Talk:Paul Johnson (writer)

Catholicism

Why is his religion so important that it needs to be mentioned on the first line of the article? It looks awkward and out of place. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant part of Johnson's outlook and writings. Philip Cross (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Criticism Section to this biography

Its worth pointing out that this biography of Johnson reads more like a promotional piece and not like a fair and balanced overview of this extreme right wing (and obscure) author. There should be a section on the article devoted to generally held critiques of his positions. Defending Nixon and loving Thatcher and Reagan are really lame positions, ones not held by many people. Even Hitchens thinks Johnson sucks–and Hitchens is fairly conservative. Like so many Wiki biographies, a little possie of "fans" of the author make sure any valid criticisms of the subject are nowhere to be seen. This is why Wikipedia is such a low quality online encyclopedia. Pathetic, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.62 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised Johnson is "obscure" in British Columbia (where the IP address is located); he had a much higher profile internationally a few decades ago. The problem with a criticism section would be the liklihood that it might violate the neutral point of view rule which all WP editors are advised to observe. Admiring Thatcher and Reagan is not an uncommon position one would have thought, I am not a "fan" of Johnson either incidentally,.and the contributor might track down a work like Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports (1988) to establish that (Christopher) Hitchens has not always been "fairly conservative". Philip Cross (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above– 1988 Hitchens is 23 years ago! Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Hitchens has since then hugely changed his political perspective swinging way to the right, and even with his becoming a Bush toady he recently roasted Johnson in this article to wit- http://www.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html

Further the so-called "neutral point of view" you mention is never adhered to if the biography is of a liberal person, say Noam Chomsky. There is ample criticism of Chomsky on his biography, or other progressive thinkers in Wiki are also vigorously criticised and put down. Why is nobody deleting the section criticising Chomsky on his Wiki article? Why does Chomsky get a critique section on his Wiki bio and not Johnson? This is a fine example of the double standards one finds so often on this rubbish online Wiki encyclopedia, that is of little use beyond getting basic information such as birthdate/death/where born/etc. Right wing trolls cry "foul! this violates NPOV! Delete it at once" if anybody dare criticise their Johnsons, Bushs, Cheney's etc–but they insist on having criticism sections on Chomsky, Zinn, Greenwald, et al. Welcome to Wiki biographies: biased, white-washed biographies that read more like self-promotional advertisements, guarded by on-line armies of trolls with political axes to grind. Meh, Wiki deserves no respect until such glaring failings are fixed. This Johnson biography is written by his admiring minion conservative trolls who will of course refuse to have a section exposing the bigotry, bullying, and hollow self-righteousness of Paul "spanker" Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.62 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right, you know Umberto Eco said wikipedia is o.k for the educated because they can sift what they read, but its not good for the ill-educated, and I think that's kind of fair comment. overall from looking at articles over a couple of years I think the Right have done a pretty good job of making wikipedia an almost joke on a lot of politics and history articles - like you say, get quick, basic info, then thats about it Sayerslle (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally Wikipedia has been as or more critical of conservatives than others. Although it does look like many of those articles were removed. Still within articles there's Pete Sessions#Controversies, John Boehner#Controversies, Tea Party movement#Controversies I am a bit surprised Criticism of Noam Chomsky survived when Criticism of George W. Bush didn't, but that could be temporary.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, much of the 1988 Hitchens book dates from some years before, so it is worse than you think. Chomsky self-describes as a "libertarian socialist" or anarchist rather than liberal, so he isn't a good example for your argument. I haven't looked at the Chomsky or Zinn articles for some time, and can only assume a consensus has been arrived at as to the need for a criticism section. Editors who make constructive contributions here are not trolls, whatever their politics might be. Online commentators more often tend to assume Wikipedia has a liberal or left-wing bias in my experience, not that I give conservatives preferential treatment you understand.

As an editor who worked heavily on the Johnson article a few years ago, it was difficult to find reliable sources online which are critical of Johnson. The bulk of the journalism which did criticise him will predate newspapers (or journals) being online. The Guardian newspaper of London had a long run in with Johnson in the 1990s, and it is unfortunate I have not paid to access their pre-internet material in order to ascertain whether any of it can be used to improve this article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Is 'he is now a conservative historian' not sufficient, why are 'prominent' and 'popular' there? can that be referenced. more like 'obscure' , and as for 'popular?' does he sell like jamie oliver? Or david starkey? i doubt it. Peacock-y right wing crap. Sayerslle (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When last I read his journalistic work he could rightly be described as a "Conservative" in a political sense but that is not the same as "conservative historian" which implies something else. The last book I read of his was "The History of Christianity" which remains one of the best single volume works on the subject - he has a propensity for telling the truth even if it doesn't reflect well on the Church of which he is a member. I gather he is sympathetic to the economic improvements that the Franco regime brought to the Spanish middle-class but he doesn't miss out that Francos hands were covered in blood in the process. As regards being "popular" this may indeed be so but it is commonly used as a put down as well. Johnson is an independent scholar and doesn't have to treat "sensitive" issues the way academics often do to maintain a quiet life and income. I don't share his faith or political views but based on his books, mainly from the seventies and early eighties, I rate him highly. ma'at (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe I should have left it as it was as I haven't read his work, 'prominent' and 'popular' looked a bit o.t.t. to me - considering how little he is heard of - what is better - 'independent Conservative historian?' Is he really a prominent historian? maybe he is - I just go by listening to the radio, watching t.v kind of thing - and I never hear of him .Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection to dropping the peacock words but what is "conservative historian" meant to convey? ma'at (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

'prominent conservative popular historian' was there already o.k - what did it mean then? - well thats what it means now. Reactionary I imagine .And Pfistermeister, on wp it says 'popular history' , history 'that takes a popular approach aimed at a wide readership' - - look at David Starkey top 3 titles - sales rank on amazon, Crown and Country, 3,700, elizabeth 9,793, 6 wives of henry VIII, 12, 762 - paul johnson - 'brief lives' sales rank 135,064 modern times -216,959, jesus -342,586 .So he 'takes a popular approach' to little effect. Read by writers of splenetic edit summaries, - you cretin, yourself P.S. I just saw your latest edit summary on 'id ego, and something o rother' and your edit summary was 'idiot, keep your clueless hands off'- you seem to be the kind of ranter that drives away editors from wp. especially if they might be new and aren't used to the rough and tumble. I'd suggest you tone down your edit summaries - no need to destroy makers of poor edits , nobodys perfect - 'the fallibility of all human endeavour' and all.Sayerslle (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reactionery"? Depends on the benchmark used. Taking the RCC article talk page as an example then I guess he would definately react against the hagiographical style of writing that once prevailed amongst its editors - his book on Christianity would never have appeared in their reference works because he is no whitewasher. "Read by writers of splenetic edit summaries" well Malcolm Muggeridge poured out lavish praise on Johnsons "History of Christianity", but then Malcolm had a gift of invective as well! ma'at (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Did Muggeridge rate him? Well, I love Muggeridge, so maybe Johnson isn't so bad. I wish I'd stayed off the article - , but I haven't the heart to restore 'prominent conservative popular historian' myself, - it looked too much to me, I remember something about a book he wrote on the Jesuits, but I shouldn't have let my very subjective - 'havent heard him talked about for ages' to lead me to interfere with the lead, I couldn't 100% rule out a bit of political sectarian feeling in my action, but I know the rules, NPOV, and all, naughty, - anyway, it's easy for pfistermeister to restore the old wording, and he can leave some more abuse in his edit summary. Sayerslle (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look out tonight M's comments on the book mentioned and post it to your talk page tomorrow. He, like Evelyn Waugh, early in his career could review books for the press he had never actually read but in this case (1976) I'm sure he did read this one and the book in question still attracts well deserved praise (see amazon.com) which is hard to do on anything relating to religion. It's a while since I read MM but he was one of the authors who could make me laugh out loud with his pointed humour. Like you I don't particularly like flowery descriptions but I'm not always consistent - it depends on the subject and if somebody is likely to object about the person status as a reliable source. ma'at (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From The Weekend Interview with Paul Johnson: Why America Will Stay on Top by Brian Carney (Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2011): 'Frank judgments like these are a hallmark of Mr. Johnson's work, delivered with almost child-like glee. Of Mahatma Gandhi, he wrote in "Modern Times": "About the Gandhi phenomenon there was always a strong aroma of twentieth-century humbug."

'Socrates is much more to Mr. Johnson's liking. Whereas, in Mr. Johnson's telling, Gandhi led hundreds of thousands to death by stirring up civil unrest in India, all the while maintaining a pretense of nonviolence, Socrates "thought people mattered more than ideas. . . . He loved people, and his ideas came from people, and he thought ideas existed for the benefit of people," not the other way around.

'In the popular imagination, Socrates may be the first deep thinker in Western civilization, but in Mr. Johnson's view he was also an anti-intellectual. Which is what makes him one of the good guys. "One of the categories of people I don't like much are intellectuals," Mr. Johnson says. "People say, 'Oh, you're an intellectual,' and I say, 'No!' What is an intellectual? An intellectual is somebody who thinks ideas are more important than people." ' Asteriks (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnson's affair exposed in 1998

User:Leothomasalfred keeps removing this passage, but offers no explanation for doing so. As the majority view is to retain this section (see the first archive page), I have reverted, but added further citations for verification. I removed "alleged" because it seems less risky from a legal point of view. The Independent article, as reproduced on the newspaper's website, begins with a comment fromn the interviewer: "LEGAL NOTE: - Do not repeat un-corroborated allegation that Paul Johnson said Gloria Stewart had told lies. Deborah Ross". Johnson is not quoted as making any such claims in the more recent Telegraph interview cited in this passage, and appears to acknowledge the affair. I would suggest using "alleged" contravenes the spirit of the legal notice. Philip Cross (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Johnson has never corroborated Stewart's story. Stewart received money for it. I am surprised Philip Cross is so sure she is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcyncha (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The disclaimer at the beginning of The Independent article from November 1998 (quoted above) regards a comment by Johnson: "No. It was all lies, lies, lies. Pure invention". The full passage from The Daily Telegraph interview by Elizabeth Grice in 2010 is as follows: "There were testing times for them both [Johnson and his wife] in 1998 when a former mistress, Gloria Stewart, told the papers of her 11-year affair with Johnson. Not good for a man who had written about the anchor of marriage in the public prints. It seems a shame, and possibly dangerous, to bring this up in the middle of a pleasant morning, but he does not maul or pounce. After a moment of diplomatic amnesia, he growls: “If you acquire any kind of fame, that’s the kind of thing that’s liable to happen. You just put it out of your mind. It’s what Shakespeare called 'the dark backward and abysm' of the past." Not exactly a denial, and the source material is from the 'serious' end of the British press. Philip Cross (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly an admission, either. Since neither of us know whether Stewart's story is at all accurate, it seems to me reasonable to change "revealed" to "alleged".