Talk:John Derbyshire

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

Untitled[edit]

He's a self described racist and homophobe? Hmm, well this sentence is in the wrong place and goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. These accusations are placed too early in the lead paragraph, and give the impression of bias and point of view of the writers. It would be correct to say there is a controversy surrounding his articles in about homophobia and racism, though these are not neutral terms. The words racism and homophobia are politically charged, that is an accusation of racism or homophobia is a way to shut down debate and silence right wing ideas. Also there is no room here given to the nuances of debate. Basically, NPOV needs to be followed. This is Wikipedia not Socialist Workers Magazine. PS scandal is a weapon. You lazy reporters should uncover why the scandal is happening rather than repeat homophobia & racism left wing loaded terms a thousand times like the sheople that you are.

If he describes himself as a racist and a homophobe ("I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going" [1], reporting the fact is hardly a violation of NPOV - one has to assume he expected a response. As for the rest, read WP:NOTFORUM - and what 'scandal' are you referring to anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Self-identifications are informative and not counter to NPOV. That the self-identification is normally something one would find offensive is not a valid criticism; it is what someone is, just as much as someone who is a documented criminal or Ku Klux Klan leader can be described as such despite that normally being an auto-delete. The rest of this rant is counter WP:NOTFORUM and has nothing to do with whether the verified sentence should stay. 96.42.45.39 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's using the word homophobe in a knowing, tongue in cheek way. Of course, there is no such thing as homophobia, which is a politically charged word that is used by the left to silence the rational right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.127.244 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Homophobia is real enough. Ask any gay man who's heard "queers should be shot" in Tennessee thousands of time, bucko. 50.153.132.0 (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of the words "claim", "claims" and "claimed", et al..[edit]

It seems that his wife's name was, or is, not "Changhe", after all, being more of the name of a Chinese-made car. I shall be intrigued to know as to whether Derbyshire's marriage certificate, presumably Chinese, was deposited (in contrast to "registration", a distinction they are at pains to make) with the British Government, a facility available to the Queen's subjects who are British persons.

Anyhow, if it is "uncredited", then naturally it is unverifiable. We and Derbyshire (perhaps the "Mr." title can now be safely dispensed with, lest it appear any more pompous; this is after all not The Economist.) are not members of a Country Club, or a Gentlemen's Club, be it in London or in New York, and we ought not to "just take HIS word for it", what it ultimately boils down to, without question. In the spirit of democracy, a fair amount of doubt and scepticism ought to be allowed. The word "claim" do not upon (on) its own usually infer a meaning of uttering or writing an untruth, or a lie, although its use is often liable to attract the accusation thereof; the word "purport", however, does, at least in the modern usage, and certainly the word "pretend", for quite some time indeed.

The names of the son and of the daughter (or even that of the wife) ought not (do not really) belong to the article. John Derbyshire is not e.g. a gentleman (with a "coat-of-arms"), a knight, a baronet or a member of the peerage back in England, or in Scotland or Ireland, and the members of his progeny are not of note (notable) in their own right (whereas they would had been if Derbyshire were, due to reasons best explained at a different forum, at a different juncture), especially given their relative minority (young age), and they definitely have not yet made a name for themselves, not even trades or occupations of any sort to speak of. It might had been different if the either of them had authored or published any works of literature, such as what Queen Elizabeth had supposedly done during her minority. This might be the 21st. Century, but I do not see how they could be included into an encyclopaedic, or encyclopedic article, without having been first mentioned or published in Derbyshire's notice of death or obituary. If something was not fit (good enough) to be included by a Mister Hugh Chisholm back in the year nineteen-hundred and eleven, then probably it is not fit (good enough) for inclusion today.

At the risk of [causing offence, or offense], John Derbyshire, after all, ultimately cannot be said in good faith to be (or, he is not really) a man of much note, or, much notability, perhaps even in his adopted land; other than being an emigrant originally from the Southern shires and provinces, he certainly has not yet made a name for himself back in his native land, and probably never will, unlike even the likes of Peter Hitchens in North America, simply in or by virtue of his late brother's fame; and not even according to Oxford Dons and other learned men drawn from Her Majesty's College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Oxford, engaged and retained by (in the employ of) The Economist (or so it is claimed by the magazine's adversaries); whose interview was "politely" relegated under "Democracy in America", as a mere American of incidental British birth. -- -- KC9TV 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how much notability is required for Wikipedia. Surely as the author of "Prime Obsession" (winner of the Association of America's Euler Prize) and formerly a popular long-time contributor to National Review, Derbyshire at least somewhat notable.
As for his wife and children. I don't care much whether their names are included in the article or not. They were originally included as he has frequently referenced them by name in his writings. If you do include them, or any other information that comes directly from Derbyshire, it is good form to not use a loaded word like "claim". It sounds like you are from the UK. If that is the case perhaps this is a difference in dialect. Words may have a different connotation in the UK than in the US as I'm sure you're aware. A more neutral phrasing ("According to John Derbyshire, ...", "John Derbyshire writes...", "John Derbyshire says...", "John Derbyshire has stated...", etc.) would be better.
When discussing territorial claims or even claims of possession ("China claims Taiwan", "he claimed his inheritance") the word is pretty neutral. But when used for simple statements of truth or fiction the word is loaded. Readin (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV language[edit]

The section Comments on race and multiculturalism has a sentence that uses the phrase "race realist gathering". The phrase "race realist" is used exclusively as a self descriptor and is a breach of WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:EDITORIAL. Clearly it needs to be replaced, but needs to done so in WP:NPOV language. Autarch (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have rephrased sentence to use more WP:NPOV language. Autarch (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Derbyshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Derbyshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White Supremacist[edit]

John Derbyshire does not identify as a White Supremacist so we should restrain ourselves from giving him that label. It would be better to simply discus his positive, controversial comments about white Europeans, when they are significant. See WP:QUOTE

No where in the quotation from VDARE[1] does he claim to be a White Supremacist, and claiming so requires overinterpretation of what he actually said. Just as flattering communism does not make one a communist, or flattering the Enlightenment does not make one a liberal--we should be slow to fall into the trap of overinterpreting flattery. Furthermore, he is explicitly not identifying as a white supremacist, "leaving aside the intended malice" but suggesting there is merit to the literal, uncommon semantics of the term, outside it's normal usage.

Just use quotes if you think these comments are significant, or we sound slanderous. By starting the article out by calling him a White Supremacist we are violating NPOV. SammyRB (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ "VDARE". Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think "White Supremacist" is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.