Talk:John Derbyshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article John Derbyshire, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)