Talk:Paul Johnson (writer)/Archive 1

Other Johnsons?

What about a reference to his brother, journalist Frank Johnson? And a statement as to whether he is related to London Mayor Boris Johnson (and if so, how), would be useful, with Boris' recent rise to prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.138.54 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Affair revelations in 1998

I tried to avoid adding details of Johnson's affair for as long as possible. Unfortunately, his apparent current distaste for the Mail made a possible explanation too tempting. As it is, I fear that the article is too centred on gossip (yes, a Johnsonian objection) and should include more comment on his books. Philip Cross 19:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed this passage from the personal life section. I chose to restore it, as it has been referred to in the UK prints on numerous occassions since.Philip Cross 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In view of the moralising by Johnson on the sanctity of marriage and so on, the revelations about his affair should be included in any biography Loonybins 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, but it has been removed before now by other users and thus perhaps one should respect the opinion that it dose not belong in the article. In any case Johnson, in his Spectator column before 1998, usually attacked the media for revealing affairs on the grounds that it would upset the perpetrators wives; he did not pose as an advocate of monogamy. I do not know if his Mail persona was different, but this does suggest that some people (well Johnson) have a difficulty seeing beyond the world of public figures. Philip Cross 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should this opinion be respected? It is not gossip, but fact, and in view of the highly moralistic tone of so many of his articles, acknowledgement of the affair if not the details, on balance, ought to be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loonybins (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

It is a battle I felt I had lost, that is all. Philip Cross 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've searched quite a bit for verification of this "fact" and have yet to find anything above the quality of cheap tabloid material (the christoper hitchens salon article, an 'Evening Standard' article by Allison Pearson and a couple of others). Even were I to take these as gospel, none of these articles say anything other than that Gloria Stewart sold her account of the affair to the papers. It's simply assumed that she was telling the truth. I don't suppose anyone has a link to a respectable news source that confirms this (i.e. one that is not ideologically opposed to Johnson simply b/c of his right-wing views)? 11:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A. N. Wilson, a reputable source despite falling for a Bevis Hillier prank, refers to the incident here in an article from the Evening Standard and defends Johnson. Johnson did admit to the affair at the time, and objected to the invasion of his privacy in his Spectator column, though not directly referring to the details in the later case. Philip Cross 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this reference [1]. Would you all accept that as further evidence of the facts? His sexual mores are important given his moralistic tone. if he were a specialist in Turkish carpets it would be irrelevant. Christopherbrewster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, as far as I can tell the only thing the Hitchens article tells us is that (as mentioned above) Gloria Stewart sold her account of the affair to the papers. It does not provide any evidence whatsoever that Paul Johnson admitted to having an affair. The corroborating link posted by Philip Cross is dead. 15:09, 25 May2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.93.140 (talk)

The A.N. Wilson piece I cite above does seem to have completely vanished from the web, but Suzanne Moore in an Independent article from May 1998 quotes Johnson directly here. Philip Cross (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the article. None of the quotes are corroborated. Please cite a source that does not base it's statements on accusations made by some other newspaper before listing the alleged adultery as a fact. Or find the actual magazine/newspaper that actually interviewed Paul Johnson. Or, you could even change the article to reflect that certain magazines/newspapers (and the mentioned Gloria Stewart) have "accused" Paul Johnson of having an affair. At the very least, use your reason and wonder for a moment why Mr. Johnson would simply admit, to people who are obviously politically opposed to him, that he had an affair without even an attempt at a defense. 15:09, 25 May2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.93.140 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.74.13.105 (talk)

Johnson's attitudes

The assertions on Johnson's attitudes are hopefully now properly referenced, lest some of them might seem like slander. Unfortunately, I'm not able to cite a reference to Johnson's claim that the Bible is literally true; the "Find Articles" website seems to have ceased adding "Spectator" articles to it's database, and the article I need to cite was only published this year. The Alan Watkin's reference is from a feature on Johnson (in the Guardian, when their mutual anipathy was at its peak) around 1997-8, and I no longer have the hard copy or access to a newspaper library or the "British Humanities Index". It was by Charles Nevin and called "Can we take this man seriously?"

Have reformated so that the "recent decades" section has a more logical progression. Am I obsessing on all this? Quite possibly, but the article could do with a detached look.Philip Cross 9 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

World of the Public School contribution

I came across a reference to Johnson's piece in the MacDonald Fraser book while researching the career of another contributor, Peregrine Worsthorne, and hope that the "memoirs" section of this articles bibliography is the correct place for it. Philip Cross 13:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It turns out not to be; moved details to History section. Essay title and page reference added. Philip Cross 14:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Another hatchet job?

Nothing contained in this article is factually inaccurate so far as I know, though others are free to show otherwise. It is quite true though, that some comments by Johnson's prominent American neo-con admirers would improve the article.Philip Cross 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing may be factually inaccurate, but the article suffers from an overly politicized account. I think a brief bio and listing of major works should be given first. A later section on controversies/political views could be listed after.jd 11:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but how about some comments from Johnson's critics, who (quite rightly) point out that the man is a bigoted, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, homophobic sociopath who cannot himself adhere to the high moral standards he is all too happy to trumpet to others.

Yes why not? If his critics can do no better than this throwing about of lefty smear-words, he has nothing to worry about. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's view of the Bible versus critical scholarship

The sentence, "He views the Bible as containing the literal truth of God, despite several centuries of scholarship questioning the Bible's veracity," sounds like an endorsement of the scholarship in question and a dismissal of Johnson's view of the Bible. This sounds like POV in my opinion. Additionally, the question of the Bible's nature is not really the issue. What is presented is a question of its VERACITY, that is, whether it is true, and while this issue may be complicated by questions of nature, it is not, in the last analysis, the real problem that has been raised. Perhaps the sentence would be better if it read something like this:

"He agrees with the traditional Christian view of the Bible as containing the literal truth about the nature of the universe (including truths which can be evaluated scientifically), a position which has been challenged strongly by many scholars of the last three centuries."

The identification of Johnson's view to "traditional Christianity" is vital, since it is the source of his belief and sets the correct context for the argument; it is not Johnson versus centuries of scholarship, but traditional Christianity versus post-Enlightenment secular Bible scholarship. Furthermore, in most cases, the question is not whether the Bible is the truth "of God" per se, but whether it is the truth at all. For most Bible scholars who fit into the higher critical tradition, the Bible may be or may not be inspired; the question is whether it is reliable for historical information.

The inclusion of the link to "Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible" is really quite irrelevant; the question is not regarding whether the Bible is consistent, but whether it conveys truth. Most of the alleged inconsitencies cited are matters of textual criticism, scribal errors and the like. Whether some king was 6 or 16 when he ascended to the throne has nothing to do with whether the Bible conveys truth about the origin of the universe, at least not on the surface. Because the link is not an obvious one, I think it should be removed.

--PS: Sorry, forgot to log in. This was posted by Aaronimo on December 13th, 2005

NPOV drive by

So, I just came across this article in editing another one. While there may indeed be POV issues here, the editor who added the NPOV tag:

10:46, October 30, 2005 Juicifer (Another hatchet job - needs editing)

did not assist in making any changes to remove the POV, or suggest anything substantive to help other editors. So, unless some substantive tasks are brought to the table, I'm going to remove it in about 48 hours. Again, I'm not objecting to the placement of the tag, but the placement of the tag without substantive suggestions for how to fix the article. Thanks. --NightMonkey 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above assessment, and as somewhat more than 48 hours have transpired, I have removed the tag. Verne Equinox July 6, 2006

Ack, looks like I forgot about this one. Thanks. --NightMonkey 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New book

Note that Johnson has a new book out called Creators, which will be published in the US in March 2006. In the book he mentions that he would like to complete the trilogy (started with Intellectuals) with a book called Heroes if he lives that long. I would add to the page but the book isn't even out yet, the page is blocked by a neutrality warning, and the books are divided into categories by someone who knows his work better than I do.--Priceyeah 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Article's focus

A reading of the article suggests that it is more concerned with political views of Paul Johnson, not with what he did and why he is notable. A change in the focus is thus warranted to make the article more NPOV. Pecher ^Talk 12:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enlightenment and Evolution

Sometimes it really amazes me how either dishonest or sloppy or both some of the editors on this site can be. This article makes the two following claims and backs them up with cites from articles of Johnson than in no way support those claims.

First there is this-"Johnson is a critic of the enlightenment because of its implicit disavowal of faith..." and then for evidence cites this article, nowhere in which is the Enlightenment mentioned at all. The article is largely an attack on the Anglican Church and a defense of the Pope. He defends the Pope against the charge that the Catholic Church is not commending itself to modernity with this-

The Tablet writes of the Pope's letter: `This is surely not the way for the Catholic Church to commend itself to the modern world .... ' Quite a giveaway that sentence, is it not? For what, exactly, is the `modern world', that phantasmagoria of horror and depravity, which came to birth in the 20th century and is now, I hope, dying with it? The modern world is Freud and Hitler and Stalin, it is Auschwitz and the Gulag, it is Aids and anorexia, crack and speed, Hiroshima and the killing fields, San Francisco bath-houses and Bangkok child-brothels. At its miserable best it is down-market tabloids, Disneyland and Channel 4 soft porn. At its worst it is human degradation so complete and cruelty so heartless as to leave Satan and his pandaemonium gasping with pride at their creation. For it is they who brought the modern world into existence.

The last thing the Catholic Church ought to do is to commend itself to such a world and those who accept its culture. It is the task of Catholicism to fight the modern world, to defy it, excoriate it, expose its shams and lies, its follies and meanness and frauds. Catholicism must set its face, flintlike and adamantine, against the modern world and all it represents, and warn the gullible multitude about the abysses of grief to which the modern world inexorably leads. For Catholicism is unworldly and timeless, unfashionable, unsmart, unconventional, never with it, but against it, committed simply to what is true for all ages and all men and women whomsoever: the worship of God and obedience to His law.

So nothing about the "Enlightenment" or "Faith", but an attack on "Modernity" for what he sees as its moral shortcomings.

Then there is this, "...and also finds Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution objectionable for the same reason." and then cites this, nowhere in which is Darwin or evolution attacked for lacking faith, quite the opposite. He attacks "Darwinian fundamentalism" as a religion or faith if you will.

The article begins with these three paragraphs-

The project to grow a human heart in a laboratory is the latest victory for Darwinian fundamentalism, the new religion which has replaced Marxism in academia. Experiments with human tissue and genes, which hitherto were no-go areas for all but the ruthless scientists employed in Hitler's race labs, are now rapidly acquiring respectability as the Darwin cult takes over. New Scientist reported this month that `until a year or two ago, the taboo on human germ-line engineering was absolute', but now `most experts say they'd be surprised if designer babies are not toddling around within the next 20 years or so'.

Strictly speaking human germ-line engineering -- altering a human sperm or egg to effect changes which can be passed on from one generation to another - is unlawful in Britain, and in the 22 other countries which have signed the Council of Europe convention which bans it. In America, it is not yet authorised by the official watchdog, the US Food and Drug Administration, but the rapidity with which the technology is becoming available, and the swing in public opinion towards babies made genetically immune to most chronic diseases, look likely to ensure its legalisation. Once America takes the road to biological Utopia, the world will follow. And the rise of Darwinian fundamentalism supplies the spiritual background to make this new adventurism seem not only ethical but inevitable.

Once again one has to admit G.K. Chesterton got it right: `When men cease to believe in God, they will not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.' There is in the human psyche an insatiable need to believe, and a need too to focus that belief on a personality. When God died in many human hearts, especially among the intelligentsia, they replaced him with Marx. It mattered not that Marx was intellectually contemptible: a man who never did any empirical research, who faked the evidence, plagiarised the ideas of others, and whose work was mainly put together from chaotic notes by his follower Engels. Such blemishes did not disturb Marxist believers any more than the behaviour of Yahweh in the Old Testament put off Jews and Christians. Nor was Marxism the worship of abstract ideas: Marx was a personal deity to the point where Stalin accorded him quasi-divinity and Mao Tsetung always spoke of death as `going to join Marx'. Until the Marxist religion collapsed in irretrievable ruin at the end of the 1980s, it had claimed over 100 million sacrificial victims on its altars, and in recidivist China these hecatombs continue.

He then criticizes not Darwin, who he calls a "genuine scientist" who made modest claims and refused to have his work used for ideology, but those who have done exactly that, T.H. Huxley, Social Darwinism, Hitler and Stalin. He then criticizes Dawkins not for believing in Evolution but for using it to justify his religious agenda and for trying to use their religion, Darwin fundamentalism, to remake and improve society wholesale without paying attention to the individual.

The closest he gets to criticizing Darwin is this final section of the article-

Darwin, too, not merely described how species evolved but also, implicitly, indicated how this evolution could be accelerated and directed artificially. The technology is now there, and scientists (with big business not far behind them) are avid to use it. Darwinian fundamentalism, the new religion, provides the ethical justification. It looks as if the 21st century is shaping up for an even bigger moral catastrophe than its predecessor.

So this article is an attack on what Johnson sees as a religion, Darwinian fundamentalism, not an attack on a lack of faith, as is stated. 69.104.57.214 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian

For one to become a historian, official degree in historical studies is required. In which university is he teaching history? --Aminz 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson graduared in History from Magdalen College, Oxford. Where is it specified that one needs to have taught in a University to be considered a historian? Philip Cross 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He has a second-lower class degree. --Aminz 06:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Since when is a degree from Oxford, one of the most prestigious universities in the world considered substandard? A "second-lower class degree" in England refers to one of four classes of an honours degree (as opposed to an "ordinary" degree), indicating a superior academic standard (see Bachelor's_degree#England.2C_Wales_and_Northern_Ireland). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But he has a lower-second class degree. It doesn't make one historian. He is a writer. --Aminz 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The historian article says: "Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline." --Aminz 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson is widely recognized as a historian: [2] [3] [4] [5].

He has written two dozen books of history. He is a historian. Isarig 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Having written lots of books doesn't qualify one as a historian. Just a writer and that is his job. Also, please see historian --Aminz 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing lots of History books most certainly qualifies one as an historian. See the references I supplied. Your claim that one needs to be teaching history at a university in order to qualify is quaint, but is not grounded in reality. Isarig 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

'Historian' is not a protected title in the manner of 'pharmacist' or 'chartered surveyor'. You do not need board certification in order to practice as a historian - history is a discipline to which it is still possible to gain admission by reading very hard, thinking, and writing. Gibbon did not complete his degree - does he fail to make the cut?

I don't admire everything about Johnson (I suspect he doesn't either), but his autodidactic industriousness is an example and a reproach to us all. Notreallydavid 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm enjoying very much reading Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. He is definitely a wonderful historian. The fact that I might not agree with everything he says does not make him less so; who agrees with every historian? Here is a non-Jew writing on Jewish history - an interesting historical perspective, and selection of facts and issues. Furthermore, as the above editor observes, history is not an activity, or practice, requiring a bona fide state license. --162.84.236.224 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In brief, to be a historian it is sufficient to write good history. --162.84.236.224 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This was settled a while ago, Aminz. He has written 17 works of history; stop removing the designation "historian" from the lead, and stop inserting that he got an "lower second class" or "undergraduate" degree. WP:BLP and WP:POINT both apply here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Karen Armstrong a historian? Beit Or was opposing that. Please let me know why you think. --Aminz 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. This is the Paul Johnson article, and he is certainly a historian, as was explained above. Now stop violating WP:BLP and WP:POINT just because you don't like some stuff he said about Islam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating WP:POINT. Please do not repeat that. I can consider say "you don't like some stuff he said about Islam" as a WP:POINT. It is very subjective and its repetative usage goes on my nerves because I am not doing that. WP:POINT is disturbing wikipedia to show a point while I am saying that there are others who agree with me (someone I've never seen you disagree with). --Aminz 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have any degree in history. --Aminz 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the discussion above; he's written 17 best-selling history books. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to bring the usage of the term historian to "Wikipedia: Policy Village" or somewhere. The article on Historian says: "Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline." --Aminz 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as a source, particularly articles that contain not one sourced statement in them; instead we used Wikipedia policy. Five months ago it was pointed out to you that many reliable sources referred to Johnson as a "historian". Has something radically changed in Johnson's status since then, that would make you surreptitiously delete reference to him as such? Has he since been discredited in some way? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"We don't use Wikipedia as a source, particularly articles that contain not one sourced statement in them." And when Johnson did a similar mistake for his books, how do you call it? Example, his book on Napoleon contains several beginner mistakes.

- Johnson wrote that Lucien was King of Holland when in reality it was Napoleon's other brother Louis who was King of Holland.

- During his exile on St Helena, Napoleon befriended the young Betsy Briars. But in reality her name was Betsy Balcombe. "The Briars" was the name of her family's house on St Helena.

- "Napoleon is really ignorant, having read very little, and always hastily." Napoleon was in reality a books' worm.

- "Pitt found (...) that Napoleon's word could never be trusted". But Johnson forget to mention it was the British who broke their word in the Treaty of Amiens when they refused to leave Malta after Nap had left Taranto.

- The story of the young girl in Egypt found in a book (which said the story was of second hand) but curiously Johnson changed her age from 16 to 11 years old.

Doesn't matter that many referred to Johnson as a "historian", when he wrote a so biased book. 11/15/2008, Fred 86.206.108.210 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aminz and others: A good point made above; WAS EDWARD GIBBON AN HISTORIAN? Yes or no? Explain briefly, using only one side of the paper. 95.146.138.54 (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Rating the article and subject

I list his importance as 'high' on the basis that his profile is roughly equivalent to that of Christopher Hitchens, who is in that category as well and 'start' because I'm not happy with the article for reasons which are given elsewhere on this page. Philip Cross 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Menace of Beatlism

Is there a place for this Johnson article from the sixties[6], in which he sneers condescendingly at people who like popular music? It's hilarious! Totnesmartin 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Johnson has reversed his views somewhat as far as the disticntion between 'high' and 'low' culture (he admires Disney, according to the recent Creators), no surprise there. The article does deserve a mention though, at least because it demonstrates a cesura with much left-wing opinion as early as 1964. I am thinking more of the description of the Juke Box Jury audience more than the Beatles - Richard Hoggart shares some of the same attitude to popular culture in The Uses of Literacy after all. Philip Cross 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, include his article in praise of the pop phenom The Spice Girls in The Spectator c. 1995. The groups promoter sought Johnson out for this article specificaly because of his earlier 'Beatlism' article 30 years before. 95.146.138.54 (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnson a Warmonger

Noam Chomsky says in his book, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest For Global Dominance ", that Paul Johnson was an "entranced worshipful intellectual" of President Reagan's attack on Qaddafi whcih killed many innocent people. If this is true, Johnson sounds like the typical anglo-conformist. Teetotaler

Whatever that is.

Here is a thought for you: 'warmongering' (selling war, as 'costermongering' is selling fruit, such as (costard) apples) can be a good idea, if the war itself is a good idea. Is there no war in the whole of history where you would support one side or the other? And try to sell people on the idea? 170.170.59.138 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: try actually reading some of his works, rather than just smearing webpages with quotes from Chomsky. Or does entertaining divergent ideas frighten you? 146.63.149.158 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnson's support and sympathy for Reagan (and Nixon) is clear from the article. A quote from Chomsky would thus be an unnecesary addition. Philip Cross 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Why is the bibliography subcategorised into genres. 1) This seems un-wiki, 2) The categorisation seems somewhat arbitrary. E.g. A History of the Jews is put in 'history' but A History of Christianity is religion. This strikes me as a particularly apt instance of the reason that wikipedia doesn't subcategorise normally.

I agree, the subcategories are unhelpful. Rwflammang (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I compiled the bibliography nearly six years ago. While it is doubtless arbitary to some degree it seemed an appropriate means of ordering a long list. Incidentally, A History of Jews does not restrict itself to Judaism but is as much a history of the people. Philip Cross (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Random Comment

If you want to know anything at all about Paul Johnson, you should know that he is an absolutely brilliant historian. As a starting point, read Modern Times or The Intellectuals. JDG, USA

Moving this to the bottom of the discussion page. It doesn't need to be at the top for any particular reason and I feel petty and vindictive towards it because I believe it is utterly wrong: Johnson is an exceedingly poor historian, though a marginally talented writer.

Speaking of 'Intellectuals', what does he say that is wrong, or poor history? 170.170.59.138 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The big trouble of Johnson is he writes books just to show to everybody who or what he does not appreciate. Do you think that is good history? 86.206.108.52 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost impossible to do otherwise. History needs a narrative structure, otherwise it is, as Homer Simpson once said 'just a bunch of stuff that happened'. What that structure should be, and why, is, of course wide open to debate. 95.146.138.54 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)