Jump to content

Talk:Darcus Howe

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

Additions

[edit]

Two recent additions do not meet NPOV, but may have some useful content

  • He also presented the TV show "Devils Advocate", a polemic that rather fell flat by reason of Howe's sanctimonious dithering.
  • Whilst his writings have some resonance, his credibility is undermined- this is a man who deserted his children then presents himself as heroic by contacting them years later.

Guettarda 21:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was disappointed by reading about "seven children by four different women" because by I always thought he was busting a stereotype, not falling into it. The Devil's Advocate series was better than later offerings, in which he seemed to lose his sense of humour. But I think that is probably POV too so not usable in the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

[edit]

When did he first go to Trindad? The article says he was born in London but left Trinidad when he was 18. The links to bios refer to him as being born in Trindad.(83.9.84.201 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

was vandalism - fixed now Widefox (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 9, 2011 BBC interview

[edit]

Why does this need a third party reference? The footage was aired on television and is a matter of public record.

For the second time, I've removed:

On 9 August 2011 at the time of the 2011 London riots, Howe was interviewed live on BBC television. The interview<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WoFak7MRBJw</ref> sparked controversy{{fact}} as much due to the manner the BBC presenter (Fiona Armstrong) adopted in interviewing him as the views he espoused. While Howe was lamenting that the message coming from disaffected youth in the country was not being listened to, he was interrupted by the interviewer and asked if he therefore "condoned" the violence taking place in London. Although he denied condoning violence, the presenter again interrupted Howe's explanation of the causes for the unrest, stating to Howe that "you are not a stranger to riots yourself, are you? You have taken part in them yourself." This unsubstantiated accusation immediately followed Howe's declaration:

"I don't call it rioting, I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people. It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapham, it's happening in Liverpool, it's happening in Port-au-Spain, Trinidad, and that is the nature of the historical moment."

It should not be restored without reliable third-party references, per WP:OR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is a link to a youtube video which includes the footage described above not acceptable here? I appreciate that whoever has described this has used emotive language eg "unsubstantiated," but I'm not convinced that this constitutes original research. Thanks Totorotroll (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short: no - see WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just a shame that this video isn't to be found on the BBC website http://www.normangirvan.info/have-some-respect-for-an-old-west-indian-negro-darcus-howe/ Totorotroll (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC interview with West Indian writer gives insight into causes of London riots. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"contextual information"

[edit]

Regarding this, I would suggest that adding information from sources which makes no connection to the interview to provide context is against WP:SYNTHESIS. No reliable source has said the IPCC has said whatever so therefore the BBC interviewer was wrong. The edit summary "that the presenter's objection was baseless" seems to confirm that Renseim is attempting to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", that the presenter's objection was baseless. We can only include this if a reliable source has put forward this interpretation. Adambro (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but yet more PoV OR is being added (some by a new account) to the article. I've tagged it as needing citations. But the best action would be to remove the section, until there is consensus here as to how it should be worded and referenced; then re-add it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what's controversial about the wording of the section. It seems to quite conservatively describe the content of the video. Interpreting the video through the more reserved wording of the articles is layering on interpretation and may not be appropriate. --Josho121 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hostile" sentence

[edit]
I would dispute the sentence: "The interview was noted for the hostile tone taken by the BBC presenter Fiona Armstrong". Having read the Washington Post source in the article and the Atlantic Wire and Yahoo ones included immediately above, I think "hostile" would be the wrong word to sum up what those articles say the interview is noted for. Words that are used (noted) by the sources are "(she) doesn’t quite know how to take Howe’s comments.; “She spoke over him, attempted to put words in his mouth and generally lost control”; contentious and awkward exchange; Wretched". So although whoever included the sentence in the article might themselves think that Fiona was being hostile, and you (the general you that is reading this) might happen to too, the sources don't quite say that - so to claim that interview was noted for the hostile tone taken by Fiona would be an incorrect reflection of what the sources say (certainly from those three sources, and if three sources so far don't say she was hostile it's likely the interview isn't actually noted for her hostility). I think another word would need to be used: one that indicates what the sources do say and is less POV. Also, on a broader point, is this interview even worth including in his article? It's interesting and topical right now and it's claimed it's being passed around the internet so it seems it's popular but does it actually meet the requirements for due weight in this biography? Is this an important interview that is important in the context of his biography? Does it really need to take up more space in his article than his entire broadcasting career does? My own feeling is that the answer to the first question is probably not and the answer to the second is definitely not. Accountcreatedforcorrection (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just tried to add adjectives that are actually in the article cited, only to have my contribution reverted. In the article cited, Fiona is described as being "sanctimonious" and "rude". Perhaps these are more useful than the word "hostile", which doesn't appear in the article. Totorotroll (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all claims in the version I just uploaded are accurate and referenced. The quoted material appears correct from my listening to the video.
There remains a POV tag at the top of the section. If there is still a POV charge I would like that aired out here, so we can remove that tag. Renseim (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They may be referenced, but they're not referenced to reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Brixton riot

[edit]

I note that in the quote from Armstrong where she says "You are not a stranger to riots yourself, I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself.", the word riots has been linked to 1981 Brixton riot. As I indicated in my edit summary when I removed this link, I don't think it is appropriate to link to that page since we don't know whether Armstrong was referring to that incident. I note that a number of references have been added to support the view that Armstrong was referring to the 1981 Brixton riots yet I don't see that they do. Armstrong said nothing further in the interview to suggest she was referring to 1981 and looking at the references, they don't seem to say Armstrong was referring to 1981 either.

I note that the article says that Howe "was arrested and tried for riot, affray and assault" in 1970. Considering that, I think it is difficult for us to assume Armstrong was referring to 1981. Adambro (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is old news now, but this reference proves that Howe took Armstrong's statement as relating directly to the 1981 riot. http://www.vice.com/read/darcus-howe-the-british-black-panther The interviewer asks "When Fiona Armstrong said you weren’t “a stranger to riots,” what was she getting at?" and Howe replies: "The explosion in New Cross took place in early 1981, because 13 black kids had a birthday party and some fascist bombed the place and killed them. The police were terrified and I was publishing pamphlets and we brought 20,000 people to the streets of this country. I was an organizer...Weeks later they charged me for inciting to riot and I won the case and was acquitted. So, I suppose that wretch Armstrong wasn’t briefed properly."

Would it be useful to add that Howe believed her comment was related to his organization of the march? I know this bit doesn't need to get too long, and Howe has done lots of other things in his life which need documenting here a lot more than this incident, but I think it might be useful context.Kaleeyed (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

This article is being used as part of a political (or should I say anarchical?) point, and is therefore not strictly factual. This is not the point of Wikipedia. The article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.150.0 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Deletion is not cleanup. We fix problems; we don't delete articles because of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For the sake of accuracy I have added a few words to clarify the fact that this "controversy" is in the main referenced only by a mere 'blog-post' written by a novelist with no Wiki entry (Elizabeth Flock), citing only two other US-based bloggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrillion (talk • contribs)

That may have been (almost) true when you wrote that, 12 hours after the interview was shown. However now it has been commented on by quite a number of blogs and several news sources. I hope the section in question HAS been made purely factual, including the important fact of the BBC (state television) interviewer's conduct fueling the very sort of outrage that lead to the civil unrest in the first place. Renseim (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I would really like any remianing disputes flushed out here so we can move on. I had thought that we were approaching consensus but someone challenged youtube as not being a RS. Well of course FACTS stated on youtube are not sourced by their appearance on a youtube video. However I believe that pointing to a youtube video is sufficient evidence that a youtube video exists, and that the contents of that video are indeed what you see when you go to that URL. And it is undisputed that the youtube video actually IS the BBC interview in question. So I'm quite sure that the "referencing" involved is quite proper and should not have been removed.

The reason this section of the article is of importance has to do with the form of the interview AND the public reaction (including on youtube where it was uploaded several times). So I don't think any of that should be downplayed. And in EXPLAINING the public reaction, reference to the video itself and the examples of interruption/rudeness by the presenter, as verified, is relevant material for the article.

Please post disagreements here. When we have reached a consensus I will remove the POV tag. Renseim (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. See also discussions inthe past at WP:RS/N. This is policy, and not a matter for discussion by the way. Nor is the number of times a video is uploaded of any relevance in a WP:BLP. And also it is not up to Wikipedia editors to say someone was "rude" we can only state what has been made by a reliable source. See also WP:V. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rude" isn't in the article. I will look at the page you pointed to, but I'm pretty sure what I said about youtube being a source for its own existance is acceptable and that's as far as it was used for. Renseim (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the discussions and that yet another editor has made it clear that youtube is not acceptable in any BLP articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no facts stated in the youtube video are introduced as facts for the article. I'm still quite sure that pointing to youtube is sufficient to prove the existance of a youtube upload and I'd be more impressed if you could challenge my understanding through a specific WP policy, or even by an editor that has already been involved in this page. Renseim (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also policy not to link to works which are hosted on an external site in violation of copyright, see WP:LINKVIO. January (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but what about articles that refer to the video footage? Are these also unreliable? Totorotroll (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that the BBC has published its apology, maybe it's worth only quoting the exchange quoted on its site and the apology? Totorotroll (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I suggest cutting this to:

Howe was interviewed live on BBC television on 9 August, 2011 during the 2011 London riots by the BBC presenter, Fiona Armstrong.[1] Her tone was described as "sanctimonious" by Anjali Kamat, correspondent for Democracy Now!.[2].

Armstrong stated:

"You are not a stranger to riots yourself, I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself."

Howe responded:

"I have never taken part in a single riot. I've been part of demonstrations that ended up in a conflict. Stop accusing me of being a rioter and have some respect for an old West Indian negro, because you wanted for me to get abusive. You just sound idiotic - have some respect."[3]

The BBC subsequently published an apology on its website:

"The BBC apologises for a live interview on its news channel - broadcast on Tuesday - in which presenter Fiona Armstrong accused guest Darcus Howe of taking part in riots. The Corporation said it had not intended to show him any disrespect."[4]

Totorotroll (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I think the current coverage of this particular event is a little overboard. Adambro (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the BBC's apology shows a page that doesn't actually have an apology on it (unless I'm going blind). Don't know if its cycled out or what but it really doesn't seem to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.146.38 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC page has it but hard to find; left side scroll down in box. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, guess I am going blind then. Thanks for that, suncreator. However, that will presumably cycle out shortly leaving exactly the same situation. Is there a better place to link to than that? I'll go on a quick hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.146.38 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of these two might do it, but I'm gonna leave it to one of you guys to decide if thats OK - looks like there's been enough argument over this and don't want to dive into a situation I'm not fully up to date with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693842/London-riots-BBC-apologises-for-accusing-Darcus-Howe.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-apologises-over-darcus-howe-interview-2335357.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.146.38 (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new cut down version has removed all the content. The section initially dealt this the point that "we wouldn't listen" and that it was an insurrection not a riot. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not experienced enough wiki editor to debate the ins and outs of what should and should not be included in this article about the BBC interview, but clearly something must be included. Nothing at all is just ridiculous and ignoring the reality that people hold his views, and views that oppose his. The BBC have published an apology, as stated above, and this is evidence that people found the reporter's interview style offensive in some way. No reference to this interview at all is not neutral either. Please include something about this important interview soon ... it's neglectful not to. --PoizonMyst (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington post article used as refernce no. 7 quotes the interview with: "Our political leaders have no idea, the police have no idea," Howe said, of the level of frustration and discontent among the youth in England. "I don't call it rioting, I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people," he added. "It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapham, it is happening in Liverpool, it is happening in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, and that is the nature of the historical moment." I would suggest it'd be added fully or in part in order to provide a fuller picture of the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.219.101 (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest however that the most significant aspect of this interview was the accusation that Howe was involved in rioting. Looking at how other reliable sources cover this would seem to back up that view. That Howe said other things, beyond denying the rioting accusation, I don't think it important enough to merit it being mentioned. It would be inappropriate to try to extend to basically providing a transcript of the whole interview with commentary as it seems at points we've been heading towards. In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty insignificant episode in Howe's life so we shouldn't go overboard in terms of covering it. Adambro (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We have a couple of sources presently cited
that contain useful general biographical detail; our priority should be to expand the biography proper, of which this incident, though presently in the news, is a relatively minor part. --JN466 13:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Huffington Post, August 10, 2011, London Riots: BBC Interview Gets Testy
  2. ^ Flock, Elizabeth "BBC interview with West Indian writer gives insight into causes of London riots", The Washington Post, August 09, 2011, accessed August 09, 2011.
  3. ^ "Lve: England riots", BBC, update on August 10, 2011 at 5:07PM
  4. ^ "Lve: England riots", BBC, update on August 10, 2011 at 5:07PM

Biography

[edit]

I have added a sentence about the upcoming biography. It's listed for pre-order by online booksellers. [1][2] --JN466 12:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policeman or barrister?

[edit]

This edit, sourced to Race Today (see [3]), whose editor Howe was at the time, might be an important correction, but it's at variance with two other sources, The Independent and The Guardian, both quoting Howe. I cannot see more than the Google Books snippets of the Race Today coverage; does anyone have access to more than that? --JN466 20:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another source, with yet another variant:
Just like 20 years ago. Enoch Powell had made another of his bilious interventions. That day I had taken my eldest daughter to Lord's, a one-day international between England and the West Indies, who unleashed Joel Gamer for the first time in England. He bowled magnificently as I remember. I saw her off at the end of the game and was returning to Brixton via Netting Hill. I bought my ticket and made my way to the exit point. I found the newly installed automatic entry gates kind of unusual. I explained this to the ticket-collector, who jabbed me in the stomach and pushed me in the direction of the automatic gates, muttering "you black bastard". I faked with a right and got in a sweet left hook thereafter. He grabbed the rails to prevent himself from collapsing. A passenger in a pin-stripe suit, white, and who turned out to be a barrister, struck me over the head with his brolly, never once inquiring as to the right and wrong of the issue. I was much younger then, beautifully fit and I enjoyed them both. The police were called, I was charged, tried at Knightsbridge Crown Court, found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. After a great amount of international agitation, I was allowed an appeal in record time. One week. And set free.
Howe, Darcus. March 5, 1999. "For Every Racist, I've Met Scores of Kind People." New Statesman, Volume 129, Issue: 4426, page 22. --JN466 20:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see diff. Given that the barrister's profession seems to have been incidental here, I have removed it. --JN466 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the BNP seem to have copied from us: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/black-%E2%80%98community-leader%E2%80%99-interview-went-wrong --JN466 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a good source and fixing the edit. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darcus?

[edit]

How did he acquire the name Darcus? Is it a play on the word Dark or something more complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.138.45 (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, he "began going by his nickname, Darcus, while working with the Black Panthers in the US." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darcus Howe. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darcus_Howe&oldid=1195376084"