Talk:John Derbyshire

Untitled

• /Archive 1:
• /Archive 2:
• /Archive 3:
• /Archive 4:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

POV language

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)

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

"argued that the average intelligence of black people is lower than that of white people." Why is this phrased, as if he were stating an opinion? That the black group IQ in America is at least 15 points lower than the white group average, and that the black group IQ in Africa is 30-33 points lower than the white group IQ virtually everywhere is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)