Talk:Charles Read (historian)

The queries raised by Et in Arcadia 1 appear to be mainly guesswork and inspired by jealousy or hatred. The language used clearly indicates that. The name Et in Arcadia 1 has no previous history and appears to have been created to disparage the subject. The name is a reference to Et in Arcadia ego, a 1637–38 painting by Classical painter Nicolas Poussin, Death in Paradise, and is commonly used as a terrorist death threat. I have taken the precaution of reporting this to the UK police. [User:Silsoe] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Silsoe - what an escalation!

Can you supply a single instance or link or any evidence at all where the classical Poussin painting is "commonly used as a terrorist death threat"? It's a very famous painting I chose as my username with its own page mentioning nothing of what you say re: being used by terrorists here. Also it's my username, so not sure how that is directed just at you (assuming you are affiliated with or the subject of the article). Simply editing this article with my username is a threat?

This is a very serious escalation in response to my saying below that I think parts of the article may have been written by the article's subject and appear promotional (with the latter of which users @Qflib @Bmm29 and @Nhinchey all seem to agree to different extents, with a similar discussion taking place after I sought help from more experienced Wikipedians who mostly agreed here, and then when some other editor I don't know also nominated this article for deletion, in which discussion I didn't even participate. I also in each of my messages invited anyone with any arguments to the contrary to please let me know and we can discuss, as people ended up doing.

In fact, you could have just told me or any other editor why you feel the new text was "fuelled by jealousy and hatred" and we could have cleaned up the wording together to make sure it is Wikipedia appropriate! The ideal here is something that is both neutral and that is not an advertisement or CV for the person, but also that anyone affiliated with the subject does not find demeaning. I think we can all agree on that. Instead you chose not to answer my call for feedback but go straight to this.

Reporting my edits to the UK police because of my username is simply bizarre, and indeed adds to the impression that all of this has a personal feel, rather than an encyclopaedic one, which was the very core of my initial concern. This isn't a case of a random Wikipedian neutrally discussing a subject. I am also convinced that any neutral third party reading the original article before my edits would agree it was promotional. Either way, as it stands, I'll stop editing this article as I have no desire to cause drama and it feels like I'm being intimidated to leave it alone. This will be my last edit on the Talk page too. I would invite an @admin to have a look at this page. Though I'm not sure if my moving on to / editing any other person's Wikipedia article would also constitute a threat to them in your eyes? Absurd.

Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This exchange has no place on the article talk page, please take it elsewhere, both of you. Thank you. Qflib (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

To stop reverting and re-reverting taking place, I have, for the reasons all detailed below on this Talk page, raised a "disputed" tag

While I have edited the article in its current form to be factual, it is clear that there is a dispute ongoing considering previous reverting by third parties (possibly subject itself). Hence I have raised the "dispute" tag. I have also sought guidance regarding potential deletion of the article here, which I will action depending on the response https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

All changes were undone by what is likely original author, without explanation, claiming "vandalism"

Please see below for the fact that this article does not conform to best practices. Claims like "won more academic prizes for its quality from learned societies than that of any other early-career economic historian of his generation" are entirely spurious and only reported by the subject themselves. They are very obviously self-promotion (what rankings/official published numbers exist regarding academic prizes per generation for early-career historians?). It is still my belief that the subject themselves created this article and is now attempting to revert the changes made. I will revert the edit, but this is also making me more convinced this article should likely be scheduled for deletion or seriously amended/monitored.

I invite the individual User:CatholicUnionist to argue here why they are reverting to include claims such as the above (claiming "vandalism"). My edits and full explanation for each edit, including explanation below on the Talk page can be challenged, but you must argue why you think the original text conforms to Wikipedia's norms.

Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Article does not follow good citation practices and appears self-promoting

I am making some changes to this article for the following reasons (and I invite discussion of all of them). I will add an explanation with each change as to why the change was made. I here wish to post the overall reasoning. I welcome any help with best practices.

- this article relies very heavily on bio blurbs published on university and college websites which are written by the person themselves. It is a well-known and verifiable practice that individuals are asked to submit these bios themselves. As such they should be dealt with with some caution.

- The main argument for prominence is a twitter thread written by the subject themselves that went viral, which is also cited in an article by the Guardian. There are then some newsletters and articles in serious publications that, among other matters, mention or reference in a line or so the matter discussed in the twitter thread. It is unclear to me if this satisfies notability requirements. Beyond this thread and the subsequent reporting, there is very little evidence of notability of the subject beyond that of a standard, well-established academic.

- There are some very big claims mentioned in the article which are all quite spurious, with insufficient and often very tenuous citation. Together with the reference at the top of the article to a local news report naming the subject "Cambridge's avatar economist of the 21st century", these strongly increase concern that this article's primary function is not as an encyclopaedic entry, but rather self-promotion. The latter statement appears in the Cambridge Independent, a local newspaper with a circulation of 15,000 that has not reached the prominence to merit its own Wikipedia page, in an article written by a local human interest and business reporter.

My personal impression is that most of the Wikipedia article was written by the subject themselves or an associate of the subject.

Supporting this is that the original Wikipedia article as published furthermore made the following two very big claims, which are known to be frequently made by the subject themselves, namely

(1) that the subject predicted the mini budget of former Prime Minister Liz Truss and its consequences,

(2) that the subject predicted the collapse of SVB; deleted from the first version of this article by another editor coming before me

while (1) is supported primarily by the subject's own claims in his own tweets stating that he gave a lecture and delivered an (unpublished?) paper before the mini budget, there have been edits after the Wikipedia article's main author created the article by other editors to clarify that the same sources cited for the subject's prominence state that "Dr Read didn’t know that Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget would inflict so much damage on the UK in September because the final text for Great Famine was signed off in June and published in October"

(2) is claimed by the subject themselves in various of their own written materials but also contradicted by the subject themselves again in the same source cited for his prominence "The launch for my second book occurred on the day before the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank – a rather strange coincidence,” he said, “in that the novel theory of financial panics in British history that my new book presents seems to have been the exact same mechanism that brought SVB down."

As it is in my view distinctly possible this article has been written by the subject themselves, it at present merits serious editing, if not deletion. Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Upon further review, the inclusion of dissertation and essay prizes in the biography box, which are won by graduates and undergraduates for their academic work, but are not themselves notable awards that are usually listed on individuals' Wikipedia pages, further supports my suspicion that this article was written by the person themselves or an associate thereof. --Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Article likely to have been written by subject themselves

Following on from the above points that seem to indicate this article was written in a heavily subjective way, having reviewed the editing history, the original creator and writer of this article, user "WrestPark", has only edited articles that directly pertain to the subject of this article, including the awards the subject has won, the bodies the subject is part of, and specifically economic history articles that are in the subject's very niche domain. It is my belief that WrestPark is the Wikipedia username of the subject of this article, who has written this article about themselves, which would be conflict-of-interest editing (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography). Hence the need for a serious re-write or deletion. Either way, while this is in itself not a violation, it should further raise the question above of whether or not this article satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now finished the initial re-write, and consider the article at this point to be neutral and objective rather than subjective. I invite all feedback. I personally would still suggest this article may be up for deletion on ground of notability, but will leave it up for now. Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup Tags Added Following AfD and Prior Discussions

Following both the Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion and previous Talk page discussions, the general outcome seems to be that this article should be cleaned up rather than deleted.

There have been ongoing concerns raised regarding:

Promotional tone and exaggerated claims (e.g., unverifiable academic achievements, self-referential statements).

Conflict of Interest (COI), as the article was likely created or heavily edited by someone affiliated with the subject.

Lack of strong independent sources, with many references relying on university bios or self-published material.

To reflect these concerns and encourage a proper cleanup, I have added the following maintenance tags:

– for promotional language and self-promotion.

– to highlight concerns that this article has been edited by someone with a vested interest.

– to address exaggerated and grandiose claims that are not backed by independent verification.

These tags should remain in place until the issues are properly addressed, rather than simply reverted without discussion. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss specific concerns and improvements here first instead of edit-warring. Bmm29 (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I have just gone in and made a number of changes; still more to do, but I'll stop here and see if anyone has any comments. Qflib (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Which "prestigious prize at MIT"?

The article claims Read won "a prestigious prize at MIT", but doesn't name the prize. I added a "" to it, since if it's prestigious it must have a name. As far as I can tell, there is no MIT webpage that mentions his name. The source for it his employee bio on the Cambridge website, but that also gives no details.

Unless anyone disagrees, I think that claim should just be removed.

(Note: The other academic awards listed are verifiable, if not particularly notable, so don't need to be removed). nhinchey (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, this should be removed. Qflib (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Reads like a vanity piece

I'm aware that this page has had problems before and they seem to have reappeared.

A lot of things are spelt out in too much unnecessary aggrandising detail.

ash (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: I've since trimmed this page. ash (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)