Talk:Susan Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup[edit]

Bibliography definitely needs it. Skinnyweed 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up some oft he text and moved the bibliography to a list. There's more to be done on sourcing the contents and some of it reads like a copyvio (but I cannot find from where). There is also too little on her backgropund, and a few too many weasel words. Euryalus (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary ?!?[edit]

Found a site that purports to contain her obituary; but she appears to be alive and kicking ! GrahamHardy (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A silly joke, ignore it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Anglican?[edit]

Is Susan Hill a practicing Anglican? Certainly in The Various Haunts of Men she comes across as understanding and sympathetic to the ChurchPoshseagull (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, she is. I've just heard her say so on Radio 4's "Start the Week". Poshseagull (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem There's a problem with reference 7. It points to www.longbarnbooks.com but this appears to be a financial advice site and nothing to do with Susan HillArcencielltd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing[edit]

Please be aware that this edit appears to have been made by the subject of the article herself. and a similar edit has been made on Stanley Wells. The twitter status is a bit iffy to rely on for a BLP, but on the latter article they also cite a piece in The Telegraph (a pretty gossipy one, but still). Anyway, these specific edits are probably fine, but editing with a conflict of interest on a biography of a living person is, in general, not a good idea. Regular editors on this article may want to keep this in mind. --Xover (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the two edits were made by the subject. Attempts at WP:Outing are strongly deprecated. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
As explained elsewhere, it's hardly outing when someone tweets that they've edited their own article and how they've changed it. The main concern here is WP:COI: the edits in question cite a source that supports them, and appears otherwise neutral, but there is no guarantee future edits would be equally unproblematic (or that previous ones have been so). That is, there isn't yet a problem here, only a potential future problem; hence my note to this article's regular editors to keep it in mind. --Xover (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Susan Hill, Lady Wells[edit]

If she and Sir Stanley Wells are not divorced, can we call her Dame Susan Hill, Lady Wells? --Peter Philim (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]