Talk:Christopher Caldwell (journalist)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I do not understand what justifies putting this biography of a living person on Wikipedia. Please somebody either highlight the journalists achievements of note in the article if possible. Otherwise I will suggest taking off this article for now. Wikipedia has never been meant to be an online version of the white pages. --Tewfik.zitouni (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This articles does not abide by the general Wikipedia guidelines and is not about a Notable person. Rf. WP:AUTHOR ForgiveMeIfIAmWrong (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He is a widely respected journalist writing in several major newspapers and a well-known and controversial public figure.Minthumbug (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Caldwell is of any note only within the limited circle of proponents of his ideas: white supremacists, believers in an imminent invasion by Islam and such racist views of the world. The references that you added are not references but more like praise by like minded people. This makes this article even more of an attempt to promote racist points of view. Creating and living off controversy does not makes one note worthy. The only people respecting racists and their views are other racists. And that, as far as I know, does not belong on Wikipedia. ForgiveMeIfIAmWrong (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, equating The Guardian newspaper with racist and white supremacist views does not convince me that you have the Wikipedia ethos at heart here. You cannot delete somebody just because you disagree with them. Caldwell makes major contributions to public debate on a wide range of subjects, whether you like the guy or not. Minthumbug (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian actually refers to Caldwell in less than favorable terms and does relate him to neo-cons and racist views. You should thoroughly read the references you refer to. I do disagree with racist views but that is not why I put forward a delete request on this entry. Inciting racism and xenophobia is not noteworthy and hence does not belong on Wikipedia.

In all the references and links in this article we can read only ones of two things: 1 - Praise for Caldwell by right to extreme right publications and personalities, or, 2 - decrying Caldwell's racist and xenophobic views of the world. Not one single moderated personality or publication has given any credit to Caldwell. This for me is a confirmation that the racist texts Caldwell produced by far outnumber the few opinion pieces he writes now and then on some respectable publications.

This leads me again to questioning the notability of this personality. His focus is obviously on anti-islamism and xenophobia but his alleged credentials come from the few unnoticeable piece he wrote on opinion sections of a couple of big newspapers.

Show me something else he produced that is note worthy and that is not about "the penury, servitude, violence, and mediocrity of Muslim societies worldwide" secretly trying to take control of Europe and rule the world", and I will be convinced this article can stay for the benefit of Wikipedia users.

Until then, this article is about a personality with extremist and racist views that has produced no notable work, academic or otherwise. Shocking human values and morality and creating controversy is not worthy of note. This article should be deleted. ForgiveMeIfIAmWrong (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you would also delete the article "Reflections on the Revolution In Europe"? Admittedly his stuff on Islam is controversial and provocative, but that is no reason to write off everything else he's written. It was not for nothing that he was asked to edit a book with Christophen Hitchens, a writer whom you would presumably have a lot more sympathy with. I'm interested to know why you seem to have created a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of attacking a living writer. Minthumbug (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating myself here: Caldwell is not notable because the only "notable" things he ever did and that distinguished him from the, literally, tens of thousands of other journalists writing opinions and columns for all those publications that published him, the only thing is his controversial unanimously admitted to be racist views. Add that to the fact that racism, however publicized, is not of interest or note and you have it: he is NOT note worthy.

You refer to everything else he has written but that is insignificant. Insignificant because he did not write anything more notable than the mainstream very average live-by-opinion guy out there. Still not notable. You do not end up on wikipedia simply for writing a couple pieces for the FT and and a right wing weekly publication do you? (remember what his day job is)

I am not attacking anybody here. I looked up this person online, read some of what he writes, found this Wikipedia entry and wondered why on earth is he listed to be named in an encyclopedia along with people who, either way, made contributions to human life, human knowledge or made and affected history.

I am starting to question your neutrality here. Are you blindly supporting this entry simply because you sympathize with the author's views? Are you sure you are looking at my arguments without bias? ForgiveMeIfIAmWrong (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple of pieces for the FT"? Seems to me he's their main political columnist. But maybe you would delete the FT too. If you check the Weekly Standard page you'll see that 25 of their 30 editors have wikipedia pages. Is Caldwell really the only insignificant one? Are they all white supremacists? Minthumbug (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1- I strongly recommend you stick to the matter at hand: it is not about the other editors in the Weekly Standard, it is not about FT or the WSJ Opinions section nor about any other author or personality. Neither is it about the political or otherwise views of any of the above. Despicable as might be, Caldwell's political opinions are not the issue here. There is no censorship on Wikipedia.

2- It is about the contributions this person makes in his profession, (I can't say field as he certainly writes about everything and anything.) and specifically those that would make him note worthy from Wikipedia perspective. So, again, everything I could find and that he wrote or was interviewed about, including from the links you provided, is basically of the sort that quickly recedes into 'read and forgotten' by the time one clicks on the next link, the exception of course being the "controversial" opinions (the rest of the world calls them racist). And again, that is not, in itself, note worthy.

Please do not make this part of your freedom of opinion or freedom of expression personal crusade. Nor is it about you proving how open minded you are despite your personal condition/story and the situation/history of your country(just as you allowed yourself to make many many assumptions about me, I will make a couple about you here). It is about maintaining the quality of Wikipedia by sticking to the guidelines that were set by the community. This person's bio simply does not belong here (yet?). ForgiveMeIfIAmWrong (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete someone's date of birth without giving a reason? Annettelucy (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]