Talk:James Delingpole/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Controversial

There would appear to be nothing controversial about this page. Suggest keep page in current form, and encourage expansion: Dellingpole is widely accepted to be a notable writer who holds libertarian views. Jjhgfd (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

I've removed the "citation needed" from his birthday. It's confirmed by his facebook profile. cagliost (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then cite it. Unless a citation is provided then a citation is still needed. I presume you've strong evidence that the Facebook profile is really his and that it is public. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Facebook is certainly not a reliable source, if my memory serves correctly WP:BLP suggests that DOBs shouldn't be included unless there is a reliable source for it. Smartse (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot

Columnist George Monbiot has scathing criticism of a recent Delingpole column that was taken down after a private individual whom he had apparently named and criticised for writing a letter to an MP was harassed by people who read the column. I don't think this merits mention just yet on these grounds but, if Monbiot's account is accurate, this is a Press Complaints Commission reprimand in the making. --Tasty monster 16:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it. It was a blog entry, which has since been taken down. I'm not sure that the PCC has jurisdiction over blogs, anyway. Wereon (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
News today suggests they do! http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/29/pcc-the-spectator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.197.194 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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)--Palaeoviatalk 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 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 31 January 2011

I have just read the above comment "He is one of the most important opinion leaders in the UK" Nonsense - his main contribution is a blog on the Telegraph website. This does not mean he is an important opinion leader. His blog attracts a lot of comments but from relatively few contributors in total, and there is no evidence that he is an "opinion leader". He merits an encyclopaedia entry because people might want to look him up, but important? - no. Trivial, except to his few eager followers.Gordoncph (talk) 20:31, 7 July 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)
Climate change denial is equated with Holocaust denial because they are equivalent. Same with AIDS denial, and assorted other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted (Manifestly) Spiteful and Willfully Misleading "Intellectual Rape" Reference

I appreciate that a Wikipedia entry about a "right-wing journalist" who is a critic of the "green movement" is going to attract the attention of his opponents, but that does not excuse "QuipQuotch" restoring information that is both spiteful and misleading. I watched the interview in question and I think that the Wikipedia entry prior to the "intellectual rape" addition is very fair.

Paul Nurse is his documentary for the BBC claimed that there is a consensus amongst climate scientists about man made global warming, and given that that Delingpole is not a climate scientist, he asked by what right does he question their claims? In his response Delingpole asserted that refusing to question a scientific consensus is unscientific, and to be a journalist (as Paul Nurse - who won his Nobel Prize for work in genetics - is also doing in this instance) is to report and comment from the outside.

It seems that Delingpole thought that the clips in the programme from his three hour interview with Paul Nurse were unfair, which may or may not be true, but to adopt as fact from an article in The Guardian newspaper (a clearly hostile source) that he claimed that he had been "intellectually raped" is both spiteful and misleading. It is spiteful because he explicitly denies (in the above mentioned article) making any such claim, and it is misleading because it implies that Delingpole had no answers (in the words of the article - that he was left tongue-tied) to the objections put by Paul Nurse, even though there is no evidence for this slur, indeed it is (whether or not you agree with him) clearly false.

There may be people who get excited by the prospect of Delingpole getting intellectually raped, but I suggest that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for these fantasies. It should strive to be neutral. I have therefore deleted this spiteful and misleading addition to the article.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.156.76 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see ERIDU-DREAMING has given us the benefit of another edit, following the ideas of 217.137.156.76. I would prefer to leave it to Quasihuman to do what he or she suggested on 7 August. Gordoncph (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done Apologies for the delay, I've done that now, as no-one has objected or added other reviews. Regards, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Quasihuman - much better. Gordoncph (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Quasihuman for making the change which I advocated right at the beginning i.e. either give the review a context or delete the reference to it altogether. I agree with the "I have a low opinion of Delingpole" editor gordoncph that, in the pursuit of fairness and objectivity, I have (yet again) given Wikipedia "the benefit of another edit"; if only he could say the same (See the rest of this talk page). (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

Politics

I have altered a sentence referring to his candidacy in the Corby by-election which read "However he withdrew after an opinion poll of 1503 Corby voters identified just two (0.133%) who were planning to vote for him.[17]" It may be true that one thing followed another in the sense that it also came after the sun rose but "after" in this context strongly implies "because", and we don't know that. Certainly the explanation he gave was very different. Perhaps a sentence could be added stating that some bloggers speculated that his real reason for quitting the election was a fear that nobody would vote for him, but if so it should be clearly presented as the opinion of whoever said it, not stated as fact. Hobson (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

blp concerns

I have addressed the BLP issues by adding references wherein he calls anthropogenic climate change a "scam", and another where he admits no scientific expertise. Really I just had to refer to an already-mentioned interview to source the latter. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Article full protected for three days

Due to the edit warring the article has been full protected.
If an unexpected consensus breaks out any administrator not involved in the article can unprotect early (back to autoconfirmed only please, per Jimbo's 2012 indefinite autoconfirm required protect). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He Has No Scientific Qualifications

  • "I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like Christopher Booker and myself 'only' have arts degrees. But actually that's our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one." [4]
  • "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature." [5]
  • And in the video interview, he says that he doesn't have the scientific expertise necessary to read scientific papers on climate change.

--Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

you CANNOT jump from those comments to claim "he has no scientific training". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that. I said he hasn't any scientific qualifications. He says he doesn't have a science degree explicitly in the first quote. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

you most certainly DID say it " He does not have any scientific qualifications." Do not make flat out lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I misspoke there; I meant to quote your exact phrase to say, "I didn't say he hasn't any 'scientific training'". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I never denied he had any scientific training. Any ounce of scientific training and having a qualification/degree are surely different, would you agree? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
perhaps in theory, but still certainly not a claim that can be verified by the sources you presented without gross violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 January 2014

The placement of the "slam language" about Delingpole and peer reviewed literature in the first paragraph of this article is inflammatory and unprofessional in nature. It is a stretch to include that piece without also writing extensively on Delingpole's rebuke of the Horizon piece - with his own quotes used in his defense. 67.167.36.242 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:POV before making silly accusations of "slam language". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Also note that it's important to include information about the amount of expertise Delingpole has on the topic of climate, since he makes extraordinary and (in many peoples' opinion) ludicrous claims about it at all the time. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit protect

Please change the section titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" to "Views on climate change", per NPOV and BLP, I am quite certain Delingpole has never denied the climate changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC) As has been pointed out in this discussion, Delingpole believes in global warming. As such the title need changing per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He at many times denied Anthropogenic climate change, variously calling it a "scam", made-up, or things to that effect. Please read the sources. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Denial" is a pejorative. Given that this is a WP:BLP, a less inflammatory header would be more appropriate. If it turns out that "denial" really is the most accurate description, we can always add it back into the article later. For now, BLP requires us to be conservative. I'll also add that the current wording wasn't obtained through the normal consensus building process. Instead, it was rammed through via edit-warring, and the page was locked before anyone could fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, WP has already settled this debate. See Climate change denial and the talk page. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
First, Climate change denial is only a B-class article. See WP:Otherstuffexists. Second, just because Wikipedia has an article on "Climate change denial" doesn't necessarily mean the term applies to Delingpole. In fact, Delingpole isn't even mentioned in that article. Third, you still have to follow the normal consensus building process for your edits. The only reason why this is currently in the article is because it was edit-warred in and the page was locked before anyone could fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the article Climate change denial refers not to the term itself, but what the term is describing (rejection of the evidence-based scientific consensus on Climate change). Pardon the analogy, but would you similarly make an effort to all references to "Holocaust denial" to "Views on the Holocaust"? Just because there are two sides does not mean two sides have equal credence. The phrase "Climate change denial" is neutral and used in scholarly contexts and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Again, please see Talk:Climate_change_denial#Rename_this_article. Regards, --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't change references to "Holocaust denial" to "Views on the Holocaust". The reason why is that the term "Holocaust denial" has near universal acceptance. The term "Climate change denial" does not have near universal acceptance. The term "skepticism" is also used quite a bit. Which is used more, I have no idea. It's a false analogy to say that just because "Holocaust denial" is widely accepted, that means that "Climate change denial" is also widely-accepted. It's not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"Anthropogenic climate change denial" has near universal acceptance in the relevant academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
How do you know or prove that? "Skeptic" seemed to be used a lot, too. While not part of the academic community, BBC News (a reliable source) refers to Delingpole as a "skeptic".[6][7] I doubt if they refer to David Irving as a Holocaust "skeptic" and apparently they don't.[8] See the difference? One term is widely accepted and the other is not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Read Global Warming: How Scepticism Became Denial from Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences. I think that's also used as a source on Climate change denial, mind. As I've said (repeatedly), we have already settled this. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they seem to be behind a pay (or membership wall). Are you saying that that source specifically refers to Delingpole as a "denier"? I know that you've said that before, but WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies. The article you keep referring to has not been peer-reviewed. It's has not gone through the WP:FA, WP:PR or even the WP:GA process. There wasn't a community-wide RfC about this. You're basically relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and by extension: the article and that discussion are not about Delingpole. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've seen the whole article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it does not contain the word Delingpole. Delingpole believes in global warming. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

But I don't see how that should matter. As TRPOD said, the term 'Climate change denial' has universal acceptance in the scientific community for the rejection scientific consensus of Anthropogenic global warming. Would you admit quotes from respected scientists using the term as proof? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    • First, that appears to be an opinion piece, and not a straight news report. Second, I never said "denier" is never used. What I said was that both terms are used. Which is most used more often, I don't know. We should not seek out sources which say what we want them to say, and then simply repeat them. Instead, we look at the broad spectrum of reliable sources and attempt to determine if there is consensus. IOW, 1 out of 10 sources say 'X', and the other 9 say 'Y', we don't cite the oddball source for 'X'. OTOH, when reliable sources disagree, we cover the disagreement. For example, if 5 out 10 sources say 'X' and 5 say 'Y', we don't take sides. Instead, we cover both POVs. Third, what exactly is the relevant field? This is not an article about climate change. Instead, this is an article about a person, a journalist. The most relevant field is journalism. Do most academic sources about journalism refer to Delingpole as a skeptic or a denier? Or something else? Perhaps, they don't even mention this? I honestly don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Journalists are trained to look for two sides to every story, even where there's only one. Since Delingpole is offering criticism of science (which he hasn't any degrees in), his criticisms should be looked at through the lenses of tried and true, evidence-based science, IMO. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The removal of the editprotect template is a violation of TPG, best restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
TPG are guidelines, and does not excuse inappropriate use of templates. The policy with this template is to only use it once consensus has been reached. By including this template without it you are violating Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is not needed to fix an obvious violation of NPOV and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It isn't an obvious violation of NPOV and BLP, otherwise there'd be a consensus. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- the point is anthropogenic climate change. If that's what the sources say (e.g. that he calls it a scam, etc.), then we're all set here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The sources do not say that, if you have one in which he says he denies that there is any human influence on the climate we would be all set, I see to such source. The section title violates NPOV and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be disagreement about all that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It also violates WP:LABEL. We are meant to be conservative with BLPs, "Views on climate change" is neutral and accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that the article is currently full-protected, so it won't be changed at all unless there is consensus to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources?

When you remove the off-topic sources, you are left with two, maybe three secondary sources that support only 10% of this article, perhaps resulting in a small stub. Why do we have this article on Wikipedia when notable television presenters like Abby Martin have been deleted multiple times? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

American political party?

Are his speculated views on American politics - especially saying he is "Republican" etc. relevant to the BLP of a non-US person? Collect (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No. And I don't think we are to put speculation into biographies. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Goertzel, Ted (2010). January 2014 "Conspiracy theories in science".

Added by IHaveAMastersDegree does not mention Delingpole, at all. Please remove this BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, appears to be synthesis putting together its comment on "climategate" with D being first to widely publicise the nickname (though not the originator, a blog commentator). So have removed it, with adjustments to suit, unless and until a published connection with D is shown. . dave souza, talk 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'Climategate' conspiracy theories

IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Delingpole is arguably the first person to claim that the emails stolen from CRU were evidence for a conspiracy. The second sentence in the essay in which he 'broke the story' and coined the term "climategate" reads thusly, "The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet." He essentially created the 'climategate' conspiracy theory (long debunked but still accepted by many gullible believers). I think it is appropriate to use Mr. Delingpole's own words to describe his beliefs, rather than call him a 'skeptic' or a 'denier'. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, he is appropriately categorized as a climate change denier/skeptic/conspiracy theorist. And if the bulk of this article is going to discuss that, then we should redirect it to the appropriate parent topic. Without notable secondary sources discussing Delingpole, we shouldn't even have this article. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, secondary sourcing is needed. Apparently it's covered in Allchen 2010, p. 591: "James Delingpole, in a blog for England's Telegraph, promptly dubbed it "Climategate." See: Allchen, Douglas. (2010). "Sacred Bovines: The Nature of Science From Test Tubes to YouTube." American Biology Teacher. 72 (9):590–592. doi:10.1525/abt.2010.72.9.15 but I don't have access to that source to check it. The preview indicates that it covers "climategate", but any mention of D must be further on in the article. dave souza, talk 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Climate change conspiracy allegations"

This recent change is an inaccurate section header: one conspiracy is mentioned (para 1). The rest of the section is various aspects of Delingpoles views on climate change and climate science, and one para. on his views on wind power. I've changed it to the neutral "Views on climate change", suggested earlier in Talk, as there are objections to D's self-description as a sceptic. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section title:

Views on anthropogenic global warming As meeting the requirements that section titles be clear and neutrally worded (full discussion including "proof" that the policy so requires on WP:BLP/N discussion). I suggest this meets the policy criteria. This is pretty nearly about as involved in "climate change" stuff as I ever get. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Views" implies anthropogenic global warming is a matter of opinion, rather than scientific fact. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No - it implies the section is about his views. Collect (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You wouldn't have a section titled "Views on general relativity", or "Views on the prime number theorem". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually some editors here would have section headings of that sort... BTW, have a look at WP:BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually -- "views on general relativity" would absolutely be an acceptable section title in an article about a person who had "views on general relativity." Certainly I would not expect Planck to be labeled a "Relativity Denier" to be sure. ( Einstein's hypothesis of light quanta (photons), based on Philipp Lenard's 1902 discovery of the photoelectric effect, was initially rejected by Planck) so the section is labeled "Einstein and the theory of relativity" which is clear and neutral. Thanks for giving such a clear example where clear and neutral wording is used. Collect (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
See what I mean? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Planck's objection to general relativity was rooted in scientific scepticism and was justified back then. Nowadays, anyone who would deny the predictive power of GR as an approximation to gravity would probably be labeled a crank. And I'm sure you would agree that Delingpole is no Planck. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Which leads me to my other point: Delingpole doesn't do science by his own admission, and his criticisms aren't rooted in science. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
How can a section title be undue? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It gives undue weight to the rejection of Anthropogenic climate change by omitting "denial". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree that "denial" should go, as too strong. I see it it attributed to the Guardian, but that's in a blog post, not ordinary reporting. The writer is a professor, not a journalist. In ordinary reporting, media normally uses the more neutral sceptic/scepticism when they are writing articles on this topic, like in this BBC post from 2012 where Delingpole is referred to as a well-known sceptic on climate change. The title could read "climate change scepticism" which is a common term for those who question human impact on climate change. It's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is supposed to be edited somewhat conservatively, especially concerning BLPs. Iselilja (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
are you actually suggesting that journalists are better qualified to identify a scientific crank than science professors are? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I am arguing that Wikipedia is based on the principle of following typically standard news site like BBC in how to label and describe people in Wikipedia's own voice. We also of course use independent scholarly work. But we don't label people based on opinion pieces or how they are described by opponents involved in debate with them. Derigatory labels like "denialists" shall only be used by Wikipedia if it is the common way to describe a person in neutral sources. Most standard media stop short of referring to persons who opposes the standard view on climate change as "denialists". I will also notice that many scientists and climatologist also stop short of using the denialist label and refer to their opponents as sceptics. Iselilja (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
actually, we are to follow the most authoritative experts on the subject Wikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research - ie the academics rate above the journalists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The blogpost in Guardian doesn't count as research. Do you have any peer reviewed research where Delingpole is described as climate change denier? I upheld that the tone and labels in ordinary news reporting set the standard for Wikipedia's tone much more than opinionated blog posts. (Paul Krugman for instance is an excellent scholar, but it doesn't meand that the opinions and labels he gives in his NYT blog is suited to be stated in Wikipedia voice) It is also common that Wikipedia is more careful about contentious label about living persons than some scholars are. For instance we seldom label people anti-semitics, islamophobes even if people have been labelled as such in some or many scholarly work. We can and will of course mention that they have been called these things, with attribution. Iselilja (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The linked article does not use "denial" or "denier". Is there another article where you have the subject self-identifying using that term, or is this ref an error or some sort of synthesis? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose per self identification as noted by TRPOD. Another editor jumped the gun on making the proposed change, so I have reverted it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The common and mainstream name for those who reject the mainstream consensus on climate change is climate sceptics, not denialists. This is for instance the phrasing BBC uses: "Who are the climate sceptics? Although there are only a small number of mainstream scientists who reject the established view on global warming, they are supported by a larger group of well resourced bloggers and citizen scientists". See, they call them sceptitics, not denialists. Mainstream scientists also normally refer to their opponents as sceptics and not denialists. Here is an article from Norway, written by two mainstream scientists about those who reject IPPS and mainstream consensus: "The term"climate skeptic" can be used for a person who is critical of what experts have established how the climate system works." It's very important in BLPs that Wikipedia doesn't refer to people in Wikipedia's own voice in stronger or more odious terms than is prevalent in mainstream sources. Iselilja (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As proposed below, there is no need to refer to him either as a skeptic or as a denier: the section title can accurately reflect the content. Alternatively, we can simply call it his "views" but that rather understates his commentary. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In the US, the most common term that scientists use to refer to those who reject the scientific evidence is "denier." Many scientists have worked hard to get journalists to stop using the misleading term "skeptic" which normally refers to those who support mainstream science and are skeptical of fringe science. But D goes much further than being a denier. He claims that there is a conspiracy, which makes him a conspiracy theorist. If we are going to use a label, it should be that. Otherwise don't use a label at all but simply describe his views, focusing on the most controversial and notable one, which is his claim of a vast conspiracy. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This seems a reasonable and accurate section title. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This seem to be a very reasonable, neutral alternative to the current section heading. The current section heading is not bad, but this is a little better.- MrX 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as better than the misleading "scepticism" label, as discussed below. Note Pete also supported this in his comment below, so clearly no consensus for reverting his edit and will undo the rv. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is definitely better than tagging him with the ambiguous "sceptic" word, but why does the word "anthropogenic" need to be in there? He has views on global warming and those are described in the section, including his conspiracy theories. Take "anthropogenic" out and I will support. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Problem is that the sources use "anthropogenic" or "human caused" as a qualifying adjective. Dunno how to eliminate it and not make it seem a far broader topic than it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Source also uses word "conspiracy" IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative options

Although it's widely used, "Climate change scepticism" is both meaningless and misleading: it deliberately confuses unscientific refusal to accept evidence with scientific skepticism, and even Delingpole is likely to claim that climate has changed in the past. While false balance and giving "equal validity" is common in news media, it's not the standard here.
As an alternative I tried out "Allegations against climate science" which was reverted with an invitation to revert if I felt strongly, and having added the context of the CRU affair which brought him into the limelight, and his article in which he describes himself as lacking a science degree, tried "Dispute over climate science". Other suggestions can be considered, or we can always have a !vote over preferences. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I think that allegations against climate science is a bit awkward though. 'Allegations' imply that the object of the allegations may have done something wrong, and usually applies to people, not an area of research.- MrX 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, which is why I tried an alternative wording. Other ideas welcome. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Nothing personal here, but those are bollocks. To start, he was known as an author and columnist before the CRU thing, the standard here, which you missed is BLP, and LABEL, so please tell me why, "Views on climate change" do not cover those? Along with the MOS thing Collect has mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously he was known as a columnist and opponent of climate science, but I'd suggest that the CRU affair gave him a great deal more worldwide attention. "Views on climate change" is rather understated and uninformative. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Again with "LABEL"?? Do you know what a label is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, according to WP:LABEL, denialist. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me if I've missed it, but who is proposing to call him a denialist? (and btw my spell-checker suggests it's not even a word…) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Excuse the fuck out of me for being too precise, "cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ..." Shit, thar she blows. So tell me, difference between the use of "denier", or the spell checker says it is wrong "denialist"? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Calm down honey! Let's try again. Is someone proposing to call him a denialist? Or a denier? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not call me honey, I am very, very far from bee secretions. You and one other are arguing we ought to call this BLP a "denier" in a section header, this violates MOs, NPOV and LABEL, so explain why you figure this is OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've not ever suggested calling him a denier. If you want to persist in that line, you'll need a diff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
[9] And no doubt "denial" is not "denier"? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course not. "Denial" is not a label. Haven't we been through this? Here's how moronic your argument is: we can't use "skepticism" because it's the same as "skeptic", which is a label. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Denial is a label if used with context, so to avoid labels we follow NPOV, which leads back to me suggestion, funny that. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Then so is "skepticism". QED. Or not... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Views on climate change, Per NPOV BLP and LABEL, you have "QED". LULZ. Come back when you have an argument based on policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The suspense is almost unbearable. Okay, not really, but even so: is "skepticism" to be disallowed?? Because someone is then a (shock-horror) "skeptic"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Who mentioned "sceptic"? I most certainly have not in this section, I have argued for a section title which is compliant to policy/guidelines NPOV MOS LABEL. Once you can rebut these we can discuss further, till then, why bother? You have nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
What I've done is to show how ridiculous it is to say that a word that isn't a label has to be avoided on grounds that it can be turned into a word that is a label. Denier:denial::skeptic:skepticism. The point was obvious, and all you've done is try to dodge it. Once again -- I have not proposed labelling him a "denier". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Offtopic. All I've done is point out that skeptic:skepticism is confusing mislabelling or rebranding, which can be put in context in article text but is unsuitable for section titles. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No label needed, hence the above suggested titles reflecting the section content. "Views on climate change" is rather understated and uninformative. . .dave souza, talk 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus for a section title change so I have reverted to the original wording. The alternatives I see on this talk page, ignoring Kaj Taj Mahal's, are: "Views on anthropogenic global warming" (from Collect), "Views on climate change" (from Darkness Shines), "Dispute over climate science" (from dave souza), something with the word sceptic (from Iselilja). My own preference, which I believe would have to be accepted anyway due to WP:NOCONSENSUS, is the original (i.e. pre-Kaj-Taj-Mahal) wording which is "Climate change scepticism". It has a reliable source -- the print edition of The Economist -- and I haven't seen that the alternative wordings have as good a source. "Sceptic" is also what Delingpole has called himself, though that alone would be insufficient if he has called himself other things too. I am of course respectful of the opinion given above that "climate change scepticism" is both meaningless and misleading, but it's not a universal opinion (e.g. I don't believe it), and an administrator-noticeboard opinion on a related subject has said sources matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to reflect what the section is about. It is not about skepticism by any customary definition of the word. It describes the claims that Delingpole makes about a climate change conspiracy, so that's what the heading should say. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: Collect's latest edit changed to "Views on anthropogenic global warming" which was explained as "per talk page discussion where this appears to now have strong support as being accurate and neutral in nature". I think we all could at least agree it's neutral. But is there really a consensus already on the talk page? If I see yet another change to one of the other suggested alternatives, I'll doubt it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I count 5 direct supports, three opposes, and two whose comments on this page appear to support it. Nothing else is remotely close to such a level of agreement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
One now likes all but the "anthropogenic" word which is the word actually found in the sources - but I count that as a new "partial support" as avoiding all the "skeptic" "denial" etc. terms otherwise suggested. Collect (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
JD himself uses the term, see for example "[Anthropogenic Global Warming], essentially, is what this blog is about." [10]. He even mentions the wind farms there. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bastiat prize, minor problems fixed, one remains.

Our previous version said "...the free-market International Policy Network's Bastiat Prize ... "

The problem: it's not IPN's prize -- they did award it, for that and previous years, then went defunct. The current Bastiat Prize sponsor is the Reason Foundation. Copyeditd to fix.

I also wikilinked Damian Thompson, JD's editor at the Telegraph. Note that the actual quote from Thompson is "James’s posts on the Climategate scandal made a huge international impact on the debate over global warming...." -- which isn't quite what our article now says.

Personally, I still prefer this short-and-sweet version:

In 2010, Delingpole won the Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism for his Telegraph blog.[20][21]

-- which avoids the possibility of a reprise of the "Climategate" vs. "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" business. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The current rewrite looks ok. Since the editor, Damian Thompson, felt it necessary to explain both the free-market connection and the relationship to the "climategate" issue, however named, we should provide the same clarification for our readers. . dave souza, talk 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)