Talk:Taki Theodoracopulos

message: I corrected the implication that Taki "mistakenly" used the term "soi disant". The term has two equally valid, alternative meanings (viz. dictionary.com inter alia): "1. calling oneself thus, self-styled; 2. so-called or pretended." Taki, in the referenced Spectator article, clearly implies that he has been wrongly, according to his opinion, labeled an anti-Semite by others (i.e. that he is a so-called anti-Semite), but that he never considered himself one. The Gnome 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Soi disant anti-Semite" 

message: The article refers to "a shooting incident in the north of England"... since when was Birmingham in the north of England? It was in the Midlands last time I looked. 217.155.20.163 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Good article, but it needs a picture to round it off. Any suggestions? Bastie 16:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not nice.  Or NPOV I expect.  There is one on Taki's "Top Draw" website.  Think he'd mind us borrowing it?  Lao Wai 08:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't meant to be nice, just to express a truth.  Fortunately comments here don't have to be NPoV.  With regard to the website photo, you could always e-mail and ask (my success rate in such cases is about one in five, or below, but it's worth a try). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article seems slanted in a negative direction. There are many unnecessary adjectives, and the selection of  quotations seems designed to cast the subject in a uncomplimentary light. It needs editing toward a Neutral Point of View. --StanZegel   (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly, I am no expert on Taki but I will add this to my watchlist and try to improve it soon. Algabal 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't been neutralized yet.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a problem. He is a polemicist, who has stated that he sets out to shock, and the article seems to be balanced and factual to me. He only has such prominence as he enjoys because of the storms in teacups he generates, so it is wrongheaded to think that the article should not focus on these.  I'm going to remove the tag. Abberley2 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Taki's Magazine probably doesn't meet WP:N; the only references to it in google news archive are in author bios.  So possibly it should be merged here.Prezbo (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Some issues:
*Although much of Taki's writings concern (satirically) his life among the rich and famous, he is also well-known as a conservative political and cultural commentator on both sides of the Atlantic. - seems to have issues with WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV - e.g. "well-known".
*He professes traditional views about family, values, and religion, but such professions must be taken with a grain of salt given his ubiquitous irony and his "untraditional" lifestyle. - manages to fail MOS:OPED and is vague about his "untraditional lifestyle".
Another issue is that there aren't enough references, particularly in the first half of the section - there are a number of claims in the sentence beginning His precise political orientation..., but no references.Autarch (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Politics section 

message: I note there is no mention of his imprisonment for cocaine possession, or the frequent mentions of this by Private Eye. I've added them in. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprisonment

message: Under "Controversies", it states "Taki has been accused of using ethnic slurs by The Guardian, in an article criticizing London mayor Boris Johnson for employing him[4] and was investigated by Scotland Yard for some of his racial comments, although no charges were made.[5]"  In fact, the footnotes that both claims refer to are just the same uncredited editorial in the Guardian, with no sources; it's hearsay. Unless primary sources for these claims are provided, I think that the attributions should be removed. Bricology (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz, thank you for noticing this. I think you correctly said, not that The Spectator and The Guardian are 'poor sources', but that the particular content that has been inserted (and re-inserted despite WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE) is 'poorly sourced', which is to say we must look at the particular statements and their contexts. As for New York Magazine, it looks like opinion so even if there's justification to include it, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was expecting that the editors involved would quickly comment here on which sources and content should be restored. I'm going to wait further. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was The Guardian accusing him in the article in question that seems pretty definitive? The reference to a Scotland Yard investigation had already been removed. The spat with Conrad Black could be rewritten but since the sources cited were the articles in question by the two participants and the New York Magazine citation was a direct Taki quote I'm not sure what would be considered satisfactory in this regard? Phinn (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the concerns that the ref from The Guardian is an uncredited editorial/opinion piece? --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what concerns you have. If it was presented as a statement of fact as in, "Taki is a well-known user of ethnic slurs", with an inline citation to the Guardian article then that would be a problem as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV cited by . As it stands the removed paragraph simply stated that The Guardian had accused Taki of using ethnic slurs. The Guardian piece itself gave examples drawn from Taki's High Life columns in The Spectator. This is therefore a statement of fact - that the Guardian made the accusation - rather than opinion. I also don't think there is an issue with WP:NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL, as both Fraser Nelson's support for Taki and Taki's own refutation to Conrad Black's accusation were included in the removed section. Obviously very happy to consider other opinions on the matter. Phinn (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it another way: Until there is consensus that the ref is something other than an uncredited opinion, I don't think it should be used for anything. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Re the statement by Phinn "the New York Magazine citation was a direct Taki quote": I don't see that it's a direct quote of something Mr Theodoracopulos said, if that's what's meant. Re the proposed sentence for the article "In another example ... Jared Kushner, who is Jewish": I don't see a citation. Re the proposed sentence for the article "In 2004, The Guardian accused Taki of using ethnic slurs ..." the article is marked "Leader" so it really is the newspaper's opinion so the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requirement is met. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources lacking for "Controversies"