliarity with the requirement to provide verifiable citations.   Nobody should have to "glance at the indexes" of any books to see if the information is correct - it is the responsibility of the editors who argue for its inclusion to present evidence without ambiguity.


 * The accusations of vandalism assume bad faith and fail to acknowledge that Wildhartlivie has offered her excellent working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and practices, to complement the specific knowledge other editors have in regards to Burgess.  There was a golden opportunity to fix the article, and she deserved a lot more appreciation than the slap in the face she was given.  It is not Wildhartlivie's responsibility to fix the article.  If she expresses genuine concerns, and makes an effort to address the problems within Wikipedia's policies, that is precisely the opposite of vandalism, and such accusations are out of line.  The bottom line is that any piece of information that is not adequately supported can be challenged and can be removed.   Conscientious editors are encouraged to remove unsourced information "aggressively", and Wildhartlivie has not even come close to doing this, despite the cries of vandalism.  Rather, she has discussed her concerns at length and over a considerable period of time, and has been met initially with apathy and later with hostility, but nothing constructive has been offered to dispute any of the points she has made.  Rossrs (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected again
Already editors have started reinstating unsourced material against consensus. As such, I have semi-protected the article for one month. Editors are encouraged to discuss changes on the talk page for the improvement of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to this article, the IP editors who have simply been sitting back waiting for the protection to expire do not seem to have any intention of entering into discussion of the article. This has been on the table now for nearly two months and at no time has any of them approached the discussion on the talk page, responded to the request for comments nor made any constructive or productive suggestions or edits. The consensus of editors who have commented on the RfC are all in total agreement that the material that was removed was done so appropriately and that if it is so vital to the article, then it must be worked into the body of the article and show context. The stark listing of personal traits related to Burgess have no meaning, nor do they convey an iota of insight, to the life of Anthony Burgess. My suggestion is that if the IPs continue to embark on this unilateral reversion to include the lists with no other effort toward the improvement of the article, and continue to call good faith edits vandalism, that they be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:145.246.240.14 has made over 1600 edits to the article, and I believe has the article's best interests at heart, however they are unwilling to discuss how best to improve the article. If, after the protection expires again, reversions continue to be made against the established consensus, IPs reinstating unsourced material will be blocked. User:77.99.78.38 has also been reverting changes, are these the only two persistent IPs? Nev1 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far I can tell, they are the only two. I know the article still needs a lot of work, despite some of the recent changes, but I still see what is happening as an improvement. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Paolo-Andrea
When adding info on Paolo Andrea, Burgess' step/son, I moved his death from the "Death" section (which is about Burgess' death), into "Tax exile", so all the info on Paolo was together. It has now been reinstated in "Death", so is in twice.

Don't think we should have a separate "family" section, as Burgess' family is integral to his life story and writings

Rather than just revert it, would welcome second opinion as to where Paolo's death should be noted? Arjayay (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia opinion of Google, and original research, but as the claim is about what is circulating on web-sites, I Googled 3 terms:- "Paolo Andrea" + Burgess + Suicide. When expanded this search gave 68 matches:-
 * Have been looking into the (uncited) claim that "the rumour that he (Paolo Andrea) died by his own hand continues to circulate on websites"


 * 5 were irrelevant (directories etc)


 * 14 were the same book review, of Andrew Biswell's "The Real Life of Anthony Burgess", which originally appeared on Amazon


 * 49 were this Wikipedia article, or clones of it (some out of date)

Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The rumour is not therefore "circulating on web-sites", unless these are sites beyond Google's search powers, and if it were removed from this article, would (when Google purges old pages) only leave one, unsubstantiated, book review.
 * Then by all means, remove it, and any other unsubstantiated claims that you can't verify. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Selected works section
Selected by whom? What makes these works so important? I thought this section was too long and clogging the rest of the article up so have pruned it back. The best parallel I can think of is the discography section of the music articles; FAs such as Radiohead and REM list the studio albums only and have a link to a main discogrpahy article. I removed everything apart from the novels, and there is already a link to List of Burgess' works. Also, I don't see the point of the quote at the start of the section, so have removed that too. The section is probably still too long, but I think this will do for now. Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Personal life as influence"
I suggest that this section could be removed completely. It's entirely unreferenced and is a collection of trivia under a different name. Some of it could be integrated into the biography section, but I think it sohuld all go. Any objections? Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done as no one has complained. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no objections, it happens to be what I did to start several months ago. You are doing an incredible job in cleaning up this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article's looking better already, but I also think the hardest part is still to come. Getting rid of the rubbish is easy, sourcing the +60kb is going to be much more difficult. Plus rewriting the prose won't be easy. Thanks to Malleus and Parrot of Doom for taking on what they can. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Really?
''Anthony Burgess, known in Argentina as the British Borges, and Jorge Luis Borges, known in Britain as the Argentine Burgess, each spoke both English and Spanish fluently. But when Burgess-Borges met, each decided it would be unequal and unfair to the other, and inappropriate, to plump for either of the two languages when conversing. So the polyglot pair forged a compromise, deciding to conduct their lengthy, wide-ranging philological and literary conversations in Old Norse.''

Bollocks. Someone has made this up based on Burgess's story of reciting a poem in Old English with Borges. Monogloto 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Burgess clearly describes meeting Borges at a diplomatic reception, where they decide to converse in Old English in order to frustrate the Argentine security agents who are eavesdropping on them. --76.69.120.125 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Burgess told a lot of tall stories, and from his biographies appears to have often embelished the truth. Per wikipedia's policies on verifiability, a source independant of Burgess would be needed to support the statement about his conversation with Borges. Anyway, it's no longer in the article so this discussion isn't important. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The axe of doom
Can I make a proposal - anything tagged as unreferenced - delete it, no further warnings. Gone, including anything also related to that reference. Let anyone who wants to complain about the deletions, but unless somebody takes drastic action this article will remain a mess. I've already deleted some material that either is irrelevant, or duplicated elsewhere. I intend to continue. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got my support, it would certainly be encouragement to find sources. I'll have to look again at the biography of Burgess I got from the library. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article could be half the size and a GA, with good referencing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely support improvements to this article (and my chance to remove it from my watchlist). I am woeful inadequate to actually contribute anything useful to the content, and I appreciate the efforts Nev1 and you are making. My concern has always been that it was, when this all came up, a mess. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

mother's death
"His mother Elizabeth, died at the age of 30 at home on 19 November 1918, during the 1918–1919 Spanish flu pandemic" - the source I have from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states 1919. Which is correct? I can email the page content to anyone who requires it, although it is viewable if you're a member of Manchester Library's 24 hour service here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be able to double check the date in the Lewis biography tomorrow. I've noticed that the ODNB also states Lynne was pregnant when she was attacked in the blackout, something I'm pretty sure Lewis skates over in his biography, although I'll have to check that too. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so much for a day later :S Sorry to have taken so long, this had completely slipped my mind. I went back to the Lewis book, and he states 1918. I think the ODNB chooses 1919 because that's the year Anthony Burgess gave when recounting the death of his mother (embellished for some reason). Lewis appears to have had access to the death certificate, so I trust him in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI issue?
I have a little apprehension about the content added today by User:Paulschuyler. That is because when I noticed his additions and did a little investigating, the user was also making quite an addition to the article Paul Phillips (conductor), and that tended to indicate the editor was Paul Phillips (or as the Phillips article says - Paul Schuyler Phillips). I left a COI note on his talk page very early this morning, which wasn't answered, and he continued to edit both pages today. I left a second note about COI. I don't know if the content added to this article was valid and notable or not, but I'm understandably concerned since part of the content was added to the section "Selected studies", although what was added was called a "forthcoming" work, which wouldn't be notable at this point. It was first added to the article here on July 17, 2005, with a projected publication date before the end of 2005, then was changed to a projected publication date of mid-2006, and finally to forthcoming. I removed the mention because I can't see how something forthcoming for 3 1/2 years could be a selected study or valid as a notable mention. Hopefully the editors who have more knowledge on Burgess can determine if the changes are valid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For anyone reading this, these are the edits made by User:Paulschuyler. A book or article on the music of Burgess seems like a valid addition, despite the conflict of interest. I have, however, removed the entries in biographical dictionaries (one of which was written by Paul Phillips) as they can only deal with a subject superficially. On a similar note, I've also removed the "tributes and settings" from the bibliography section as that section could easily proliferate and should be covered by a legacy section. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic gifts
Is there any document of just how many languages he spoke?

Indeed. Some one must know this. Eleutherius (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hangman's Blood
Wikibooks recipes for cocktails has Burgess as the inventor of this cocktail - maybe it is a different Burgess? But it seems to me that if one part of Wikiworld says something, the other parts should be consistent. At least, can people look into this? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malay script
The section on Kota Bharu states
 * Malay was still at that time rendered in the adapted Arabic script known as Jawi.

That is correct, but irrelevant and misleading. It's still in use in some places, but for a long time before, Malay had been rendered in Rumi (romanized script), and this would have been what Burgess was mainly concerned with. I lived in Kota Bharu at the time and learnt Malay in Rumi. It was considered unusual to learn Jawi, though it's quite possible that Burgess did learn it.

I'm removing the text; if anybody disagrees, please provide a reference which indicates the relevance. Groogle (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus Jawi is extremely easy to learn - it's just an alphabet.

McGlinn's communist ideology would have a major influence on his later novel A Clockwork Orange.
How why what where when —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.161.26 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's essentially what Clockwork Orange is about - attempts to find freedom within totalitarianism. The article on the book gives more detail. More info here. Are you suggesting the Burgess article should go into more detail about his political views?Spanglej (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life Section?
Was he married? Single? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.