Talk:Taki Theodoracopulos

General

The evidence of his racism is ample: "They were terrific slobs back then, and many of them continue to be slobs today. They wear tablecloths on their heads, sit on the floor to eat, and eat funny-smelling food with their hands." Editors of this man's page should not sugar coat the truth. See as follows: https://www.takimag.com/article/mama_was_a_spartan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8300:1D30:E1A4:39F0:1DC5:8B2C (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) I have adjusted the language to a more neutral, academic tone (regarding his allegedly racist views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8300:1D30:206C:5840:F0A1:77A4 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the term "politically incorrect" to "far-right" pronouncments on "women and ethnic minorities". Any objections? Taki's pronouncments easily put him in the company of the far-right.

I regard "politcally incorrect" as a weasely euphemism. Would Hitler be described as having "politcally incorrect" views on Jews? I suspect not. Well this character shouldnt have his extreme-right views written off as "colourful character" either. He is a leading funder of far right movements. Think of that what you will, but don't write it off as "eccentricity." -BG 23.9.05 00.006

I don't see what makes him "extreme far right". Opposition to immigration? I don't know the situation in the U.K., but in the U.S. that's a wildly popular position (albeit not in the political/business establishment). Taki funds an anti-war magazine. Hitler wasn't anti-war last time I checked. Mirror Vax 05:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Pull the other one. His statements which appear in this entry are not just "opposition to immigration" but straightforward hate-filled abuse of ethnic minorities, as anyone can see. Other statements from him include "you could describe me as a soi-distant anti-semite", "boy, was Enoch ever right!" and describing the black adopted child of one of his rivals as "sambo." He was a supporter of the fascist Greek colonels regime, and has expressed his admiration for both General Franco and General Pinochet. He has stated he doesn't think women should be able to vote. By any standard, reasonable defintion these positions are "far-right". But then I think you know that. He opposes the Iraq War yes; so do the BNP, and the openly neo-Nazi National Alliance in the US. Guess they arn't far-right either? -BG 23.9.05 10.29

Right-wing dictators were actively supported by every U.S. government, liberal and conservative, during the Cold War. Do you think every U.S. President during that time was a neo-Nazi? Bill Cosby has said some awfully harsh things about blacks - is he a neo-Nazi? You don't get to be a neo-Nazi just by saying something a little mean. You have to advocate neo-Nazi policies - and no, disliking immigration doesn't count. Mirror Vax 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a neo-Nazi though did I? I said he was far-right. And for the majority of people, an individual who regualarly uses extreme racial abuse, supports fascist dictators, openly admits to being anti-semitic and advocates the disenfranchisement of women IS far-right. Not exactly a contoversial description. Okay, put it this way. If we don't include Adolf Hitler and his immediate entourage, can you name anyone MORE right-wing? -BG 16.59 23.9.05

Hitler was "far right"? Hokay. So those on the political spectrum of anti-war conservative ideology are closing to Hitler then the "far left" or pro-war right? Hitler and Taki share much in common in their ideology? What a bunch of BS! (Hmmm... I wonder where Stalin would be on your stupid left-right line. Many put him on the left. Next time someone speaks of Noam Chomsky I will remember to say that his views are close to the mass murderer Stalin. Moron.)

When I think of the far right, I think of people like Pat Robertson. Religious, pro-war, socially conservative. Taki is libertine and anti-war. He's a free thinker who sometimes challenges convention, but that doesn't make him 'far right' in my view. Mirror Vax 09:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I am posting another source for the racial slur comment, since certain editors have persisted in reverting documented info. Sholto Byrnes, "A racist rant too far? Police investigate Taki the playboy pundit," The Independent, February 1, 2003.Also: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/06/28/wtak28.html

Thesaunterer 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to add a sentence about his sporting achievements, but fear I have not specified the reference correctly - it is the first time I have attempted to do such a thing and my ignorance is apparent. Please feel free to correct if you can. Thank you Dawright12 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation 26 does not provide any evidence or reference to the subject of the page having used the word "nigger". As such, this is a defamatory assertion in the article and should be removed post-haste.

The cited article from the Globe and Mail says it. Llll5032 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Soi disant anti-Semite"

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)

CORRECT spelling of last name...

Theodoracopulos... NOT Theodoracopolous - you should have been able to get that from his web page... or any of his publications... or books... etc. 172.135.163.199 08:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you would think so, but there is a reason the guy calls himself Taki. I did not know he had a webpage but I have read the guy since my early teens and I didn't notice the name was wrong. Lao Wai 08:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The name is wrong, it is actually Theodoracopulos. I am from Greece as well, and I assure you it is wrong. But I don't know how to change the name of the article... --Theoharis 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it; just because the man's a sleazebag doesn't mean that his name should be misspelt. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But that's harsh. Lao Wai 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, he is a little more complicated than what he comes off as. For example (something not worth mentioning in the Wiki entry), Taki volunteered for service to Israel when the 6-Day War broke out, holding the strong conviction that Israel was the victim and the Arabs the aggressors in the conflict. Subsequently, an on account of conversations with prominent Jewish people, like Yehudi Menuhin, who directed him towards then-unknown parts of the conflict's history, he changed his views so much that he now supports the Palestinian cause. (But not the Palestinian leadership, for whom he has nothing but scorn.) In his old age, Taki has even come to revisit some of his notions which were based on his extreme anti-communism. He has been after controversy for controversy's sake (the original trait of the bad boy) more than anything. The Gnome 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It has to be pointed out that Yehudi Menuhin was an extreme assimilationist, uncomfortable with his own Jewishness (he refered to the Jews as "they" and not "we" in at least one televised interview) and was married twice to Gentile women. His father was an avid anti-Zionist who published articles in a neo-Nazi German newspaper. Quite a source for an unbiased prospective, wouldn't you say?

Geography

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)

Picture

Good article, but it needs a picture to round it off. Any suggestions? Bastie 16:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Neutrality

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)

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)

It's pretty hard to be neutral about someone like Taki though. in 1991, when the Spectator was running articles lamenting the moral decay and lawlessness of British society, he contributed to the paper's shining example in this respect by using his weekly column to promise to hospitalise the author of a book which claimed that the ancient Greek philosophers were black. Amazingly IMO the piece was printed and he kept his job. Meltingpot (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been neutralized yet.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This article definitely needs to be looked at for nuetrality.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.51.194 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) A few errs in neutrality I noticed...

1) "Taki was supposed to take over the family business, but instead (fortunately for the family business considering how he invested so much money in Bernie Madoff's annuities) chose first the life of the international playboy, ... Me: According to a column of Taki's,"I know many of the losers, at least three of the major ones live in Gstaad, and last week I was informed by my bank that I, too, had been granted the right to buy Madoff shares. (Not too many, thank God, but a seven figure sum all the same.)"http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_year_to_forget/

2) ...but the marriage only lasted a few years (he has never spoken about this in great detail, but undoubtedly she probably did not approve of his free-wheeling lifestyle)...

3) They have an open marriage. Princess Alexandra is well aware of Taki's promiscuity and remains married to him.

4)Taki's daughter also, like her father at her age, is unable to find anyone she considers good enough to marry. In a recent article she spoke of freezing her eggs.

5)Taki is very proud of his son, who is a bicycle messenger boy striving to be an artist and whose first wife also left him: "like father, like son."

6)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. Me: Taki appreciates tradition, including the 'traditionally' masculine traits such as an over-appreciation of women...

7)He also smokes quite a bit and claims his cocaine problems are over. Me: what a terrible and sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.135.26 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Davis Cup?

Is there a reliable source for the claim that he played in the Davis Cup? Because their website hasn't heard of him: [1]. Interplanet Janet 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this article in The Independent (it talks about "his past participation in the Davis Cup and captaining of the Greek karate team"), and he refers to "my old Davis Cup partner" in this column on his website. This column implies that he first played in the Davis Cup for the Greek team in 1956 - it doesn't explicitly say this, however - but as you point out he's not listed on the website. I can't find a record of matches involving the players he mentions. He also talks about competing in the French Open doubles in 1965, but again I can't find any records of that (singles yes; doubles no). ~----

That comment was by me. I can see where I went wrong with the signature code. It's amusing to read the talk page comments all these years later - it's basically Wikipedia 0.08 Alpha, with a bunch of editors who openly insult the subject of the article. I have no idea if User:Mel Etitis still edits but, by God, what idiot let this loose cannon have administrative privileges on an encyclopaedia that writes about living people? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Drug charge ...in his youth.

I have removed 'in his youth' from the drug charge as youth is typically viewed as a period before adulthood (up to 18-24). Unless he talks about a drug charge other then the one in 1984, I think calling a conviction when he was 47 something in his youth is probably pushing it to the extreme. Perhaps 'in his past' would be more appropriate?--12.162.180.96 (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance of the vaseline? Why is that in there?

Presumably it was sent as a black joke; if sodomy is inevitable, might as well try to avoid unnecessary chafing. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Taki is on the right. Hence it's still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A Biography Channel documentary on Porfirio Rubirosa includes an intereview with him. Has he made other TV appearances?

Merge?

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)

Well ya. It's his magazine, his picture and column on the homepage, his name in the magazine title, and his money that runs it. Not enough to link??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.135.26 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Politics section

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)

Imprisonment

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)

Primary sources lacking for "Controversies"

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)

Six years later, the section is still questionable. Justifying poorly sourced content by saying other content in the section is similarly sourced [2] is an argument for removal until we're clear which sources are appropriate to use. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In response to the edit summary, Not sure I would describe The Spectator or The Guardian as 'poor sources' [3]. I think the criticisms above of the ref from The Guardian need to be addressed. It looks like a uncredited opinion piece to me. I'd already looked at the Black 2001 ref from The Spectator. It's better - humorous and biting, but reads like a bit from a personal spat - entertaining, but if that's the best we have, then we've made almost no progress in six years. Is there anything better available to use as a reference? --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 @Peter Gulutzan. 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)

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)

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)

Spectator Black IQ article

Seeing as other Wikipedia pages mention that the average for black IQ is lower than the average of white IQ, and that the scientific consensus is that this is true, although there is dispute over the causes, referring to this as a claim seems a clear example of WP:Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't sum up a whole article by claiming it has been proven, all it is, is a claim and Taki claimed the same thing. Please leave changing it until an agreement has been meet as per WP:BRD. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Now with some further time, the lede of the article says Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, and intelligence has no agreed-upon definition; the validity of IQ tests as a metric for general intelligence is itself disputed. In particular, there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups. So it was bad testing that proved it and more modern science has disproved the theory, it recognises other facts such as Health, Education, Socioeconomic as well as general test bias.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If Taki stated that the gap was genetic, it would be fair to refer to this as a claim, as this is controversial. That the gap exists is referred to as fact in the linked Wikipedia article and seems to be a well established scientific consensus. Referring to it as a claim here seems to be WP:Bias, unless there's some scientific source that shows evidence that the purported gap doesn't exist.

Please sign your posts with four ~, I suggest you re-read Race and intelligence as the lede says it is outdated science.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"In the US, generally individuals identifying themselves as Asian tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who score higher than Hispanics, who score higher than African Americans. Nevertheless, greater variation in IQ scores exists within each ethnic group than between them.[52] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants in other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean scores between black people and white people of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate settings (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million)." This is from the article. The linked APA report also concludes that there is a measured gap of ~1 SD. The existence of the IQ gap is non controversial. There are controversial related claims, which Taki may have made, but those claims should be noted instead of referring to a scientific consensus as controversial. 96.44.5.219 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't know where you are getting this scientific consensus from as from the same article just below what you posted, also relevant as his article was in a British mag, In the UK, some African groups have higher educational attainment and standardized test scores than the population on average. In 2010 - 2011, white British pupils were 2.3% less likely to have gained 5 A*–C grades at GCSE than the national average, whereas the likelihood was 21.8% above average for those of Nigerian and 5.5% for those of Ghanaian origin. In 2014, Black-African pupils of 11 language groups were more likely to pass Key Stage 2 Maths 4+ in England than the national average. While the White British average was 84.6%, there were four Black African groups (Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa and Amharic speakers) that had a pass rate of over 90%. In 2017/2018, percentage of pupils getting a strong pass (grade 5 or above) in English and maths GCSE (in Key Stage 4) was higher among Black-African pupils (44.3%) than white British pupils (42.67%)..
I would hardly call it a consensus that the community agrees and it certainly is a controversial topic The ethics of research on race and intelligence has long been a subject of debateNZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that the IP has been blocked for edit warring, again. The IP's comments are part of a pattern of misrepresenting unrelated sources to support WP:FRINGE perspectives on biological race. As I have explained to them several times, we cannot misrepresent fringe positions as having mainstream support, because this is an encyclopedia. Additionally, the IP's changes are all textbook WP:SYNTH, and their talk page comments have devolved into WP:SEALIONing. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References