Talk:Hadley Freeman

Untitled
She's works in Britain, but is actually American. --59.100.48.242 (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Novels
Does she also publish books under the name Cecila Ahern? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-My-Life-Hadley-Freeman/dp/8416290768 194.207.86.26 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No 82.4.6.68 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021
I would like to request that the third paragraph under 'Views' (In September 2020, during the extradition trial of Julian Assange, Freeman responded to a general question about politics by chastising Assange's partner for expressing concerns that such an extradition would prevent her two children from being able to see their father.[29]) be deleted or rewritten with a neutral point of view. I have a rough suggestion for a neutral pov below:

In September 2020, Freeman responded to an interview in the Sunday Times with Julian Assange's partner Stella Morris in which Morris expressed concern that extradition of Assange would separate him from their children with "...one struggles not to reply: “Yes, that’s incredibly sad for your children. But it is also not an ENTIRELY unforeseen turn of events, given you conceived them with a man avoiding extradition to Sweden to face one allegation of sexual assault and another of rape.”[29] 119.18.1.158 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I don't believe that is an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Gaza etc.
An editor has deleted the text: She objects to what she says is the hypocrisy of groups like LGBTQ+ activists who would be persecuted in Gaza. On the other hand, Freeman recognizes that many Jews have spoken out about the cruelty towards Palestinians, West Bank settlements, and far-Right fundamentalism. with the edit summary: ''She obviously has many views. Use WP:IS to indicate which are important enough to mention. Summarize those briefly and proportionate to those sources.'' which does not give a justification for deleting that particular text. I do not see any justification for the deletion, and I think this text should be reinstated, as it is relevant to her views on Gaza. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I (naturally) agree that that passage should be restored to reflect her arguments about LGBTQ+ activists and Hamas (which are widely shared) in that essay. Further, the tag primary-inline seems unnecessary when quoting her. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a journalist and pundit, she has written about many, many more views than can be included in this article. The norm on Wikipedia is to use reliable, WP:IS to decide which views belong and which do not. To arbitrarily highlight one opinion based only on a primary source is a form of editorializing. In effect, you are choosing which opinions are encyclopedically important based on your own opinions. Adding details about this one opinion article is another form of subtle editorializing, as it is implying a level of importance that is not supported by sources. If her arguments are "widely shared" than it should be possible to cite a reliable source which discusses them. Otherwise, this is irrelevant and is also using Wikipedia to promote these views by sharing them even more without any context. Grayfell (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Her essay was covered in several newspapers and podcasts, although, given its target, not so much in left-leaning publications. The article LGBT rights in the State of Palestine highlights some of the problems about the status of LGBTQIA+ people in Gaza, as does Amnesty International here, the Human Dignity Trust here, as well as many pundits, again not from the left. I don't see how coverage of this important, and divisive, subject should be omitted from a section named "Views". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources cover Freeman's essay, why haven't your cited those sources?
 * This article is not about the topic of LGBT rights in the State of Palestine. Neither the Amnesty International source nor the Human Dignity Trust source mention Hadley Freeman. I am not saying the topic itself isn't notable, I am saying that we need to summarize this proportionately to this biography of a journalist and pundit. To put it another way, just because the larger topic is notable that doesn't also mean that every individual example of an opinion on that topic must also be worth mentioning.
 * As I said, she has produced many opinions on notable topics. We cannot include them all, so we need to use reliable, independent sources to summarize those which are important to understanding Hadley Freeman as a topic. The current wording is not proportionate, nor entirely neutral. The way to fix this starts with WP:IS. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)