![]() | David Starkey has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Starkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"controversies" section needs to be reorganised. As a huge stand alone critique section, it runs directly counter to this wikipedia guidance policy: WP:CRITS. It says: "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally... discouraged". Furthermore, it says neutrality is essential and so balance and rebuttals of negative arguments in either a section or an article. I propose breaking up this section into sub categories under his "views" section. For instance, a views on Black Lives Matter for instance, or 2011 riots etc.
Quote from guidance: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.
This needs to be done now. I am just astonished that this is labelled a "good article" with this kind of discrepancy that takes up half the page. Gd123lbp ( talk) 23:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Reading this section, it is a coherent thematic grouping: everything in it is about Starkey being criticised making racist comments. So I don't see a reason to break it up. I do think it would be a good idea to rename it to something like ==Racist comments== or ==Controversial racist comments==. – Joe ( talk) 09:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that "public behaviour" is not great but that is what is suggested by the advice. "is an essay, not a policy" is not an argument and shows contempt for wikipedia. It is not just an essay, as can be seen on the article, it says: "Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy ". You should not go against wikipedias policies. While many of starkeys comments do seem racist, the title "racist comments" violates NPOV policy.
The controversies section reads like a shopping list of instances of things without context that Starkey has said. It is poor writing that does not take a balanced approach at all. You are right that "everything in it is about Starkey being criticised" - This goes against wikipedia policy that if any criticism is included it must be balanced with oppositional views equally. A whole section dedicated to pure criticism cannot do this by definition. It is therefore by definition, inappropriate. I am actually breaking up the section into smaller more coherent sections so the title "public behaviour" should not be necessary anyway. Gd123lbp ( talk) 23:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
That is better, but most of the section is about starkeys views on UK culture, which are connected to his views on race/religion/immigration which have been criticised, so I think even better would be to call it "Comments/views on UK culture"? Gd123lbp ( talk) 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You should not go against wikipedias policies. What part of essays are not policies do you not understand? FDW777 ( talk) 08:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As can be seen in the previous discussion, the phrase "public comments" was decided because the word "racist" was a violation of NPOV. The essay is an elaboration on the core principle of NPOV on wikipedia so should be followed. Public comments had a concensus, "racist comments" has been rejected so it should be reverted to "public comments". Gd123lbp ( talk) 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I do think it would be a good idea to rename it to something like ==Racist comments==. Then @ Newslinger: replied with
Yes, either one of these would be an improvement.FDW777 ( talk) 17:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Controversies is better than racist comments, so I would be willing to go back to the original name than change it to something worse. "the preponderance of sources call his comments racist" these are opinion piece articles written by people like the guardian which is bound to hate him because he is right wing. The point of wikipedia is to distil the facts from the articles - you can say that "it is the opinion of many that he is a racist" but stating it as a fact is not objective. I am astonished to find a concensus for calling him a racist among editors, why are you editing the article of a man you consider a racist? Surely you would want to avoid such a person? Gd123lbp ( talk) 22:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, "Controversial racist comments" is a really bad title because racist comments are by definition controversial. Can you think of a non controversial racist comment? And dont change it to "racist comments" because that is a violation of NPOV seriously. The word racist is a pejorative, and saying other wise would be to down play racism. So it is inappropriate for use in this context. I will settle for the original "Controversial comments" if this article is going to seriously consider going with "racist comments". Gd123lbp ( talk) 22:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the lead objective"? Be careful of making personal attacks and assume good faith or you will risk being blocked. "comments on race" is perfectly acceptable but as I have said elsewhere, racism is by definition controversial and the word violats NPOV. Also he has said outrageous things about a lot more than just race so I think "comments on UK culture" would be much better. Gd123lbp ( talk) 19:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You have changed the topic of the discussion to a revised edit I made 4 months ago. Why? And if you actually look at my edit from the time you can see my justification for it.
The fact you have trawled through my edit history to find this rather than actually engage with me on the topic at hand is in very bad faith. Gd123lbp ( talk) 20:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My definitions of "objective" and "NPOV" are the Wikipedia policies on them. Please refer back to the guidance articles on them I have referenced earlier in this discussion.
In my edit from many months ago, I used the wrong word "victim" which I recognised at the time and was corrected at the time. It is a loaded word and is suggestive of an opinionated point of view, which is why I also suggested " suffered the consequences of" as an alternative. This was all corrected months ago, as I hope the words "racist comments" stated like a fact will be removed. It is similarly too loaded and opinionated (and lots of other reasons I've explained.)
How about "controversial racism and assorted faux pas" as a title? I can come up with these titles too! That would be even more wholesome! Gd123lbp ( talk) 02:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Curiously, is everyone here a leftist?-- 78.149.102.203 ( talk) 19:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The word "fired" has been used in the lead but nowhere else in the body of the article. In the relevant section David Starkey#Black Lives Matter and slavery, the word "fired" does not appear. Starkey was "asked to resign" as a fellow of the "Royal Historical Society". Starkey resigned his fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of London at the request of its council. In both cases the word "fired" does not seem appropriate. The same applies to his honorary fellowship at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge — his views were incompatible with the values of the college. With these honorary fellowships and academic roles, I am not sure why user:FDW777 is intent on using the word "fired" in the lead and nowhere else. In Britain, it's familiar from Lord Sugar's catchphrase and the TV series The Apprentice: You're Fired!
[Not far away, on Huntingdon Road and St Edmund's College, there were related problems with "free speech". And at Jesus College, the master Sonita Alleyne and college members are deciding where the commemorative bust of Tobias Rustat of the Royal African Company should be relocated ( Ely Cathedral?).] Mathsci ( talk) 14:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Canterbury Christ Church University, where Starkey had been a visiting professor, removed him from that role in response to his "completely unacceptable" remarks
The magazine History Today also removed him from their editorial board
He also resigned or was forced to resign from a number of fellowships and other senior positions, especially as the reference for the former says "We have terminated David Starkey's position as visiting professor with immediate effect". FDW777 ( talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"rv. Removal of context from Starkey's controversial SNP comments (to give just one example) simply gives him a soapbox without detailing the backlash which is the whole point of the reference. Absolutely not WP:NPOV)" - quote from most recent edit.
Firstly, this reversion was made in a way that damaged the quality of the article because it reverted it to a state where it seemed to impy that trump is still president, and removed updates and improved style that removed the way this article presents like a newspaper article. Secondly, starkeys SNP comments are note worthy because they are his views. they are not note worthy due to the SNP disliking his comments (which goes without saying because no one likes to be called a nazi). So, this should be reverted to how it was which made the article more concise - this section is already very long and rambling. Or in future, editors should edit the specific parts they find to be problematic, rather than reverting the article to a historical state that is both rambling and also not up to date. Gd123lbp ( talk) 14:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I get scolded a lot but in this phrase, isn't the preposition "of" needed?
"later citing boredom and irritation with the administrative demands modern academic life." WithGLEE ( talk) 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)