Talk:Theodore Dalrymple

message: Links I had placed to sets of Anthony Daniels'/Theodore Dalrymple's writings have been removed.
- *Social Affairs Unit Web Review articles by Anthony Daniels  +  
- *Social Affairs Unit Web Review articles by Theodore Dalrymple 
I believe they should be restored as they give a very good flavour to the man's writings.
To answer the question below - Anthony Daniels worked as a Prison Doctor and the pen name was for his medical writing.  The odd name was chosen as the name could not appear on the medical register.
Does anyone know why he chose and uses his pen name? --Carl 03:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: As the Theodore Dalrymple-portal Skeptical Doctor is a comprehensive one, including all sources of online articles, interviews, multimedia, clearly categorized, I think it is better to cut back the list of external links. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead link removed - Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Dead links removed - Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove external links 

message: I believe this articles should come under Theodore Dalrymple and have the Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist) page as a redirect instead.
Nearly all articles on authors who are mostly known under their pen names have the main article under the pen name, and the civil name redirect (see for example Eric Blair).
LHOON (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think it's true that he is best known under his pen name Theodore Dalrymple, I have no objection to the proposed change, but I do not understand how it could make a search easier. A simple search in the Wikipedia search engine or in Google gives immediately the right article as a result. Unlike Eric Blair (I think), Anthony Daniels writes articles both under his his own name and under his pen name. See: . In the past he has also used the pen name Edward Theberton and two other pen names (sources mentioned in the article). Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming? 

message: I think the article "Dalrymple" should point to Daniels, rather than the wide range of disambiguations it currently contains (two clicks and substantial scrolling to get to Theodore Dalrymple at all). Has this been discussed already, and rejected? If not, should we request comment at other Dalrymple articles? ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have difficulty to grasp who will benefit from the proposed change. I even have problems to understand what the proposal actually is. The disambiguation page Dalrymple points to whatever it is that is not a person but does have the term 'Dalrymple' as a major component of its name. Here I do not see the need for a change. To reduce the scrolling (but of course it takes an extra click) and for conceptual reasons, the disambiguation page with the list of persons that are called Dalrymple, has been created apart: Dalrymple (name). As far as I can see there is no need for a substantial change either. (The names might be ranked a bit more according to relevance criteria, perhaps.) The pen name Theodore Dalrymple is a redirect to this article. So the stuff is complex, if you wish, but anyhow we have to solve the disambiguation problem, and we cannot do that by letting Dalrymple point to this article. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to move this right now. It should certainly be Theodore Dalrymple, with an explanation that it is a pen name. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Move can't be done without the approval of the bureaucracy. I have submitted an application. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: *Excellent. So does the Daniels page redirect now? The excellent praise that has been given this excellent writer (and any criticism) can now be included in a steady torrent. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent

message: A piece of polemic seems to have been appended to this article by someone who doesn't like Theodore Dalrymple and it harms the neutrality of the article. Dalrymple's journalism and non-scholarly work has largely been ignored by scholars because it is not part of the academic domain. Any journalist could be subjected to this sort of original research hatchet job. There is no source that says he is ignored; even the assertion that coverage is generally negative is WP:SYNTH. Additionally, there seem to be problems with the quality of writing:  (e.g. "to suggest if excuse-making is a distinct characteristic of groups beset by social problems.") --131.111.128.77 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just renamed the section "Criticism". The problem with having a "Scholarly reception" section devoted entirely to criticism is that it ignores other articles written by Anthony Daniels which are scholarly, peer-reviewed and relate to medicine. These haven't been ignored. I've removed the unsourced attempt to summarise scholarly reception. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman. One thing neither scientific nor philosophic truth depends on is consensus. The popularity of opinions in no way validates their accuracy, even among experts. It was not long ago that virtually all psychiatrists believed homosexuality to be a disease (exception the heretical Thomas Szasz), and gastroenterologists believed gastric ulcers were of emotional origin. The first was merely cultural bias, and the second just bunk. The scientist who debunked the “stress ulcer” assumption was “mostly ignored by scholars.” We have progressed little since Semmelweis in understanding this. Nicmart (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Plenty of intelligent people have written things that are nonsensical or simply wrong. Intelligent doctors are no more exempted from this than intelligent biologists or surgeons, as I'm sure Dalrymple would freely acknowledge. Having said that, I don't think the article necessarily needs a criticism section for the simple reason that there doesn't seem to be much published criticism of his writings. Whether this is because he supposedly possesses an intellect more powerful than a thousand accredited specialists, or due to more mundane reasons, is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. --Ismail (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly reception 

message: It says in the article: As part of his research for the book, Dalrymple interviewed over 10,000 people who had attempted suicide. Surely that can't be right? 10,000? //roger.duprat.copenhagen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.222.223 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview of suicidal people 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Certainly the list of themes seems to be original research. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: A recent edit names Hitchens as a critic of Dalrymple. First few pages of Google shows nothing up. Leaving this here in case others know of better evidence. Otherwise it could be removed. Conflatuman (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a highly critical, but basically correct, I would think, review by Dalrymple of "Hitch-22". Although I am more or less a Hitchens guy.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Hitchens 

message: I'm new to him, I must confess, and only just found his stuff on "Taki's" online thing - with the exception of his uninformed? biased? essay on Johnny Depp he is very good.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taki's