Talk:John Derbyshire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intelligent Design and National Review

Being opposed to foolishness like Intelligent Design is hardly a point of 'difference' with the rest of the NR staff, and implying such a thing is pretty scurrilous. palecur 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "scurrilous," but I'll remove the reference if you want. There are plenty of other issues where Derbyshire disagrees with other NRO writers. He's in hot water with a lot of them right now because of his attack on Ponnuru's Party of Death. Casey Abell 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that this is the case if the lion's share of NR embrace that 'hypothesis' and make it a political issue. The fight with Ramesh Ponnuru appeared to get pretty heated.Jkp1187 13:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Derbyshire continues to get into fights with other NRO writers, most recently over his defense of John Kerry's remarks about American troops in Iraq. This estrangement has been brewing for a long time. There's a June, 2005 quote from Jonah Goldberg, which is referenced in the article, about Derbyshire's increasing "sympatico" with Andrew Sullivan. Jonah correctly predicted the sweet words that Sullivan has been tossing towards Derbyshire, and which are now noted in the article. Frankly, the section called "Sullivan-Derbyshire dispute" should probably be replaced with one called "NRO-Derbyshire dispute". Okay, that's a slight exaggeration...but only slight. Casey Abell 20:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sullivan section should still stay, because it was something that was well known (at least among the conservative blog community), and is still commemorated by Sullivan's "Derbyshire Award". There is already a "Disagreements with NRO Writers" section.Jkp1187 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD, this is what Derb said in re: the JFK flap:

Utterly Devoted to IQ Testing [John Derbyshire] The U.S. military, that is. Steve Sailer provides the actual numbers (as if anyone cares about actual numbers in rhetorical punch-ups like the Kerry flap):

"As I've been pointing out for a long time, American enlisted personnel are pretty smart. From 1992-2004, virtually nobody was allowed to enlist who didn't have a high school diploma and who scored below the 30th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification IQ test. Indeed, the typical enlistee had a 3 digit IQ, above average. They've been scraping a little closer to the bottom of the barrel recently, due to Iraq, but volunteers remain pretty strong. I don't think many in the media know this. You are supposed to say that IQ is a discredited concept, and the fact that the military is utterly devoted to IQ testing (and, in fact, most of the middle section of The Bell Curve came from data provided to Charles Murray by the U.S. military) is something you aren't supposed to think about."

Posted at 9:22 AM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

This is a DEFENSE of Kerry?!?? Goldilocks didn't actually read it.... Jkp1187 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The record on Derbyshire and Kerry's comments about the troops in Iraq

Derbyshire's original post on Kerry's remarks defended them as a swipe at Bush, not at the troops in Iraq:

"John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here."[1]

Derbyshire, of course, agrees with Kerry about Bush's dimwittedness and is on record as calling Bush's Iraq policy a "disaster" and advocating an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Derbyshire went on to comment that people expressing "fake outrage" could not be fair-minded:

OUTRAGE...from several readers — and, obviously some of my Corner colleagues — that I would dare to suggest that John Kerry was not slandering our troops. But he wasn't. He may regard them with contempt (my personal impression is that JK regards most of the human race with contempt); he may despise them; he may think they're dumb crackers; but T-H-A-T-'-S N-O-T W-H-A-T H-E S-A-I-D.

What he said was: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Who is stuck in Iraq? Not the common soldier, who just does a tour of duty, as Kerry himself knows from (sorry to bring it up) experience. Who's stuck in Iraq? George W. Bush is stuck in Iraq. That was the point of Kerry's joke. Which he botched. No fair-minded person, watching Kerry deliver those lines, could think otherwise.

I'm not carrying any water for John Kerry. I wrote this about John Kerry, and a good deal more uncomplimentary stuff besides. I don't like John Kerry. I didn't vote for John Kerry. Truth is truth, though, even when applied to John Kerry. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem.[2]

Derbyshire went on to say that people who disagreed with his interpretation of Kerry's remarks were LIARS FOR BUSH (his capitalization):

Hope you guys are sending foam-flecked emails to Jay Nordlinger, too — he agrees with me about Kerry's remarks.

I'm getting VERY peculiar emails. Like this one: "[Quoting me] 'Something is owed to honesty'? No, it isn't..."

Perhaps this character, and a couple of similar ones, should form a club & get some lapel buttons printed up: LIARS FOR BUSH.[3]

John Podhoretz, never shy of tangling with Derbyshire, wrote this on the Corner:

Sorry, Derb, but you're just wrong, wrong, wrong. Kerry was not referring to Bush, and the outrage is not fake.[4]

Ramesh Ponnuru, another one of Derbsyhire's frequent critics on the Corner, got in another shot:

Kerry may have meant to make an anti-Bush crack—he probably did, even—but the plainest reading of what came out of his mouth was an anti-troops crack. So he should have said that he botched the line and never meant to insult the troops. That wouldn't have ended the story, since it's too good for Republican partisans to let go, but it would have caused it to die down considerably. As for John Derbyshire, he needs to learn to take criticism as well as he dishes it out.[5]

Derbshire finally backed down very slightly:

OK, back. Email bag's evened out some—supporters are rallying.

But to your point, Kathryn, that: "Unfortunately I don't think you're being fair to the fair-minded people — many of them who are (politely and soberly) e-mailing me non-stop now about their frustration at being considered liars by someone they have come to respect and read regularly her on NRO — who saw Kerry's remarks for what they appeared to us to be."

I'll admit that gave me pause. There surely is fake outrage out there, and I really have had emails from people who don't think anything is owned to honesty in matters like this—and for whom, therefore, my suggested lapel button would be entirely appropriate.

OTOH, I'll allow that some people I know to be "fair-minded" did indeed take Kerry's remarks the other way, so I guess there are a lot of others I don't know to whom the same applies. So there is ambiguity in there somewhere, though I still can't see it. In any case, I certainly don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a liar, or crazy, and I don't think any fair-minded person would take what I said... Oh, never mind.[6]

Just another episode in Derbyshire's frequent tangles with other Corner writers...in particular, K-Lo, Podhoretz, and Ponnuru. Goldberg thoroughly enjoyed the dustup and made his by now common comparison of Derbyshire to Andrew Sullivan:

Derb - this line: "as if anyone cares about actual numbers in rhetorical punch-ups like the Kerry flap" sounds awfully Sullivanesque not only in its assumption that everyone who disagreed/disagrees with you is operating in bad faith but also in its selective use of facts. Lots of conservatives who disagreed with your interpretation of Kerry's comments dealt with "actual numbers." For example, lots of folks around here and elsewhere cited that Heritage study. Maybe, I'm misreading your intent, but given the recent flaps around here, that's what it sounds like.[7]

I enjoyed the dustup, too. Derbyshire keeps stepping on people's last nerves at the Corner. Casey Abell 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Sorry -- I did not see the previous comments, had only seen Goldberg's response to Derb's above comment! Jkp1187 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. NRO's Corner archives are a mess to search. You have to restrict the dates really tight or you get a ton of irrelevant posts. It took me a good hour to track down all the posts I quoted, and they're only a few days old. Go back a few months, and it becomes nearly impossible to get stuff directly from the site. I usually back into the search by first using Google and then trying the NRO site's own search engine, a few dates at a time. Casey Abell 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Irish

I gather he doesn't really like the Irish. He does, however, like a certain Ruth Dudley Edwards, "a genuine historian of Ireland". Ahem! So there you have it. 193.1.172.163 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to like Irish terrorist thugs or else you don't really like the Irish? Wow. I guess I hate myself. 74.212.16.61 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I uploaded two images (JohnDerbyshire2.jpg and JohnDerbyshire1.jpg). Mr. Derbyshire graciously agreed to GFDL licensing terms for both images. Personally, I prefer the second image, but Mr. Derbyshire appears to prefer the first as being a "more studious look". — Loadmaster 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think one image is enough. I have no real preference, but I guess it makes sense to go with Derb's preference. When you say "the first one", you mean JohnDerbyshire2.jpg, right? Crust 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence

Should the The Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence section be given its own article? — Loadmaster 22:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It did have its own article once upon a time, and Derbyshire was rather proud of the fact, despite his previously expressed distaste for Wikipedia. The article went through an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence) and got deleted. The material was moved to this article. Casey Abell 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. In any case, I've created a page for Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence that redirects to this article, since it did not show up in the Search pages. — Loadmaster 17:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and sources

Did a lot of work on the notes and cites. The toughest part was the Sullivan-Derbyshire section. Sullivan's archives are an unholy mess. They make the NRO Corner archives look brilliantly organized. I got what I could from Sullivan's site and pruned out the rest. The section on the dispute was probably too long, anyway. Also pruned down the external links by eliminating cites that only led to Sullivan's home page and links that were duplicated elsewhere in the article. Casey Abell 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but POV comments are allowed on a talk page. I think Sullivan is intentionally burying a lot of his earlier writings, when he was an enthusiastic supporter of Bush and the Iraq war. Those writings gave his many enemies too much ammunition for the constant (and accurate) charges of flip-flopping. (See this for a humorous example from Jonah Goldberg.) Unfortunately, the burial has obliterated a lot of his earlier stuff on Derbyshire. Sullivan likes Derbyshire, or at least tolerates him, now that they have both turned against Bush. Still, a few shots at Derbyshire are still accessible on Sullivan's site. Casey Abell 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Derbyshire's response to Olbermann

Casey Abell -- Wouldn't it be more accurate to state "Derbyshire responded by attacking Olbermann?" Should we add Olbermann's response? Was this "response" added to highlight Derbyshire's talent (or lack thereof) for ad hominem attacks? What exactly was the point of adding in this "response?" It added nothing to the criticism except to bury Olbermann's pointed critique of Derbyshire's statement. The original version with blockquoting and without Derbyshire's "response" was superior; let the words of Derbyshire and the two critics speak for themselves without devolving the section. The section was no more disjointed than the "Prior citations of 'collective imprudence'" section. Derbyshire gave an opinion, found offensive and critiqued by two others -- Olbermann being the more prominent of the two. The section was balanced. We now add that Derbyshire called Olbermann "Omdurman" in response? Therefore 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We have two quotes from Derbyshire critics, and two quotes from Derbyshire himself. Looks pretty balanced to me. The blockquoting was making the section appear too long and white-spacey - four brief quotes one after another in a single section. As for the "attack" word, we could just as easily use it about the statements from Cox and Olbermann. My preference is to avoid loaded language in our own descriptions, based on WP:NPOV considerations. There's already enough loaded language in what Derbyshire, Cox and Olbermann said. Casey Abell 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for using the word "attack" was (unnecessarily) facetious. The objective of balance is not arithmetic: the addition of an ad hominem attack does not balance the paragraph. I'm arguing against the addition of Derbyshire's response and hence will avoid your concerns with excessive white-space. The three statements clearly stood for themselves. Should we keep adding in other critics of this comments? And then keep adding his responses? I don't want that. Instead, the section should be a clear delineation of this statement and critiques (and his defense, where it occurs). I recommend returning to the section's original state. Therefore 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it to other editors who haven't been involved in writing the section. If they want to prune out quotes in the section - for the record, I added the Cox quote and the second Derbyshire quote - I won't complain. Casey Abell 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did add the Cox quote from the citation previously included.

I would recommend that we return to the original state and allow other editors not involved to add ad hominem attacks. Therefore 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand. All four quotes in the section are ad hominem. Derbyshire badmouths the VT students as too passive, Cox and Olbermann badmouth Derbyshire as a cowardly braggart and a James Bond wannabe, and Derbyshire badmouths Olbermann as a Stalinist tool. It's not like they're having a cool, abstract discussion of disembodied ideas. All of them are going after specific people. If we prune out all four ad hominem quotes, we only have a third-person recital of the controversy. Which may not be a terrible idea, though the quotes make the section much more vivid and readable, IMO. Again, I think we should leave the decision to other uninvolved editors. Casey Abell 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Attacking the actions or claims of someone is not an ad hominem argument -- by definition. Derbyshire attacked the VT students for their (his words) lack of action. This is not an ad hominem argument; it is a statement of his thesis -- a claim. "Argumentum ad hominem" is a response to a claim that attacks the person and not the claim. Cox and Olbermann criticized his statement. Admittedly, as you outline, they attacked Derbyshire. Olbermann compared his self-described belief that he would attack the killer to be akin to a fantasy James Bond role. They used his claim to counter his argument. They didn't say, "Well, Derbyshire is obviously wrong because he is a right-winger or loves Hitler or is a vegetarian." Olbermann wasn't saying, "Derbyshire loves James Bond movies, therefore his argument is wrong." Derbyshire, in turn, attacked Olbermann by saying he is a Stalinist and, therefore, his criticism is invalid. That is the very definition of ad hominem attack. It has adds no value. Hence why ad hominem is considered invalid argument. I will be happy to add in plenty of ad hominem attacks on Derbyshire -- but it would decrease the value of the article.

In the past, you appear to be the primary editor. Who are these other editors who will come in and fix your addition?Therefore 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, wait a minute. Cox and Olbermann didn't just say: "This statement is wrong because the students didn't have time to react, many students didn't even realize what was happening, no student had any weapons to fight back with, etc." That would have been a non-ad-hominem response.

Instead, they specifically and personally went after Derbyshire as, in your own words, living out "a fantasy James Bond role." They actually threw in several more personal swipes: "hypothetical bravery," "completely fearless in imaginary domestic scenarios," "action films...running through your head." As you say, these comments are "the very definition of ad hominem attack" because they denigrate Derbyshire as a disreputable person.

Similarly, Derbyshire's comments on the VT students went directly to their personal character. He wasn't faulting the response in general by saying that there should have been more armed police on campus and/or better surveillance/response procedures. That again would have been non-ad-hominem. He went after the students specifically and personally for not acting more forcefully to defend themselves.

It seems unfair to remove only the ad hominem attacks from one side but not the other. My opinion is that they should either all stay or all go. What we shouldn't do is take sides by selectively quoting only one side of the controversy. As for my supposed status as the main article editor, this is still Wikipedia and anybody can still edit the article. Since I can only repeat myself so many times, I'll say it just once more: I prefer to let other non-involved editors decide the issue. And this will have to be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no further comment is forthcoming, I won't rebut your understanding of argument by ad hominem. I'll go ahead and remove the quote and allow other editors decide the issue. Therefore 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking the wise counsel to step away from a disagreement, I've given this further thought. We can debate the meaning of argumentum ad hominem as if we are in an introductory class to logic all over again, but I don't see the need. While I believe that Derbyshire in his VT statement was not practicing this, you have argued convincingly that Cox and Olbermann were using it to some degree, though arguably less than Derbyshire's last comment. You are clearly working in good faith, so, I agree that the paragraph should stand and offer an apology for my intemperate comments. —   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sentence re Derbyshire's thoughts on his children

Some material on Derbyshire's marriage and children was recently added to the section "Interracial marriage" -- I believe by Derbyfann, though I'm not sure about that.
The addition includes "Derbyshire has expressed regret for bringing interracial children into the world, confiding to close friend Kevin Alfred Strom, former leader of the white supremacist National Alliance, that being neither Chinese nor white, they lacked a heritage with which they could readily identify," with the reference http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/john-derbyshire-on-topic-of-hour.html .
I've skimmed through that and can't locate the claimed "expression of regret" nor any mention of Kevin Alfred Strom. Can anyone else please take a look at this and confirm or deny? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I too have noticed some increased activity here in the last few days. I'm not assuming bad faith, but it's a bit odd that in one day, three seperate accounts, none of which have edited on any other articles, have been adding race and family-related stuff here. I'll be taking a pretty hard look into the recent additions, especially in light of WP:BLP concerns. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Derbyshire is not afraid to express definite and controversial ideas and I don't think that we should shy from including anything that he actually says, even if it loses him popularity points (whether on race, family, homosexuality, politics, etc, etc, etc), but as always, we need to make sure that the info is accurate and sourced.

And repeating for anyone who missed: Can others here please take a look at the sources cited and see whether they do or do not say what our editor says they do? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom is a neo-Nazi and a pedophile. Claiming John Derbyshire is a friend of Strom's, without proper evidence, is therefore a BLP vio. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding WikiProject Politics tag

I've added the tag for WikiProject Politics. After reviewing the goals of that project and the list of other articles included, I believe that this is appropriate. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding WikiProject Sociology tag

I've added the tag for WikiProject Sociology. After reviewing the goals of that project and other articles included, I believe that this is appropriate. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing some items not backed by cites

I've removed a couple of sentences that I wasn't able to verify. Some of these had cites, but as far as I was able to determine, the cites didn't verify the text here. We need to watch for this. Of course, if anybody can dig up good cites for these, restore them. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interacial marriage section

Can someone explain to me why we need this section? It isn't clear to me why a handful of mildly tasteless jokes merit mention. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He does make reference to his wife and less frequently his children in his public writings and talks. And given that he is outspoken on topics like race, immigration and culture, his interracial/intercultural/international (at first, they may both be Americans now) marriage does seem worth mentioning. However, titling the section "Interracial Marriage" does put undue weight on the race with the other issues are probably more important. Readin (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny-mud and Nellie-mud? Why no explanation.

In the marriage section there is this sentence:

During the question and answer session Derbyshire jokingly described his two children, Danny and Nellie, as "Danny-mud and Nellie-mud."

Someone should detail what the postfix -mud means as it is completely not apparent to me or most people. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the source yet, but it is probably a reference to the pejorative term "mud people" for nonwhites. http://www.google.com/search?q=mud+people -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Modes of thinking

Derbyshite recently wrote this:

In this line of work you sit alone tapping away for hours on end, coming up with things to say about this and that, sometimes thoroughly engaged, sometimes tired and bored, sometimes ill, or drunk, or hung over … in other words, pretty much like anyone doing any other job at this pay level. (Although I think it's fair to expect a bit more from high-end guys like brain surgeons, hedge fund managers, or four-star generals. And here's an apt Winston Churchill quote, from memory: "Most of the world's work is done by people who are not feeling very well.")

It's what used to be called "fugitive journalism," and not much of it is worth preserving. Once in a while, though, usually without particularly intending to, you write something that makes you think, on re-reading it: "Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to say. I believe it, and it came out just they way I wanted, plain and clear. Put it on my tombstone if you like. Don't change a word."

Here's one of mine. I said it a few months ago on NRO, and I'm pleased to have said it. It's not particularly original; in fact there have been at least three books on the theme — this one I think the best known. I said it just the way I wanted to say it, though. I believe it, and I'm glad I said it. If you don't like it, I couldn't care less.

The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, and social. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the esteem of our peers. For most people, wanting to know the truth about the world is way, way down the list. Scientific objectivity is a freakish, unnatural, and unpopular mode of thought, restricted to small cliques whom the generality of citizens regard with dislike and mistrust. There is probably a sizable segment in any population that believes scientists should be rounded up and killed.

He thinks highly of it himself so it should probably be included in the article.Readin (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

illegal immigrant?

Is it relevant? Don't see it developed much later in the story. Don't see it as something that affects his work. And if it is important, shouldn't we call him document-challenged?  ;-)TCO (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Derbyshire takes a firm stand against illegal immigration in his writings. It is relevant to note that he was an illegal immigrant himself, and any justifications he has provided for opposing illegal immigration despite his having been one in the past should also be noted. Readin (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, if you are making some sort of critical essay with rebuttals to his positions. Not if you are doing an encyclopedia article. But I forget. Wikipedia is FOR those sorts of game.TCO (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on. How do you justify having the two seperate paras on illegal immigration That's just disorganized.TCO (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I am doing some wiki-cleaning to organize this better. We have religion in different sections. Have Sullivan in different sections. Chinese wife in different sections. Love him or hate him...let's try to follow a MECE format. TCO (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

copyediting

I'm going to go through and copyedit. TCO (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This recent rewrite (by the subject himself?) seems quite problematic, especially since it appears none of these major changes were raised on the talk page before the overhaul. For starters, the WP:LEDE is now far too short, and lacks standard information such as the birth date. And, the article flow is choppy, being cut up into a large number of small sections. Tyuia (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment where Ptvydanh refers to "my work" is certainly a problem. Assuming Ptvydanh is indeed John Derbyshire, that does raise a conflict of interest problem. The simple reaction would be to revert the changes. However, after reading though it, I think he has made the article considerably better. It is much better organized and much better written - this should not be a surprise since he is a professional writer.

As for the COI, I think the fact that he is unapologetic in his beliefs helped. Looking through the re-write, he didn't leave out his controversial positions.

However, he did leave out or de-emphasize his disagreements with National Review colleagues. I've always found the coverage of those disagreements in this article to be questionable, but it is one thing for me to question them and quite another for John Derbyshire to question them - there is a conflict of interest for him that doesn't exist for me.

Also, in the short descriptions of his controversies he rarely gives the opposition position any support, and makes sure his position is given the last word.

We could try to rework the article starting from what he has done to try to balance it out.

We could revert and try to work toward the structure he proposes.

But I don't think we can leave it as is. Readin (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well someone else has already done the revert... and it's increasingly clear it was the right call. But there's also valuable material from the new version, and I've kickstarted integrating it. For one, an image six years more recent must be an improvement.

The pronunciation was a good idea, but in conformance with Wikipedia:IPA for English, I put in the rhotic pronunciation of his surname. (The previous one was non-rhotic, as I confirmed on Youtube that Derbyshire's own accent is.) I also provided the rendering I usually hear from American commentators, though it may technically be "wrong".

These may be the least controversial of the changes, so the real fun lies ahead. Tyuia (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, this entire article is ridiculously, embarrassingly bad.

It consists mainly of tendentious summaries of some more or less randomly chosen public controversies in which Derbyshire has been involved. There is *no* attempt fairly & impartially to summarize either his career or his viewpoint as a whole.

Sburton (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft

I've put up a draft based on the writing by the man himself, after I removed some non-encyclopedic parts. (see history of this page) I'm about to continue doing that. See my reply to his recently published article about his Wikipedia page on his talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The draft seems to be missing. The link here and the link on User_talk:Ptvydanh are both not working. Readin (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, you will see it was moved. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Organizational Change

Writings should contain references to all of his published work first and foremost. It's confusing to have a section so labeled and not refer to his published work.

The sections labeled "Controversy" is at best mislabeled. The views discussed may be controversial, but there is no evidence of a public controversy over them. David Duke's association with the KKK is a controversy. The information contained within are simply his "Views" and should be labeled only as such.

The section on his published work needs to be expanded. His book on the Riemmann Hypothesis should have more prominent place than it has.

On the wikipedia pages of other pundits I do not see blow by blows on a dozen arguments they have had on their blogs. I don't see why such things should be on his page either. If an argument he has with a blogger belongs on his wikipedia page, this page will either be very long or very incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.7.79 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary/secondary sources

I see that this article has 42 sources listed, of which at least 27 are articles by the subject himself. Those are all primary sources. Per WP:PSTS, all articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. Rather than scanning articles written by him for interesting or outrageous comments, we should be checking articles written about him and rely on those authors to decide which comments of his are notable.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I don't see why some of his views are included. He writes one or more columns a week, and every one has some view in it. We can't include them all. While views that are quoted, cited, or referred to by others are potentially notable, it's not clear why other views list in the article are significant. An obvious example is the short section on his views of this Wikipedia article. According to whom is this among his most important pronouncements? It's likely that every celebrity, writer, or notable who has a Wikipedia entry has read it and formed an opinion. Do we need to include their opinions in every biography? We don't record the subject's views about other biographies, so it seems out of place. We should rely on secondary sources rather than just picking out things from his blog that we find interesting.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clearer, I propose to delete "views" that don't have any 3rd-party, secondary sources. In other words, if no one has has bothered to comment on the view, than it probably isn't notable.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll start with the "Wikipedia" section metioned above.   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Andrew Sullivan " section is poorly sourced, using blogs by third parties. Spats between bloggers are probably not notable unsless they're mentioned in the mainstream media. If there are no other sources I'll delete this next.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't read the talkpage before tagging the article for neutrality and sourcing concerns, but find myself in full agreement with you here Will.  Skomorokh  17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole "must have a NYTimes link" thing rather suspect. The blogosphere is an echo chamber most of the time, yes. But people really do write stuff, and it seems strange to me that there should be an entire world of opinion that wikipedia cares not to see. (Sullivan is, or at least used to be, about the highest-profile blogger there was.) Derbyshire's views are notable in blog-land because (a) he opposes conservative populists on some issues (science type stuff, and isolationism), but (b) he has many other views that are, by mainstream standards, extreme. (Race, immigration, etc -- the stuff y'all are axing.) Both of these tend to draw reactions from bloggers. Leonard (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But anyway, I've googled up a handful of links that indicate that Derbyshire has achieved some sort of notice from the gray lady:

• review of his novel: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/14/books/so-this-is-america.html It was apparently quite a hit with NYT people, and has several other mentions. There is also an author profile that might be useful biographically.
• as darwinian conservative: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?_r=1
• he turned against the Iraq war: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/opinion/10iht-edyoung.2438685.html
• he liked I am Charlotte Simmons: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/books/review/06DONADIO.html

Mostly what one finds, though, are blogs. This is even true at NYT -- lots of discussion on their blogs of derbyshire's opinions. Leonard (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Excised sections

Writing and views

Views

Race and homosexuality

Derbyshire has stated: "I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one." He has also stated : "The U.S.A. was born with two race problems: the African Americans and the Native Americans. We struggle with those problems still, and must continue to struggle."

Derbyshire is a strong believer in the genetic origin of the racial gap in IQ, which he believes is a significant contributor to the economic disparity between the races in the United States. This makes him a believer in human biodiversity, a rare position for a mainstream writer to take. In response to research by geneticist Bruce Lahn on the human genes, ASPM and the microcephalins, and their possible role in the evolution of human intelligence, Derbyshire commented, "our cherished national dream of a well-mixed and harmonious meritocracy...may be unattainable." He is influenced by Carleton S. Coon's "great 1965 classic" The Living Races of Man, and says he has "never been without a copy since."

Immigration

Derbyshire opposes illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and further south: the "hordes of Central Americans pouring into our country." From an earlier ambivalent attitude to a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, Derbyshire has moved to support: "Demand a wall...A wall! A wall!"

Despite his oft-voiced opposition to illegal entrants and those who overstay their visas, Derbyshire has admitted overstaying his U.S. visa by five years before achieving legal residence and eventual citizenship. He has joked about his former illegal status, comparing himself to a "reformed drunk at a temperance meeting." According to Derbyshire, no American ever expressed any concern about his immigration status, supporting his belief that Americans are very reluctant to think seriously about immigration issues.

China

Derbyshire opposes the current government of China: "China needs democracy. China needs democracy. The twentieth century taught us, via an ocean of blood and a mountain of corpses, that nothing else will do. Without democracy, a country — any country — is on a slope to disaster." He wrote in the same article that China in its current state can best be described as the "sick man of Asia", borrowing "the phrase applied by fascist Japan to the chaotic warlord China of the 1920s."

In 2005, he opined on possible future war between the United States and China:

I have no doubt that Chinese servicemen and U.S. servicemen will be shooting at each other some day soon; but I doubt it will come to a full-blown, city-flattening, carrier-sinking, massed-tank-battles kind of war, because I am unable to imagine any casus belli that would persuade Americans of the necessity for that. The Chinese are another matter; but it takes two to tango, and in the current state of our culture, with self-loathing anti-Americanism a required course at our elite universities, I am sure we would back down in any Sino-American conflict that did not have our own territory at stake. (Yes, including a conflict over Taiwan. Bye-bye, Taiwan.) But this is all guesswork. Of course nobody really knows whether there will be a war... perhaps my opinion is colored by wishful thinking.

Derbyshire has argued that the internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry during World War II was "not a very deplorable thing to do" and noted that in the event of serious war with China, similar internment of Americans with Chinese ancestry will occur and "I hope the camps will not be very uncomfortable, for I shall be there too-- the Derbyshires travel as a family."

Other general issues

Religion versus science

In National Review, Derbyshire dismissed what he called a contention by "foolish people" such as Richard Dawkins that science excludes religion. Derbyshire did maintain that scientists, in their professional research, owe allegiance to objective, measurable reality, uninfluenced by religious or ideological belief.

Derbyshire wrote that Intelligent Design is:

not just lousy science, but lousy religion. I dislike it, in fact, for the same reasons... that I dislike the "Left Behind" books & movies, and unbelievers telling me that natural disasters like the recent tsunami "prove" the non-existence of God.

All that kind of thinking trivializes God... [According to proponents of intelligent design] God is a sort of scientist himself, sticking his finger in to make things work when natural laws — His laws! — can't do the job... I am certain... that we are not the children of some celestial lab technician.

He described the criticism he received after writing a critical article in National Review magazine as a conflict "worse than the bloody Middle East."

The Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence

Coined by Derbyshire in July 2006, the Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence (HCI) stipulates that "no large collectivity of human beings (nation-state or larger) will ever act to avert an obvious calamity until that calamity begins to cause really major, dramatic, unignorable damage." Often, when humanity is confronted with prospect of a catastrophe, "Nothing will get done until something awful happens. Then something will get done."

HCI seems to be a phenomenon attributable only to large groups of human beings. According to Derbyshire, "Individual human beings can, and often do, act with prudence. Insurance companies would be out of business otherwise. For nations, let alone for humanity at large, acting with prudence is so much the exception rather than the rule..." Examples of HCI cited by Derbyshire include World War II, 9/11, global warming and, potentially, illegal immigration. Derbyshire himself admits that the HCI is hard to falsify, insofar as any collectivity of humanity that does act prudently against potential dangers thereby prevents the "obvious calamity" from occurring.

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan

Blogger and journalist Andrew Sullivan has vigorously criticized Derbyshire, mostly over social issues involving race, homosexuality and feminism. Andrew Sullivan has called him "Herr Derbyshire"—a slightly veiled Nazi reference—and suggested that Derbyshire's opinions on immigration are the result of his admitted racism. Sullivan also has a "Derbyshire Award" on his blog "for the nuttiest expression of bigotry from National Review's John Derbsyhire [sic]."

Sullivan describes Derbyshire as a paleoconservative. Derbyshire has been criticized by Sullivan regarding the use of coercive force on prisoners in Iraq by U.S. troops.

Sullivan has posted respectful notices about Derbyshire for his apparent agreement with some of Sullivan's personal philosophy (although clearly not with respect to issues surrounding homosexuality): "Derb really is a conservative of doubt, I think, and, despite his bouts of curmudgeon and prejudice, I've come to admire and respect his intellectual honesty...."

No secondary sourcing, moved here.  Skomorokh  17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) {{hide|Virginia Tech massacre|