Talk:Charles Higham (biographer)

Untitled
Nothing Higham says should be believed. This guy whitewashed the communist spy Harry Dexter White in his "Trading With The Enemy" book by calling White "an old fashioned liberal" and denying that White was a communist and a traitor. There is overwhelming evidence that White was a Soviet agent, but Higham has never had so much as a cross word for communists or communism, which explains the lies he's told about Errol Flynn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.34.50 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think this comment should stand unchallenged. For any of this to stay on WP, it needs to be sourced reliably. Please don't add any of this to the article without sources. Considering that Mr. Higham is alive now, we cant call him a "liar", nor can we say there is "overwhelming evidence" for White being a spy without giving the sources which say this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Charles Higham The Daily Telegraph   "Higham claimed she (Duchess of Windsor) was the mistress not only of Count Ciano, but also of Ribbentrop. He maintained that the Duchess’s attractions included exotic sexual techniques that she had picked up on visits to the brothels of Peking, which allowed the Prince of Wales to make the best of his supposedly modest endowments. He set a tone for vilification later explored by other biographers. "
 * Appears to contain material which is a tad dubious about Higham's veracity. Collect (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

problems in claims
Higham may have overstated a few things about himself - the French Academy has no mention of awarding him any major prize - all I could find is a minor award presented by Ionesco for the Dietrich biography. The Poetry Society does not mention him in any archives, so it is likely he got a very minor mention somewhere. "Regents Professor" at UCSC is not an academic position, but one usually for one quarter. strongly suggests Higham exaggerated his role in finding footage of anything. Collect (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

PW review of his Lincoln book and Churchill book
''It's the nature of conspiracy theories to drag in ever more suspects, and this study of Lincoln's assassination casts a wide net indeed. Higham (American Swastika ) implicates not only John Wilkes Booth's band of conspirators, but Confederate secret agents in Canada and Northern Democratic and Copperhead politicians and businessmen, including Union general George McClellan. Connecting them, Higham contends, was a network of semilicit wartime trade between North and South, facilitated by Lincoln and encompassing both his supporters and his enemies. Higham ties together a variety of Civil War figures and goings-on to suggest the hand of treacherous moneyed interests in Lincoln's murder, but he insinuates far more than he demonstrates. Much space is devoted to Confederate subversion operations and raids that had nothing to do with Lincoln's murder. Major claims—that Confederate agent George N. Sanders played a leading role in the assassination plot, or that assassination conspirators were motivated by considerations of Lincoln's "usefulness" to their own trading activities—are tantalizing, but not sufficiently substantiated. The McClellan-Booth link rests precariously on an anonymous report of a New York supper the famous general and the famous actor supposedly both attended. Scholars will be puzzled at Higham's interpretations—Copperhead congressman Clement L. Vallandigham is described as an "anarchist"—and stymied by his inadequate and sometimes garbled source notes. General readers will note that the text feels disorganized, a tangle of factoids. Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.''

''It would be difficult to write a tedious account of beautiful and appealing Jennie Jerome (1854–1921), who gave birth to future British prime minister Winston Churchill, but celebrity biographer Higham (The Duchess of Windsor ) has managed to do just that. In gossipy but unexciting prose, he details the minutiae of Jennie's birth and childhood in Brooklyn, N.Y., as the daughter of Leonard Jerome, a corrupt and criminal investor who frequently traveled in Europe. In 1874 Jennie, against the family's opposition, married Lord Randolph Churchill, who, with his wife's eager backing, became deeply involved in English politics. The couple spent much of their time in and out of sexual liaisons and scandals until Randolph's death in 1895. They also ran up huge gambling debts. Jennie married twice more (the second union ended in divorce) to much younger men. The author's attempt to turn a flashy, compulsively promiscuous socialite into an early feminist fails miserably, although the fact that Jennie established a magazine and built a hospital for wounded troops during WWI is of interest. Winston, who was conceived before his parents' marriage, makes brief appearances. Replete with sensational details, this account nevertheless fails to bring its subject to life.''

As far as I can tell, Higham was a skilled manipulator (and possibly a faker as well) of "documents", an inveterate Rupert Murdoch-employed gossip-monger, a mediocre poet of little renown, and  (as PW notes) a generally "tedious" writer. Collect (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article has serious neutrality issues. The editor who claims to have "improved" it has a clear issue with the writer. 3/4 of the article reports the bad press he received and fails to document his career in a neutral fashion. The article paints him as an untrustworthy, amateurish writer, drawing upon negative comments to form an argument. I suggest that this article is cut entirely to a stub and rewritten from scratch by a good neutral editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear me -- I used the best actual sources available, and not a single damn one of them defends Higham's fabulism - not even his former partner, Moseley! He was not "amateur" for sure - he trained at the (dungheap) of Rupert Murdoch's celebrity sensationalism.  I had to remove material for which no authentic reliable source exists - like him being a famous prize-winning poet, and associated with the French Academy.   He did serve one quarter as a Regents Professor - but the experts pointed out that he lied about "finding lost footage" which had been already cataloged and known to the archivists.   Oh - next time you wish to personally attack an editor, have the cojones to actually ping him instead of doing this stealth attack nonsense.   It makes you look quite small indeed. Collect (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have used the "best actual sources available" but you've clearly been selective in your decision of what to include or exclude. You've been selective with material to report his negative press, rather than produce a neutral account of his life and works.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at the tone of this for example:"In The Films of Orson Welles (1970) and in Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an American Genius (1985), he said that Welles suffered from a "fear of completion"[9] that led him to abandon projects when they were nearly finished because others could then be blamed for their flaws." and ""Higham's first best seller was Kate (1975), the first authorized biography of Katharine Hepburn.[6] This success was followed by Bette, the Life of Bette Davis, a biography of Lucille Ball, and The Duchess of Windsor (1988, 2005). In the book about the Duchess of Windsor he claimed she had learned unusual sexual practices in the brothels of Peking and was the lover of Count Ciano and Ribbentrop.[10]"

You've written it in the manner which suggests the writer is a liar or forming the side of the argumrnt that he writes untruths. We should be seeing in xxx he published xxx. Not in xxx he claimed... You've staged the article from the perspective that we're here to report only the controversial things he claimed in each book, not what books he wrote in general in a neutral fashion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Um -- are you saying the use of "said" which is recommended on Wikipedia is a non-neutral wording? As for the Chinese Prostitute stuff - did you see what the reliable sources state (note that I provide quotes from a few of them)? I toned down the criticism by a mile - unless you are a Rupert Murdoch fan - which I am not when it comes to "celebrity gossip." When the New York Times lets both barrels go - I think that perhaps they know what the target is. Oh - when writing about authors, sometimes it pays to read the damn reviews. Authors do not always point out their own problems, as a rule. And again - I specifically and deliberate;y left out a huge amount from a great many reviews, as then I might be giving too much stress on criticism.

Before I changed "argued" to "said" the sentence you cite as wholly blasphemous read:


 * In The Films of Orson Welles (1970) and in Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an American Genius (1985), he argued that Welles suffered from a "fear of completion"[7] that led him to abandon projects when they were nearly finished because others could then be blamed for their flaws.

And the version of the article before I arrived:


 * In the book about the Duchess of Windsor he claimed she had learnt unusual sexual practices in the brothels of Peking and was the lover of Count Ciano and Ribbentrop.[8]

I changed not a single word in that sentence which was already here - and which you apparently never read until you wished to chase me around "shaming" me for things I did not do at all. Next time, look at my edits before "shaming" me about edits I did not make. Clear? Before you chase me again -- look at what was already in the article. My task is to simply make sure the sources and claims actually agree. Collect (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I count at least four unsourced paragraph endings too.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that you write his biography first and books published in a neutral fashion. Then have a section on Criticism and at least try to make it read more neutrally. The Telegraph quote in even the second sentence of the lede sums up the article, it immediately assumes the wrong stance on this calling him " notoriously bitchy", however much criticism he has received.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:SOFIXIT.  I have added sourcing as fast as I can - berating me for unsourced claims which were already there before I got here is inane - berate the editors who added it in the first place.  Second, as you well know, "Criticism" sections are frowned upon.   Third, I use what the sources say, not what someone wishes they said.  Lastly, are you quite done here?    Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)  Appending - added sources to all the paragraphs which were unsourced before my arrival, and removed one which appeared to be OR based on actual examination of books. Collect (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that the extraordinarily snarky obituary of Higham published by The Daily Telegraph was possibly authored by competing Wallis Simpson biographer Hugo Vickers, who writes obituaries for that paper: http://www.hugovickers.co.uk/lecture_TheUltimateDeadline.htm?nav=lectures Whatever the case, its statements need to be treated with caution and balanced with opposing opinion. Engleham (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Without a proper source, your "possibly authored" assertion is just original research. You are welcome to find "opposing opinion", but it may not exist. Philip Cross (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"the insinuation that Higham sought sensation solely for the sake of profit, or worse, distorted truth for it, is belied by his reputation as an assiduous researcher" is unsupported by the sources cited, and is OR in any event here as well. Misuse of sources is violative of Wikipedia core policies. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm taking it out. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld needs to be praised for raising the issue of neutrality with the article. Just as here, so in life Higham's work has been distorted by haters. Recently slipped into the article was a further quote from the spiteful anonymously-authored Daily Telegraph obituary which - as I've previously pointed out - needs to be treated with tongs, especially as it may have been written by Hugo Vickers, whose website notes his obituary writing for the Daily Telegraph, and who is a direct competitor to Higham via their biographies of Wallis Simpson. The additional inserted quote reads: "One critic said, "There are two ways to write a Hollywood biography. Either you take eight years, as A Scott Berg did with Goldwyn, or you take a few minutes, the way Charles Higham seems to do with everything he writes." Now this is cheap sniping unworthy of an encyclopaedic entry. While Higham's style can be occasionally sensationalist, his painstaking research is a matter of record. Aside from that, I've identified the author of the quote which makes it even more problematic. It is one Paul Rosenfield, from an LA Times review of another author here: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-02/books/bk-29911_1_marilyn-monroe So who is Paul Rosenfield? Exactly. He's another competing writer in Higham's space, the author of an expose "The Club Rules: Power, Money, Sex, and Fear - How It Works in Hollywood". The review also notes he's "writing a biography of Katherine Hepburn". Higham wrote the bestseller "Kate: The Life of Katharine Hepburn" in 1975. Slight authorial conflict of interest anyone? Rosenfield's biography of Hepburn never appeared. Why? Because he suicided the same month as he wrote the review slagging Higham: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-28/news/mn-40687_1_paul-rosenfield That's what failure and embitterment does to you. And why it pays to do a little research. I'm deleting Rosenfield's unfair, jealous and distortionary snipe of Higham from the article right now. And I'd suggest a similar review and cutdown of use of material from the equally possibly tainted Daily Telegraph obit. As per his judicious digging into the background of Merle Oberon and others, Higham uncovered a lot of truths, sold a lot of books, and made a lot of fellow "celebrity biographers" very, very jealous. Engleham (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a remotely usable source for your accusation that an obit was written by any particular person with a desire to venomously portray Higham? Considering the huge number of places where the credibility of Higham has been raised, I fear we might be able to narrow the number of authors of such an obit down to a few thousand :). Note that the fact that you like Higham is not usable in this article, we have to stick with what reliable sources print - and the obit is from a reliable source.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The points I made are patently obvious. Your predicable baiting bullshit can rot by itself. Engleham (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for WP:RS sources is NOT BULLSHIT and I find your position here indicative of a person who does not wish to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion of this article's neutrality for the better part of a year, I'm removing the tag. Anyone who wishes to renew the discourse is free to put it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

policies which say "competing author" can not be used as a source?
I have searched assiduously and can not find any guideline or policy which says "competing authors can not be used in any article about another author". If anyone can find such a policy-based rationale for deleting a quote, please tell me. 21:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Collect (talk)
 * Comments from competing authors only become a problem when they are patently dishonest and gratuitously vindictive reputation smearing, as is clearly the case here. Suggesting that Higham wrote his books in "a few minutes" is insulting childish nonsense. It doesn't make for a good and helpful encyclopaedic article - which is the end goal. There is already enough material in the entry detailing Higham's authorial shortcomings, and obviously you can insert others from sources other than what are already there, providing there is a balance. However this particular inclusion contradicts your very own endlessly tedious soapbox lecturings on bias. (But as everyone who has ever crossed you knows all too well, such injunctions don't apply to you -- especially if you think you can get a rise out of the other party.) If you want to push this through as is you can try an RfC. Alternatively, you could include it, BUT provide the context: i.e. state its author, and state he was a showbiz author, and direct competitor of Highams. (No need to say he topped himself a week later. ;-) Anyway, I'd wager it wasn't depression or guilt at being a bitter prick: more like, given the date, a desire to short-circuit an AIDS progression.) However, even if that context is provided, the quote is puerile unhelpful rubbish that some other editor will eventually delete anyway - and not just your nemesis User:Dr. Blofeld. Engleham (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha - so any sources which are "smearing" are not to be used because you know that they should not be used. We are stating opinions as opinions and not asserting them as fact, which is what Wikipedia policies states we should do.   Meanwhile, I note a lot of puerile personal attacks here, and suggest you avoid such in the future. Collect (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone who has dealings with you well knows that there is no way in a million years that you would countenance the inclusion of such a loaded quote without context, were it not to the advantage of your own opinion. One only has view Talk:Harold_Holt, Talk:Gary_Cooper, or dozens of other articles to see where you stonewall editors over claims of "bias", however much they modify the inclusions to meet your demands.
 * There is, of course, no problem with including negative opinions of Higham in the article, but where those opinions are from direct competitors - which this author was - they represent a distorted view, and are of far less value for readers seeking to gain a perspective of the man than negative (and positive) opinions from neutral parties. You well know this is fair and reasonable, and is sensible procedure in terms of making editorial judgement calls, so you can stop pretending otherwise. As I've said, and conceded, the compromised quote can be included if it is given context, or an RfC agrees to it, but there are better negative opinions from neutral parties out there if it is felt the article requires more -- which I believe it doesn't. Engleham (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For someone who paints themselves as a grand expert in Wikipedia Policy, as to be expected, you ignore it when it suits you. But as you demand in your latest revert, here is the relevant policy: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" However "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source". Further supporting this WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier". That's exactly what I've asked. Your inclusion will be reverted until you do.


 * I'd like to WP:FOC but also note that –– because you can't get your way (as I know your tactics too well) through your standard operating procedure with dissenting editors of employing WP:CRUSH –– you've been repeatedly whinging to an admin with ridiculous nonsense: "is accusing me of heinous crimes against Wikipedia", "am an affront to human existence", and the last (rich coming from you) "he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia at all". Shall I list what you've typed of me? No wonder he sensibly gave you the brush off. Like other editors who've dealt with your endless demands when you're pushing a POV, I've been more than reasonable in trying to accommodate them. Talk a walk, calm down and grow up. Engleham (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it appears that all you can do is accuse me of misbehaviour. By the way, kindly show folks the horrid stuff I have written about you.  I find nothing inaccurate in any of my posts concerning your behaviour at all, but if you have anything more than a wandering rant, I am sure everyone would love to see it. Your iteration of essays as thought they were policies is interesting. As for your dis-desire to build a neutral encyclopedia, I fear your own words are best evidence. And, or course, admin comments such as "civility, trolling, personal attacks—length set due to previous blocks) ".  Collect (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)