Talk:Theodore Dalrymple

Links

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)

Themes

I have added a list of themes. I can add sources if you wish. If so, please let me know. As I am not a native English speaker (I am Dutch), it would be nice if someone would check if my grammer/idiom is correct. (I have done my best.) Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources added. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Theobald:

I'd like to make some edits to a sentence in the "Themes" section, but I want to ensure that I retain your original meaning. Here is the sentence.

"Both the smoothing over this behaviour as the medicalization of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, is a form of indifference."

This is what I'd like to change it to, with the changes in bold type.

"Both the smoothing over of this behaviour as and the medicalization of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, is a form of are forms of indifference."

Does that match your original intent, or have I changed the meaning?

--Tedd (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tedd, Yes, it does match my original intent. Thanks. --Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove external links

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)

"Compassionate Conservative" is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.56.168 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead link removed - Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Audio podcast interview (.mp3 file, 24.1 MB, 52 min. 34 sec.) on CBC Ideas with Theodore Dalrymple by Paul Kennedy (< site: podcast.cbc.ca)" is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.106.145 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead links removed - Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have cut back the list of external links because nearly everything is available via Skepticaldoctor.com, as I mentioned earlier. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another Theme: Tattooing causes crimes source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/5_4_oh_to_be.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.80.52 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming?

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)

I agree. I just came here looking for info on this guy after reading an article by him, and had a hard time finding the right article. Please, admin, change the name so that searchers find it more easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.228.7 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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: [1]. 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)

Redirect?

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm essentially a Wikipedia noob, but I'd like to suggest somebody create a small "Pen names" subsection listing the various names he's used (e.g. Anthony Daniels, his real name, for his travel books, etc.). That would probably make things clearer for people who read the article than the single line that's there right now. 199.245.163.1 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist) → Theodore Dalrymple — It's clear that Dalrymple[2] is far more common than Anthony Daniels[3]. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The article is not very clear on this, but it appears that all or almost all of his writing has been published under the name Dalrymple, and that his writing is what he's famous for, and therefore that he's much more likely to be looked up, or referenced, as Dalrymple than as Anthony Daniels. (And if the article doesn't get moved, is "psychiatrist" the best identifying term? Or would he more easily be recognized as Anthony Daniels (writer)? I don't know myself, not being familiar with his work; just putting the question out there.) Propaniac (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Presumably the only reason (psychiatrist) would be included in the title is to disambiguate the individual from some other Anthony Daniels. Anyway, no one knows him as Anthony Daniels, so it's a moot point.

    The common name guideline seems to apply here. You say you are not familiar with his work? Do yourself a favour and remedy that right away! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, we use the stage names actors and musicians are known by, if he is best known by his pen-name, then that would be best. Mish (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• As I wrote before on this talk page (under the heading Renaming) I have no objection to the proposed page move. I would like to add a few remarks. Anthony M. Daniels writes up till now both under his own name and under the pen name Theodore Dalrymple (for references to publications under his own name see: [4], [5], [6]; for an overview of journals/magazines in which he publishes/has published both under his own name and under his pen name, see: [7]). In the past he has also used at least two other pseudonyms. I do not exactly know what the naming convention is in a case like this, but the Theodore Dalrymple/Anthony M.Daniels case is quite different from the George Orwell/Eric Blair case for example. (I think TheSoundAndTheFury's suggestion to remedy the poor state of being unfamiliar with Dalrymple's writings is an excellent one, but I think it is mandatory to inform all the proud inhabitants of the British Empire that Dalrymple's writings could easily be considered a public whipping of all Brittons, right and left. As a Dutchman I may be allowed to add that the Dutch in some respects are even worse.) Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Theobald, should your remark, in the end, be taken as at least a tacit support for the move? It is noted that he writes under his real name, though clearly Dalrymple is the commonly known moniker. I'm sorry to hear that about the Netherlands! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Dear The Sound and the Fury, I agree that he is best known under his pen name Theodore Dalrymple, so the proposed change is based on solid ground. The reason that I pointed out that to date he writes his essays both under his personal name and his pen name (and that he has used two more different pen names in the past) is because my familiarity with the English naming conventions is very poor. It is easy to imagine a convention that has the personal name as the preferred title in a case like Dalrymple's. My last remarks (between brackets) were a bit ironic and even provocative, perhaps, but not ill-founded. The reason that Dalrymple has so much to criticize in British culture might explain why the British have ignored him thus far, considering his tales - if considering those tales at all - as tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, see my remarks above: I believe this articles should come under Theodore Dalrymple (...) 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. LHOON (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excellent

• 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)
  • Yes, as the What links here button shows, Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist), Theodore dalrymple, A. M. Daniels, Anthony Daniels (Psychiatrist), Thursday Msigwa, Edward Theberton are all redirects now to Theodore Dalrymple. Not all redirects are useful, but let it be. What is still wrong is that there are a lot of pages that point to Dalrymple via one of the redirect pages, mainly Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist). Either a bot or a zealous Wikipedian should tackle this issue. Dalrymple (things), Dalrymple (name) (persons) are disambiguation pages as they ought to be. Anthony Daniels (either an actor or an essayist) is not yet a disambiguation page, but it should become one in my opinion, but not all Wikipedians will agree. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing I wonder about is whether the small essay on this writer's "Importance", hosted on a blog set up by fans, is a reliable source for commenting on him. I mean, a sentence or two... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

'asserted' apter than 'argued'

This page references an article written by Anthony Daniels a.k.a. Theodore Dalrymple called "What the New Atheists don't see."

There is a misrepresentation on this page that Dalrymple 'argues' a particular point, when in fact he merely suggests it, or at most 'asserts' it.

The point quoted from the article is "to regret religion is to regret Western civilisation".

I feel it is disparaging to Dalrymple's logic to cite him as having _argued_ this point. That was evidently not his intention.

The overall theme of the article is that we can still learn from the courtesy & social intelligence of our pious forebears, even while we acknowledge the need to refound our morality upon voluntary goodness & cooperation, unfearful of any god.

12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelHarris (talk • contribs)

Checking the source, he doesn't appear to be arguing or even asserting this, it's just the byline, which may well have been written by a subeditor. The quote in his own words is "To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy."

From a skim reading of the article, I agree that "asserted" (or simply "said") seems a better way to frame this. There may be better quotes we can use, though. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the lead add the words "what he regards as" before "liberal and utopian thinking"? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly reception

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)

I agree. The sources the anon user has adduced, however, [8] and [9] are fine and there is no reason that they couldn't be used constructively and accurately within the article, perhaps within a general criticism section which at the moment is lacking. Jprw (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

What we have here is a pseudoscientist (Dalrymple) making claims in a range of specialist (social-)scientific areas such as addiction, narcissism, and rationalisation/excuse-making without apparent knowledge of the state of the field and in a manner incompatible with the field. He has been mostly ignored by scholars in these areas (source: Google scholar search) and when referred to is criticised. It violates neutrality that he is portrayed without any criticism and with the appearance of scholarly credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.24.43 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"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)

Mr 76.76.24.43, you clearly either haven't read any of his writings, or you just don't like what he has to say. The experience of one intelligent doctor is worth the diplomas of a thousand specialists. He's smarter than you, get over it. 70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Interview of suicidal people

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)

It's not. I imagine the figure comes from Dalrymple himself. Anyone who can read a book carefully, and his books are quite easy to read, will know that he is incredibly dishonest. Perhaps the most obvious case of dishonesty in *Life at the Bottom* are his quotes from famous people. Most of them are just made up.

I think the 10,000 is well within a plausible range for a physician and psychiatrist for a prison and hospital for 10-20+ years. I had difficulty finding the exact time ranges but I saw "14 years" as a prison psychiatrist but if I recall from his books he worked outside of prison system as well at a (non-prison) hospital. I haven't read the mis-quotes from famous people - but I don't think that would be a strong argument that his claim of interviewing 10k persons who have, at some point in their lives, attempted suicide, is also false. Many OB/GYN's deliver 1000s of babies in their careers.

Request for Comments

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)

Original research

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

Christopher Hitchens

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)

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)

Taki's

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)