Talk:V. S. Naipaul

Template:Vital article

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Whitewashing of Naipaul's domestic abuse

I added this referenced line to the article: In Patrick French's biography, Naipaul recounts that he often beat Margaret up: "“I was very violent with her for two days with my hand; my hand began to hurt. . . . She didn’t mind it at all. She thought of it in terms of my passion for her. Her face was bad. She couldn’t appear really in public. My hand was swollen.

The edit was undone by User:Fowler&fowler, stating: You are quoting out of context. You are quoting selectively. I have just examined Patrick French. It is more complicated. If Fowler can answer two questions please: What is the context? What's the complication? I hope it isn't some misplaced moral relativism that ends up justifying this malum in se, no matter the context. And, okay, I will also admit I added the longish quote, which stokes prurience, in a fit of disgust, but even if we don't mention the whole quote, as it can be impractical or be seen as sensationalist in a biographical entry I don't know, the domestic abuse has to be mentioned in the article, which in its current form seems a bit generous and sympathetic. Do let us know the context and complications... GeorgeBajrangiShaw (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying he wasn't misogynistic at times, even misanthropic. He did physically assault his (extra-marital) lover Margaret. But there was a context to the assault. You need to find French and paraphrase both the abuse and the context accurately. You can't just quote by incompletely using the New York Times, not in a high-level article such as this. I could do it, but I won't because I think it belongs to a separate section which has not been begun yet. I don't think it should be stuffed willy-nilly in "personal life." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have done so, please have a look. If you feel it can be further improved, please do let me know, or feel free to edit it yourself. As the article stands, there isn't a better section to put it under than 'Personal life'; you can move it to the more appropriate section (which I presume would be called "Controversies: subsections: misanthropy, misogyny, sexism", just like Wagner has racism and antisemitism) whenever it begins? Still, the absence of an appropriate section provides no grounds for outright rejection of my edits; or for anyone to think my edit was "stuffed willy-nilly"... Regs GeorgeBajrangiShaw (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

GeorgeBajrangiShaw While it's good that you're engaging here, you and Fowler&fowler need to agree on the final text here instead of just re-inserting the disputed text. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A few things that jump out at me: Naipaul confesses to having sadistically abused Margaret:. Both "confesses" and "sadistically" are problematic. Calling something "sadistic" is a judgement, which Wikipedia can't make. You can attribute that to a source, but you can't state it as an unquestioned fact in Wikipedia's voice. Secondly "confesses" only applies if someone acknowledges wrongdoing, and there's nothing here that makes it clear that Naipaul saw what he was doing as wrong. "Admitted", yes. "Confessed", no. Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda, noted your point about "admitted", but that also sounds as if he's acknowledging wrongdoing. Maybe "recounted" would be more neutral? Also, I see your point about using "sadistically", but here it is description, not judgement--as borne out by the accompanying quotes that show he derived pleasure from inflicting pain. GeorgeBajrangiShaw (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)