Talk:Darcus Howe

Additions

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

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

Guettarda 21:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

unclear

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

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

August 9, 2011 BBC Interview

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

For the second time, I've removed:

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

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

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

Sorry, but is a link to a youtube video which includes the footage described above not acceptable here? I appreciate that whoever has described this has used emotive language eg "unsubstantiated," but I'm not convinced that this constitutes original research. Thanks Totorotroll (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In short: no - see WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just a shame that this video isn't to be found on the BBC website http://www.normangirvan.info/have-some-respect-for-an-old-west-indian-negro-darcus-howe/ Totorotroll (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC interview with West Indian writer gives insight into causes of London riots. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

More sources.

• http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/08/ugly-bbc-interview-touches-deeper-issues-london-riots/41053/
• http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/writer-bbc-interviewer-show-respect-old-west-indian-203939047.html

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hostile" sentence

I would dispute the sentence: "The interview was noted for the hostile tone taken by the BBC presenter Fiona Armstrong". Having read the Washington Post source in the article and the Atlantic Wire and Yahoo ones included immediately above, I think "hostile" would be the wrong word to sum up what those articles say the interview is noted for. Words that are used (noted) by the sources are "(she) doesn’t quite know how to take Howe’s comments.; “She spoke over him, attempted to put words in his mouth and generally lost control”; contentious and awkward exchange; Wretched". So although whoever included the sentence in the article might themselves think that Fiona was being hostile, and you (the general you that is reading this) might happen to too, the sources don't quite say that - so to claim that interview was noted for the hostile tone taken by Fiona would be an incorrect reflection of what the sources say (certainly from those three sources, and if three sources so far don't say she was hostile it's likely the interview isn't actually noted for her hostility). I think another word would need to be used: one that indicates what the sources do say and is less POV. Also, on a broader point, is this interview even worth including in his article? It's interesting and topical right now and it's claimed it's being passed around the internet so it seems it's popular but does it actually meet the requirements for due weight in this biography? Is this an important interview that is important in the context of his biography? Does it really need to take up more space in his article than his entire broadcasting career does? My own feeling is that the answer to the first question is probably not and the answer to the second is definitely not. Accountcreatedforcorrection (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"contextual information"

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

I agree; but yet more PoV OR is being added (some by a new account) to the article. I've tagged it as needing citations. But the best action would be to remove the section, until there is consensus here as to how it should be worded and referenced; then re-add it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Politics

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

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

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