[James Willis]

The great thing about Wikipedia is that misleading entries can be edited. I did it myself once to remove a maliciously-named, invented item in a list of publications by another person I admired. I gave my reasons and my alteration must have been ratified by someone on the panel of volunteer scrutineers. But that was perhaps twenty years ago and I think there may be new restrictions on who can do this now.

But that was a blatant case and from what you say here this sounds more subtle – and Wikipedia is no place to stage a debate. I agree someone should take this on, and perhaps cast doubt on the objectivity and/or balance of the two articles. But it would have to be someone who, unlike me, had the endurance to persist to the end of Ellis’ critique and get some grasp of what he is struggling to say. (Years ago, in my student days, I used to say that some who can’t express an idea clearly probably doesn’t understand it himself.)

So I’m in favour of alerting someone, perhaps the channel administrators, to the fact that these two new articles, initiated recently by the same person, may be damaging to a true understanding of what Iain expresses so beautifully in his books.