Talk:V. S. Naipaul

India
With regards to 's edits, I don't support adding this to the lead as is, but it does make me think that we could use a section that delves into thematic patterns in Naipaul's work. After all, the Indian subcontinent (predominantly, but not only India), the Caribbean, and Africa are his three major areas of focus. But before we add information about the to the lead, we need to ensure that we have reliably-sourced information about this in the body of the article. And obviously, India shouldn't be singled out - that creates NPOV issues - but I could see it included with these other topics.

We can't do that without sourcing, obviously, and we can't do that without adding an appropriate section. But I think it's an interesting possibility if this is something Jhy.rjwk would want to work on. Pinging and. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m taking a few days off from WP for reasons explained on my talk page. Jh* made some entirely irrelevant and forgettable additions involving vacuous promotion of India. Two edit summaries refer to “ Indian triology sic” Area of Darkness was written in 1963 after his visit to India during which he wrote Mr Stone and the Knight’s Companion in Kashmir. He had a violent first reaction to India. India,A Wounded Civilization is not really a book but a collection of essays published earlier in the NY Review of Books at Bob Silver’s invitation. They were impatiently critical of India during its so-called emergency.  India: A Million Mutinies Now is a better book written in 1992 and haas some haunting passages of the Sikhs and Kashmiri Muslims that are hardly complimentary to India. I’ve read all three books.


 * I was attempting to write this article earlier and would have finished it had editors not kept sabotaging my efforts. The talk page is littered with the interactions including the late user:Brianboulton’s intervention. After I return to WP by early next week I have to spend another week on the Darjeeling FAR, but after that I’d like to beg permission to complete the article, starting at where I had left off (ca. Guerillas’’ and continue to the end. The biography bit that is. This is harder than it sound as the associated books have to summarized as well, e.g. The Mimic Men and not superficially as Jh* has done with the IAWC book. I’m sorry I’m having a bit of a violent reaction, which has nothing to do with you, for as you know I have deepest respect for you and your knowledge of the region, but my request to be allowed to complete the biography bit first is in earnest.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have in the back of my mind that in mid August his 90th birthday is coming up and it would be good to have the article in some form of completion. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Guettarda (talk), Well, I think it is a good idea to have some thematic sections in this page, including one on India. But, I do not see any good reason why India triology cannot have brief mention in the lead as this is the only triology about any country that Naipaul wrote. Also, the charges of Boosterism are inappropriate, as all his books are highly critical and almost defaming of India, so there is nothing complimentary about India in that. It is Important NPOV Information that needs to mentioned on this page Jhy.rjwk (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So again. Have you read any book of Naipaul? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jhy.rjwk I do not see any good reason why India triology cannot have brief mention in the lead as this is the only triology about any country that Naipaul wrote. Fundamentally, there's the issue that information shouldn't be in the lead if it isn't discussed in more depth in the body of the article. But more importantly, I don't understand what you mean by "the only trilogy". While he did write three non-fiction books about India, I'm not sure he intended them to be a "trilogy". What reliable sources say he did? He mostly wrote real and fictionalised accounts of Trinidad. He wrote about Trinidad in his books about Trinidad. He also wrote about Trinidad when he wasn't writing about Trinidad.
 * NPOV doesn't require a lengthy discussion of something in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. And it certainly doesn't require such disproportionately lengthy discussion in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can see on Goodreads, these 3 books are also packaged together as India Triology & are among the popular books of Naipaul
 * https://www.goodreads.com/series/240931-india-trilogy
 * The lead is very short, and missing important information, so it should be expanded to include some important brief points from the sections. We can remove the mention of his wide travels to India in the lead but atleast need a neutral statement about an India triology of these three books. And, there can be mention of other books that go together as a group, or were written together in some context, so that it's not just India triology but some more books that are mentioned in the lead.Jhy.rjwk (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of those three books? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Area of Darkness or just copied my section on the book in this page to the book in addition to copying the promotional blurb by the publisher? If so please tell me how it begins? What is part 2 about? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read ‘’India A Wounded Civilization’’? If so, please tell me what Naipaul gleans from his conversations with psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have read ‘’India A Million Mutinies Now’’? If please tell me what the traffic jam in Bombay with which the book begins all about? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words what is the point of regurgitating Wikipedia pieties when thus far you have given no evidence on Wikipedia of knowing anything about the author. Despite that you make your very first edit directly in the lead. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler I don't mean to rush your efforts; I didn't realise you were still working on this article. I'm grateful that you are. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I’m embarrassed that it is not finished and the events of the last week in RL have made that embarrassment acute. I’m embarrassed that I have wasted so much time away from the big articles I came to Wikipedia to write, fighting every battle with every two-bit POV-pusher, and not “only the big ones,” as Naipaul said to Behzad, or one of his interlocutors in ‘’Among the believers’’. Nothing puts this more in perspective than the death of a pet who began and ended his life during the time I’ve been on Wikipedia, who lived it blamelessly and honestly as his instincts directed him.
 * I’m in a state of deep shame right now. I have all of Naipaul’s books, from Mystic Masseur to the last two, not just read but many purchased again later in first editions. I’ve read so much of him that by the 1990s I could spot repetition in his works and by the 2000s felt some embarrassment because the creative powers that had brought me spellbound to him had begun to desert him. If there’s one thing I’d like finish on Wikipedia before I go it is this article.  Naipaul himself had written at the end of ‘’An Enigma of Arrival’’ that the death of his sister had fitted a real grief where melancholy had created a vacancy, making him lay aside the drafts and the hesitations and write very fast about Jack and his garden.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor prefix
I can see nothing in MOS:OVERLINK that would rule out linking VS Naipaul's Knight Bachelor prefix, and it is indeed the common standard across the vast majority of articles to do so. I would understand if it was the sort of prefix with both prefix and suffix, i.e. KBE/DBE, or a knighthood of a particular order (KCB/KCMG etc.) but as it's a Knight Bachelor, I believe it should stand - in fact, linking helps to clarify what order of knighthood, if any, the honour was in. Happy to be pointed to a section of the Overlink style-guide that clearly states opposite. OGBC1992 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to link it behind "Sir", which would fall under MOS:EASTEREGG. The Knight Bachelor award is already linked further below in the infobox. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can see too much logic behind some of the claims in MOS:EASTEREGG, particularly the argument that "If a physical copy of the article were printed, the reference to [in this case, Naipaul being a Knight Bachelor] would be lost" as it seems to leave the door open to some incredibly clunky and poorly-written articles when piping would allow for much more smoothness. But perhaps that's a debate for a different time and a different place. Take care. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And @Fowler&fowler, apology accepted, although it was not only needlessly unkind but also irrelevant to the matter in hand. Letting bygones be bygones now though - cheerio and take care. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agent Gillon Aitken?
In "The Strange Luck of VS Naipaul" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_gpiE3cWA 14:43 Naipaul's literary agent Gillon Aitken is interviewed, and Naipaul's voiceover "before Gillon I had been involved with Fred for an agent [...] my earnings quadrupled or quintupled." So this seems somehow a somewhat important aspect. I am seeking alignment in Talk whether to add some on this in this page "Agents"... Erik.Ykema (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)