Talk:John McWhorter

Relevance

McWhorter does not support reparations for slavery because he feels that black America was granted ample reparations in the late sixties. He is an outspoken critic of contemporary civil rights leaders. He has called Al Sharpton "quite simply an inveterate liar," and stated that "Jesse Jackson has no effect on the lives of most Black people." He stresses that race activism should be focused on improving the lives of poor blacks rather than on whether or not there is "racism," which he assumes will always be the case as it has always been in human history. He does not acknowledge that racism is beyond the color of ones skin, but ones nationality or origin.

Is this particularly relevant to the article? - FrancisTyers 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is because it outlines some of his views, which in turn impact his political work. —Sesel 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets assume that it is... it is certainly given undue weight compared to his work in linguistics, which is hardly covered here. Furthermore, the paragraph is not cited. - FrancisTyers 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, It should be noted that his work in creolistics is highly controversial and politically biased and that he has contributed nothing to linguistics outside creolistics.

The same could be said of Derek Bickerton, but there's a lot more about linguistics on his page than on John's. 72.129.0.10 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my two cents on notability - McWhorter's linguistic work breaks new ground, while his political views are typical for a conservative and not very interesting, and the controversy surrounding them is similar to other well-known black conservatives and not that particular to McWhorter himself. The article should cover his linguistic work in detail, but his politics can be summarized and linked to the appropriate politics articles for more detail. --JWB (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that paragraph before bibliography needs at least a citation, otherwise a book review like that is clearly original research and not a neutral point of view. --shaggy Jan 17, 2008

Actually, McWhorter's views are unusual because he isn't a conservative. He has a reputation as one due to his views on race and his association with a conservative think tank, but if you actually look at what he has said he has almost never taken what might be regarded as a conservative position on issues other than race. You won't find him opposing abortion, advocating prayer in the public schools, opposing stem cell research, advocating faith-based programs, opposing sex education other than abstinence, or in general taking the positions of a social conservative. You won't find him pushing hard for reducing the role of government. He doesn't advocate "tort reform". He has said anything about how bad immigration is or advocated English as an official language. He isn't on record as supporting Bush on Guantanamo and the detention of "enemy combatants". Other than his views on race and situation of black people in the US, the only position that he has taken that might be considered conservative is his initial support for the invasion of Iraq. It is in fact extremely misleading to lump him in with (black) conservatives. And as the article now states, he supports Obama over McCain, hardly a conservative position. This article would be much improved by a more detailed and nuanced description of his political views, both since that is what he is probably best known for to the general public and because he occupies a sparsely occupied section of the political space.Bill (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that his linguistic work is "biased and racist" is without foundation. He differs on some points from other linguists. That is normal. I know of no evidence whatever for characterizing his positions as "biased and racist".Bill (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point of contention is his calling some languages (especially creoles) "simple". As creoles tend to be spoken by non-Whites, this did ruffle some people's feathers. Especially if you consider on the other side of the debate are people who don't like creoles being classified as anything other than a normal language. Doing that, and then calling them "simple" will make those people upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.204.184 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page

I have edited or reverted a number of vandalisms by the anonymous user 68.81.125.26 for resorting to unmotivated deleting and hostile counter-claims in creolistics and John McWhorter. His IP might have to be blocked. Eklir (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted some vandalism to this page. 72.129.0.10 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of McWhorter's overall position

The change I made, which Eklir wishes to delete, to the paragraph about McWhorter's support for Obama, contains three statements, two of which should be entirely uncontroversial, namely that McWhorter expressed support for Obama and that he is regarded as a conservative. The remaining change consists of two parts. First, it removes the characterization of McWhorter as a conservative and adds the statement that he has no record of taking conservative positions outside the area of race. The deletion is fully justified by the fact that no evidence is offered, in this article or in cited references, that McWhorter is in fact a conservative. The addition is justified by the same facts. What I have written is in fact the default, neutral position, the only one justified by the facts contained in this article or in the references. It is the claim that McWhorter is a conservative that is an unsubtantiated repetition of popular prejudice. Anyone wishing to claim that McWhorter is in fact a conservative has the burden of adducing evidence for this view.Bill (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add to the article the claim that McWhorter "has no record of expressing conservative views in most areas", you will have to substantiate that. Anyway, the article is a stub on an academic who is mostly a linguist and maybe a sociologist of some kind and his support for Obama is not encyclopedic in scope. I will therefore delete this information as well as any reference to his supposed conservatism (except the fact that the think tank he joined is conservative). Eklir (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I might add to this discussion that many linguists think that JMcW is mostly a pundit and not a linguist. I could not source that to any published material, so it should not be in the article, it is just a comment on the idea by Eklir that he is a linguist who strays in the realm of politics. The inverse perception also exists. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is, most linguists dislike McWhorter as a linguist. The fact is that, as far as this encyclopedia is concerned, the referencing to him is mostly concerned with his contributions to linguistics (cf. Creole language, Creolistics, Evolutionary linguistics, Glottochronology, History of the English language, Juncture loss, Language Log, Liberian English, Linguicism, Merritt Ruhlen, Papiamento language, Pidgin, Pleonasm, Rebracketing, Saramaccan language, Socio-historical linguistics, The Language Bioprogram theory, Urbian) and only marginally to things other. Best. Eklir (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bio clean up

This article has been revised for its adherence to the policy on biographies of living persons. Anecdotal information and unsourced material have been removed. It has been rated a stub. The "unreferenced" template has been removed accordingly. Eklir (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are his political positions not mentioned?

He worked as a political commentator and has published books on race relations, but none of his views are mentioned in the article. Why not? The most important thing about a political commentator are his political views. With his record, it should be pretty easy to find citable references. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mcwhorter Isn't a Conservative

This was said before by another poster, and I will reiterate it - Mcwhorter cannot accurately be called a political "conservative." This statement presumes the word conservative is meant to include people who support small government intrusion in economic affairs but government regulation of morality. Consider the following examples:

1. Mcwhorter is in favor of ending the war on drugs, a typically liberal idea. 2. Mcwhorter voted for Obama and Kerry in the last two U.S. presidential elections. 3. Self-statements - Mcwhorter personally describes himself as a "moderate."

A perfect example of Mcwhorter's left-leaning writings, where he criticizes Glenn Beck and supports Van Jones:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhorter/dumping-van-jones-why-give-republicans-tantrum

Of course, on other issues, he's more right leaning.

Liberal critics like to brand Mcwhorter as a "conservative" because he has opinions, particularly about race, that are different than theirs. This is fallacious logic - disagreeing with one set of opinions does not necessarily make you the opposite of those opinions. Mcwhorter is also branded as a conservative because he has written for the conservative websites city-journal.org and manhattaninstitute.org. Again, this is fallacious logic - the views he expresses on these sites is often far to the left of the other commentators.

What languages does he know

Just wondering, and since he is a linguist, it seems relevant Animeluvva (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A "linguist" is NOT someone who speaks multiple languages, idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.105.197 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is a lilnguist, which is someone who studies the science of LANGUAGE so it is sort of relevant. Idiot. 65.79.36.130 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Don Lemon look alike

Is John McWhorter gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Leftist

In his TTC lectures "Story of Human Language" he says in the lecture 14 or 15 quote: "I AM NOT A LEFTIST", also he is obviously a senior fellow at a conservative think tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.146.190 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On "Conservative"

The article notes that McWhorter "never voted for George Bush". In a March 2015 article at The Daily Beast titled "The Privilege of Checking White Privilege" (www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/15/the-privilege-of-checking-white-privilege.html), McWhorter is quoted as making a stronger statement: "I have never voted Republican in my life."