Talk:James Delingpole

BNP member

Is he a BNP member? Heard an interiview with him on a right wing extremist radio station here in the USA, he said some things that imply support of the BNP, for example he claimed there is something wrong with multiculturalism.71.116.98.136 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No. He regards the BNP as left-wing socialists. cagliost (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In correct. Delingpole does support the BNP and has voted for them in the past (124.126.159.198 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Source? --92.12.107.175 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some attention to this article likely worthwhile

"James Delingpole’s latest column in the Spectator is about Wikipedia, and how it is apparently dominated by a Left-leaning caucus of self-appointed editors who spend their days adjusting entries to fit in with their Weltanschauungen. Delingpole cites his own Wikipedia entry, in which he berates the featuring of an episode in which his suspicions of the credentials of a correspondent to Newsweek proved to be unfounded. Delingpole takes exception not because of the presence of the story, but rather because its inclusion carries a disproportionate emphasis when set against his body of work." [1]

In my view, Delingpole's particular complaint here about his entry is without question valid. See WP:UNDUE. Unless it can be shown that this event is a major event in the history of this man's life (which seems extremely unlikely), it should be removed. I will do so myself tomorrow or the next day but I wanted to wait to see if there are any reasons that I haven't considered why it should not be removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, no doubt it will be reverted back in within minutes but lets see how it goes :) mark nutley (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm. Even Delingpole doesn't object to the inclusion of the story. He also refers to the "body of his work", implying that there are many other things he would like to see covered in the article. Surely, then, the right way to edit this one is to expand it to include his other accomplishments. Again: he does not object to its inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Or just restore it to a few lines, as it stood it had an entire section devoted to it mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the anonymous editor who toned down[2] and then removed [3] the original incarnation of this paragraph. Interesting to see what's happened since. Nomoskedasticity, I don't know what makes you think JD doesn't object to the inclusion of this story. I guess you haven't read it because you refer not to the Spectator article but to the blogs referencing it. At one point JD says: "From what you know about my life and career - and it's not as if I've ever held back with the personal detail, is it? - would you say that that particular snippet is remotely germane? Is that a 'hell, no!' I can hear? Well good, because I agree." Sounds like an objection to me. The point isn't really whether JD objects though, it's whether this gives too much emphasis to one very minor incident and whether this really deserves any mention at all. Looka to me like an attempt discredit someone by trawling for some irrelevant, embarrassing detail in his life. Also, there's plenty of reliable published material on this person and that particular story comes from a blog. For something on the contentious side, this isn't exactly going out of it's way to fulfill the WP:BLP requirement that a very reliable source be found. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Coatracky inclusions of irrelevencies

If the only sources to add a factoid into this article are the factoid itself, it's probably not notable - for instance, I just removed a bit about a debate that Dellingpole had with Monbiot, source to Dellingpole, Monbiot and the debate. Unless things are adressed by reliable secondary sources, they're probably not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. If Delingpole's views on a particular issue are noteworthy, they should be comprehensively and objectively presented, and not solely through one debate. (See WP:COAT)--Palaeovia^talk 23:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

' If Delingpole's views on a particular issue are noteworthy'... I'm not convinced his views on climate change are noteworthy at all. At least, without a third-party source, we can't say they are; as this article was, it simply quoted his views, with no indication of why they're significant enough to deserve mention here. Robofish (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree here, and am minded to restore Delingpole's views on CC. I don't think there's a problem with sources - he has been repeatedly referred to as a 'climate change denier' in the UK press, the issue would be that there's no real reason to pick one newspaper article calling him a denier over any other. I'd have thought his activism on this topic was well-enough known by anyone who has heard of him just to present his views. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I was being a bit WP:POINTy here - I do know of Delingpole, and his advocacy on climate change appears to be the main reason most people know of him. But my point was that the article needs a third-party source making that clear. As I found it, it would have looked to anyone who hadn't heard of him like 'he's just some Telegraph journalist. Why are his views on climate change significant?'. Someone's added a YouTube link to his interview with the BBC, which is an improvement; what we really need is an independent reliable source describing him as a famous denier/sceptic/contrarian etc. Robofish (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Horizon interview

I've just removed a sentence from the 'views on GW' section, which appears to be an off-the-cuff speculative remark by Delingpole. The comment seems me to be unimportant in his life as a whole (!) and therefore WP:UNDUE. I think the same could be said of the whole of the 'Horizon Interview' section. It gives undue weight to an appearance in a TV program, and the source is the TV program not secondary commentary on the interview. This indicates that the event is trivial, and should be removed, in the same way that other minor incidents ("You're-not-a-vet-gate" and "Got-pwned-by-Monbiot-gate") were. If it is kept, the various NPOVing needs to be done, especially the section title. Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Squiddy is right and this entire section should be removed. Additionally, it has a very strange wording at the moment: "Delingpole later admitted that he had been 'intellectually raped' during the interview." First, there is no reference so it is hard to know when and where, or indeed if, he said something about that. And "admitted" is surely not the verb one should use in this context, either "claimed" (which might suggest that we disbelieve it) or better yet "said". If, in fact, he said it.

For now, per WP:BLP, I am just removing it completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

While the interview with this blogger has clearly gained traction in the blogosphere, it didn't seem to attract much attention in news media other than in the programme itself. The best source I've found is this TV review published in a reputable newspaper as well as being available online. It concisely covers the two main scenes featuring Delingpole, "In one he explains that he never reads peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of global warming because "it's not my job". In the other, he condemns the scientific consensus on global warming – and consensus in general – as unscientific." It then outlines Delingpole being offended when presented with "a perfectly reasonable analogy about having cancer and choosing a remedy of one's own devising over the 'consensus' treatment". An earlier source from the same newspaper meets WP:NEWSBLOG and gives the context of the allegation that Delingpole complained to the BBC of being 'intellectually raped', but although the journalist is the paper's environment and science news editor, the blog appears to be rather speculative and based on personal communications before the journalist had seen the programme. The Indy also gave advance coverage of the programme, but didn't mention Delingpole. So, a couple of reliable sources but no real indication of any significant impact outside blogging, hence no objection to the section being removed unless more good sources are found. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When did the BBC become not a "good source"? The only reason I (and most people) have heard of JD is because of his views on climate change. He is one of the most important opinion leaders in the UK, being the columnist of the the broadsheet with the widest circulation. Having some insight into how he forms his views is rather important, and this interview transcript (taken directly from his own words) should be left in. I agree about the "raped" bit though. That should definitely come out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.202.109 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both the BBC and the Graun are pretty good sources, and I've certainly seen less well sourced info in bios. So, have put the main statements in context, using my own recording of the documentary and reference to the review. Not terribly fussed if it stays or goes, but it's certainly not a clear case for removal. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My main problem was with the use of a primary source, since it's been picked up by the mainstream press I'm happier with having it included in the current shorter form. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Denier versus sceptic

The phrase "climate change denier" should be avoided in almost all cases, unless the person expresses that precise claim themselves, which will be almost never. The reason should be clear: the phrase is highly partisan and an attempt to tar people with association with the phrase "holocaust denier" - the only other common usage of that sort of phrase that I know about.

We need to always carefully respect what people have actually said. Expressing some doubt about aspects (or even the bulk) of the standard view of climate change doesn't necessarily make someone a 'denier'.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As ever, good sourcing is crucial. In this instance, I don't think Delingpole is called a denier in the programme, though he is introduced as having obtained his scoop on "climategate" from a denialist website. Sir Paul Nurse is a highly reputable scientist, with a responsibility as President of the Royal Society for communication with the general public. The programme is thoughtful, and worth watching, particularly from just after 40 minutes into the programme when Delingpole, as a prominent "sceptic" journalist, announces that "it is not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers because I simply havent got the time, I havent got the scientific expertise.... I am an interpreter of interpretations". Sir Paul then muses that scepticism is important, scientists should always challenge their own ideas, but "I think things are a bit different when you have a denialist or an extreme sceptic, they are convinced they know what's going on and they only look to data that supports that position, and they're not really engaging in the scientific process. There is a fine line between healthy scepticism, which is a fundamental part of the scientific process, and denial, which can stop the science moving on, but the difference is crucial." These self-professed "sceptics" are credulous in a way that scientists must not be, perhaps "extreme sceptic" is a nicer term but, as Sir Paul says, the distinction is crucial. . . dave souza, talk 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)