Talk:James Delingpole

James Delingpole and Cultural Marxism

First of all why is there no mention in the article of the 'Cultural Marxism' conspiracy theory that Mr Delingpole rants and raves about at his blog? Cultural Marxism is the same conspiracy theory straight out of a right wing rambling manifesto of a Fox News diehard. Is there any way to add to the article a mention of Mr Delingpole's swivel-eyed belief in this theory? Cultural Marxism was a conspiracy theory invented by William Lind linked strongly to the anti-semitism of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Cultural marxism has been debunked as a theory: http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050404/will.html Mr Delingpole believes that Climate Change is a con based on Cultural Marxism. All I can say is, how can I safely add this important debate into the main article correctly? Cultural marxism is anti-semitism, therefore climate denial could possibly be anti-semitism. Only a truthful look at Prussian/German history without right wing bias can explain reality. Opinions, please? I could be wrong abotu this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southroads2012 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged links to Heartland

George Monbiot in The Guardian says that James Delingpole (along with another Daily Telegraph writer associated with climate scepticism Christopher Booker) spoke at a conference organised by a think tank called Heartland. There has been a degree of controversy about Heartland's funding and it's integrity has been called into question. Indeed it's been suggested it's being funded purely to create doubt about climate science in the face of considerable consensus on the issue amongst climate scientists (as opposed to scientists from other fields, a number of whom have questioned climate science). Monbiot used his article of Feb 20 2012 to challenge Delingpole and Booker to reveal how much they had been paid by Heartland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.172.92 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much?

This article, at first sight, feels to be too long, giving undue prominence to an oddball and pretty extreme commentator. But then, maybe the length and extensive references to "other views" are needed to show that he is indeed an oddball who should mostly be ignored. Other views? Is it too long, or not? Gordoncph (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, articles should be based on reliable secondary/third party sources, much of this article such as the Allegations of bias and corruption against Wikipedia section are ill-informed rants by Delingpole with no secondary source. So for a start I've deleted that section, the exercise should be repeated throughout the article. He has his own newspaper column for non-notable rants, we shouldn't act as an echo chamber to spread them. . . dave souza, talk 13:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He should be deleted off wikipedia. I see him on TV nearly every day and the first thing I want to do is just SCREAM. He's the most awful man in the newspapers. If you read the Daily Mail or Telegraph then you must be stupid already and there is no reason to include these right wing wingnuts on a site for intelligent people like us. Call delete on this denier. How dare he, how very dare he ignore our view? 80% of Twitter members hate James Delingpole, therefore, it's time to delete this article. No free press for hate mongers. NO MORE HATE NO MORE DENIERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superintelligentwoman (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think he should be deleted. He is a minor figure and of little importance but prominent in the minds of some people - so we should be able to look him up in Wikipedia. It should be kept as a short and factual article. He is indeed a right wing wingnut but we need to know what such specimens sound and look like.Gordoncph (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we should give the right wingers a platform to spew hate? Whatever man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superintelligentwoman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a platform from which he can spew hate. This is a platform on which we can all read about him spewing. His platforms from which he spews are listed in the article, and readers can go there and find out that he is, indeed a "right wing wingnut". The words attributed to Voltaire are apposite - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Gordoncph (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My name is John Cuthreas. We cannot afford to give the far right a platform. James Delingpole must be removed from Wikipedia immediately. I will not stand here and allow the fascism of The Telegraph newspaper to spread its poison. Do you realise that school children might find this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCuthers (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Hello, I am Samantha Taggartine and I am logging my contribution to the debate. I do not believe that hate deserves a voice. Sadly, James Delingpole's article must be deleted immediately. I am a member of Unite Against Denial, the organisation formed to protect the earth from climate change denial. The world is a sacred place. There is absolutely nothing that can stop our protection of the planet. Denial affects us in two ways. First it denies science. Second it is homophobic. There is no place for hate in Europe today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaTaggartine (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I call delete on the above comments. They are clearly parodies, infiltrations, non-genuine expressions of thought, and thus are useless contributions. Most of this is clearly climate change deniers trolling in the guise of environmentalists to try and make all environmentalists look like slavering, incoherent loons. Nobody interested in rational debate would want an article about a person removed from wikipedia because the person has a particular view. Shall we remove the article about Hitler, then, or Mugabe, or maybe people will call for deletion of George Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, etc etc etc because they don't like their policies. Having an article about a person on wikipedia does not mean condoning their view nor is it a platform for anyone to "spew forth". This isn't Delingpole's column, it's an article about him. No sane person would campaign as such - this and the complete idiocy of the presentation of the comments leads me to have to mention that this is almost certainly trolling, possibly by Delingpole supporters, to make those who disagree with him look like vicious authoritarian media-controlling nutbags. 134.225.137.160 (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am writing to endorse this comment. As I wrote before "Delingpole is indeed a stupid unscientific denier and promotes ignorant anti-science views" but this is an encyclopedia, and we need factual information about bad people as well as about good ones. Delingpole's supporters think he is a good person: I think he is an unscientific ignoramous: both of those opinions are irrelevant to whether or not we should be able to look him up. It would, incidentally, be good to find a non-POV way to describe the style in which he writes, which is often extremely and extraordinarily abusive. Gordoncph (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Further to endorse the comment by 134.225.137.160, the contributions by Superintelligentwoman (sic), JohnCuthers, SamanthaTaggartine, SimonTattar-Geroge and HannahDobella are solely to this page and to nowhere else in Wikipedia. If they are real contributors who really believe what they are writing then why are they not asking for Christopher Booker or Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to be deleted? Almost certainly trolling by Delingpole supporter(s) - quite possibly just one - to try and provoke. Gordoncph (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They're just kids. Assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.156.76 (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No platform for hateful deniers

Just want to add to the debate. Hateful deniers are mean spirited. They deny the science. We should take a no platform policy here. It's the right thing to do. Our teachers at school have taught us how to beat the far right, and we'll speak our minds. Rosa Parks is our hero. James Delingpole is a zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTattar-Geroge (talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm Hannah Dobella and I have a right to protest. There is no fighting science. James Delingpole has denied science for so long. I have an AS level in Biology so I am a scientist. I know for sure that climate change is real. James Delingpole on the other hand has his head in the sand! If I had the opportunity to handcuff myself to anybody it would be in a protest at the disgusting denial that is being pedalled. Homophobia and climate change denial lend a certain credibility to fascism. Mrs Jessop has taught us that we have to be like Nelson Mandela. Our group Unite Against Denial is here to save the planet. We are the last hope for the world. Please, do not cry for us, we are the chosen children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahDobella (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Delingpole is indeed a stupid unscientific denier and promotes ignorant anti-science views. His political opinions are both reactionary and sometimes expressed in words that (should be) unprintable. However, a short factual entry in Wikipedia is needed, so that those who do not know him can look him up and find out the facts. We have to have entries about, for example, political dictators - denying that your enemy exists is not the way to defeat him. Delingpole and the Delingpolies will only be defeated by good argument and scientific fact. Gordoncph (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Include April 2012 Commentary (magazine) (page 27-30 in print) regarding ...

• Climate change denial
• Heartland Institute
• Climate change controversy
• and Peter Gleick

99.109.125.170 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A link to Commentary (magazine) in the article would be difficult because articles are only accessible to registered subscribers. I think a Heartland Institute link would be difficult to justify at this stage. Delingpole and his colleague on the Telegraph, Christopher Booker have repeatedly been asked in Telegraph blogs if they have had support from the Heartland Institute without any answer. Such questions in Telegraph blogs are usually deleted by "moderators". See section "Alleged links to Heartland" above. Gordoncph (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over the New Statesman

This article has been subject to an edit war over the epithet "left wing" applied to New Statesman. This is pointless. Anyone reading the article on Delingpole will discover that he is (in normal parlance) "right wing". Anyone following the Wikilink to the New Statesman article will find out the general stance of that journal. Adding the "left wing" epithet tells us nothing novel about the journal, nor anything relevant to Delingpole. If you don't like the New Statesman because of its politics then add encyclopaedic material to that article, not to this one. Gordoncph (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

When you reverted you said that the assertion that "The New Statesman" is a left-wing journal is simply a point of view, and so that opinion should be deleted. Here you say that anyone who follows the link to the "New Statesman" will soon discover that it describes itself as a left-wing journal, and so there is no need to mention it. Spot the inconsistency. By the way I leave it to you to work out (put your thinking cap on) why the fact that "The New Statesman" is a left wing journal is relevant to the fact that it supplied a hostile review of "How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History". ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether a journal is right-wing or left-wing is actually not very relevant to whether or not a review of Delingpole's "How to be Right" is hostile. Given that Delingpole's book describes a former Prime Minister with a single word epithet properly referring to the female genitalia it would be difficult to give the book anything other than a hostile review (Delingpole is entitled to an opinion but opinions should be formulated to give a little more meaning than crude abuse). The point is that an article in Wikipedia is meant to provide facts, on which the reader can form his or her opinion. This article about Delingpole gives facts ample to demonstrate Delingpole's political position. The article about the New Statesman gives facts on which an opinion can be made about the journal's present and former political stance. Gordoncph (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(1) It's not a good idea to use short descriptive phrases when we can wikilink to the article. There's inevitably some subjectivity, and it leads to arguments about POV. (2) If it were a good idea, it would be much more relevant and useful to the reader to describe the publications Delingpole works for (first sentence) as 'right-wing', but I don't think this is advisable either (see 1). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 05:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the value of the entire phrase "which was strongly criticised in a review in the New Statesman" is. Per WP:Balance, it seems unbalanced to mention a hostile review without including other reviews. Perhaps all of the reviews were hostile, then this fact would be better illustrated by including reviews from multiple publications. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it in one Quasihuman. Gordoncph is so consumed by hatred for Delingpole that he pretends he cannot see the connection between the political stance of a journal and its hostile review of his book "Making Lefty Liberals History". He says that "it would be difficult to give the book anything other than a hostile review", but of course he has not read the book, why should he, he evidently detests the man. Nor is he going to let a little thing like logic get in his way of his feelings, and so he gives two contradictory reasons why any mention of the political stance of The New Statesmen should be deleted. Yes we get it Gordoncph, we get the message loud and clear, you do not like Delingpole. But what has that got to do with the price of fish? I (and nobody else) could care less about your opinions.

Squiddy takes a different tack. He asserts that calling the New Statesman "left-wing" is subjective. Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt Squiddy and assume you do not live in the UK. Maybe you do not realise that the New Statesman explicitly sets out to to supply a left of centre view of the world. But if you are ignorant of this fact maybe you ought to go away and do a bit of research and come back when you are better informed. I leave you to work out the relevance of this to why a book called "Making Lefty Liberals History" got a hostile review from the New Statesman.

By the way the title of his book "How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History" gives us a tiny little hint about whether Delingpole is on the Right or Left politically, but the journal title "New Statesmen" gives no such indication, but then you already know that don't you. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the motivations of other editors, that does your argument no good. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keeping personal likes and dislikes out of Wikipedia entries is PRECISELY my point. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ERIDU-DREAMING, let us state a few things. First, I am not "consumed by hatred for Delingpole": I have a low opinion of him (as is evident from other comments in this thread) but "consumed by hatred" is a bit strong. Second, I have not read all of the book, but I have read quite a lot of it, and enough to form an opinion. I certainly object to the way in which he writes, to use my earlier phrase, "in words that (should be) unprintable". Third, I have argued elsewhere in this thread that it is important that we have a clear article about Delingpole concentrating on facts and with reliable, balanced and accessible citations. I support the comments from Squiddy and Quasihuman above: best either to include a balanced report of several reviews of the book, or include no reports on reviews and let readers find reviews for themselves. Let us remember WP:NICE and also WP:PA Gordoncph (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"I have a low opinion of him"

If you are telling me you have read his book I stand corrected, but you make my point for me. Given that you have such "a low opinion of him" why are you contributing to his Wikipedia entry? If you believe in the importance of "reliable, balanced and accessible citations" why are you doing precisely the opposite? Not very convincing. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Look, it seems that Gordoncph, ERIDU-DREAMING, and myself agree that the disputed material should either be removed or multiple reviews included. Unless someone objects, or writes a more balanced sentence including multiple reviews, I will remove the content in a few days. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you - ERIDU-DREAMING - look at the revision history of the entry you will see that the only time that I have contributed to the article itself is to remove the POV comment about the New Statesman. So I am not substantially "contributing to his Wikipedia entry". Writing on the talk page is a different matter. I am asking for evidence-based material to be the basis of the entry. Are you suggesting that only Delingpole supporters should contribute to his entry? It would be pretty impracticable to ask that only those with no opinion either way on Delingpole should write about him. I certainly support what Quasihuman suggests in his latest comment. Gordoncph (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Quasihuman, but your declaration that to claim that "The New Statesman" is a left of centre journal is nothing more than a point of view is of course factually incorrect. It is a simple statement of fact. It is also clear that seeking to deny the relevance of that information is disingenuous. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It may (or may not) be a simple statement of fact, but it's clearly a WP:SYN and if it's to appear in this bio it needs verification from a reliable source that specifically discusses the NS's critique of Delingpole or his works. If the information is relevant, then a reliable source will have published it. If you feel that the NS as a source doesn't give a representative view, then find more critiques and use them as sources for the article, don't try to taint perception of a source based on your own prejudices. . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Representative view? Representative of what? Of views you agree with? Of views you disagree with? Of what everybody said about his book? Of what some people said about his book? Since you live in the UK you already know that The New Statesman magazine is a left of centre publication. You are also aware that Delingpole is a journalist who ridicules the sort of left of centre views which readers can expect to find in left of centre publications (such as New Statesman) - so you are in possession of the facts.

P.S. I notice that on your talkpage you have the following exchange

"As for global warming, I'm more interested in the ability of conservatives to believe six impossible things before breakfast. They consider themselves independent thinkers because they unquestioningly believe everything millionaires tell them to believe, and consider themselves rugged individualists because they do everything multinational corporations tell them to do. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, fully agree on both counts! dave souza, talk 15:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the desirability of striving for impartiality on Wikipedia. It is undesirable for editors to be tainted by their prejudices. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the review by the New Statesman considered more notable than any of the other reviews of any of his four books? Hobson (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention that prize-winning scientist Matt Ridley described Delingpole's book Watermelons as "a serious and significant book" in a review in The Spectator (see http://images.spectator.co.uk/books/7667313/seeing-red.thtml)? If we do, does anyone think it might be worth mentioning that the Spectator is a right-wing magazine, that Delingpole works for it and that Ridley is himself a climate change sceptic, or would these be examples of bias? Is picking and choosing reviews to give a good/poor impression of Delingpole by deliberately seeking out positive/critical reviews an example of bias? Hobson (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Is picking and choosing reviews to give a good/poor impression of Delingpole by deliberately seeking out positive/critical reviews an example of bias?"

Yes, especially when the (highly relevant) context of the review is (deliberately) omitted. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

James Delingpole is a right wing journalist. The New Stateman is a left wing newspaper. What's controversial about saying the plain truth? Saying that the New Statesman has criticised James Delingpole, without mentioning their political affiliation, is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Neither Mr Delingpole nor the New Stateman are impartial sources, they are both biased. The New Statesman must not be presented as a neutral body in this debate, as that would violate NPOV and it is dishonest and morally wrong. Perhaps it could be worded more softly, like saying "the left leaning New Statemen criticised James Delingpole" or "left wing opponents at the New Statesman defended themselves against James Delingpole's criticisms".