Talk:David Starkey

Jamie's Dream School

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section - needs altering

"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)

WP:CRITS is an essay, not a policy. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Public behaviour" is not a very good section name. It suggests that the person has behavioral issues. "Controversies" would be better. — Newslinger talk 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I generally think WP:CRITS is good advice. But aside from the name issue, the key point is 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, either one of these would be an improvement. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If we could footnote the quotes describing his comments as racist, that would be an improvement. Given the term is contentious, readers should not have to infer from the references we use in the racist comments section the number of RSs describing his comments as such. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2021 (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)

There is no consensus for using "Public behaviour", which you've restored in Special:Diff/985617769. WP:CRITS is indeed an essay, not a policy or guideline. Whether to follow it depends on local consensus, which does not support using "Public behaviour" at the moment. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading to "Public comments", which is a cross between two of the headings suggested in this discussion, "Public behaviour" and "Racist comments". — Newslinger talk 01:10, 27 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)

I find "Public comments" to be completely vague, and have amended to the previously suggested "Racist comments". FDW777 (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I find the notion that because an essay mentions a policy that it follows 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)

No it wasn't. You said it, nobody else agreed. @Joe Roe: said 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)

"Public comments" is worse than "Controversies". It gives no hint to the reader about what the comments are about or why they're significant. At least "Controversies" did the latter. @Gd123lbp: WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we have to soft-pedal the negative aspects of a biography. It means that if the preponderance of sources call comments racist (which they do), we call them racist comments. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Controversies", "Racist comments", "Racial comments", and any combination such as "Racial controversies". As I stated below "Public comments" is meaningless. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry to continue the edit war, but I also think "racial" is a cop-out. Compare the search results for starkey "racial" comments vs. starkey "racist" comments. When dozens and dozens of reliable sources directly call something racist, we don't need to step in to euphemise it. – Joe (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed since there are plenty of reliable sources to back up the description. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind being reverted at all, it was a bold attempt at seeing if some middle ground might be acceptable. I'm still happy to see if some can be found if needed, in the form of a suitably descriptive heading most people are happy with (I'm happy enough with the current heading, FWIW). FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the sourcing and the section content, "Controversial racist comments" looks fine to me. — Newslinger talk 22:01, 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)

Was your addition of In June 2020, Starkey became a victim of cancel culture following a podcast interview to the lead objective? I could live with "Controversial remarks on race" (but not if it was shortened to just "Remarks on race"). As Starkey has made controversial comments in other areas (for example the repeated comments about the Scottish National Party detailed at David Starkey#Politics) the section can't really be renamed back to just "Controversies". FDW777 (talk) 14:45, 28 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)

It's a straightforward question. You made an addition to the lead, was it objective? Was portraying Starkey as a "victim" NPOV? FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 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)

I'm simply trying to establish your definitions of "objective" and "NPOV", and believe your previous edits to this exact page are of direct relevance to those definitions. And for the record I object to "comments on UK culture", since his most recent and prominent faux pas was not to do with "UK culture" but to do with slavery. FDW777 (talk) 20:42, 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)

Which references use that terminology for his comments? FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, is everyone here a leftist?--78.149.102.203 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That depends how far-right you are. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Fired

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

I don't believe either of those are covered by a wording of 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)

SNP edit reversion

"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)

It's routine to revert to the last stable version when multiple edits are contested. Sometimes this will also undo uncontroversial edits made alongside them, which is a shame, but it's not reasonable to expect other editors to sift through 2 KB diffs or spend time rewriting your text when the previous version already had consensus. I find it helps to make many small edits instead of a few big ones, and clearly distinguish copyedits from anything that might be contested.

On the substance of the edits, I don't agree that the text you removed "more like a political newspaper" and I don't see any valid reason to remove well-written and well-sourced content. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I object to Starkey's views, in particular calling the SNP Nazis (like he has any room to talk) being divorced from their context, in this case both references make it clear that his views were controversial and attracted criticism, and is in fact the central point of both references. Therefore to leave that out is not NPOV, especially when it results in this article becoming a soapbox for Starkey to smear other people. FDW777 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If we can put aside our personal objections to Starkeys views for a moment, can we at least consider the idea that this article could be reduced in length to be more concise...? For instance, regarding my comment about the political views section reading "more like a political newspaper", I was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper#:~:text=Wikipedia%20is%20not%20a%20newspaper%20or%20online%20news%20site.,or%20expose%20secrets%20or%20lies. Much of this section is exactly like this, where it has out of context comments from Starkey from over the years concerning specific talking points abou things in the news from over the years. It is like political gossip, rather than especially meaningful. WP:Summary Style is the best approach and that is what I have been trying to do in my previous edits. Gd123lbp (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell what you were trying to accomplish with your previous edits, since the diffs were all over the place. Perhaps if you can make simple, concise suggestions? FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If the problem was simple and concise then my suggested solutions would be that way also. Unfortunately this article is all over the place and not concise - which was my point. Gd123lbp (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Timid to edit other people's stuff

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)

I believe you're right. You're welcome to make the change yourself, otherwise I'll take care of it tomorrow (we've got this far and it's done no harm so a little wait won't do any harm either). Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

And done. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)