Revision as of 00:49, 14 January 2014 editNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,755 edits →Proposed section title:← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:56, 14 January 2014 edit undoKaj Taj Mahal (talk | contribs)162 edits →Proposed section title:Next edit → | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
::::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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::See what I mean? ] (]) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | :::::See what I mean? ] (]) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::::Planck's objection to general relativity was rooted in scientific scepticism and was justified back then. Now, 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 mental-midget Delingpole is no ''Planck''. --] (]) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:56, 14 January 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Delingpole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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." 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)
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."
- "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature."
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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". I doubt if they refer to David Irving as a Holocaust "skeptic" and apparently they don't. See the difference? One term is widely accepted and the other is not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 12 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 Misplaced Pages. Again, please see Talk:Climate_change_denial#Rename_this_article. Regards, --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- First, Climate change denial is only a B-class article. See WP:Otherstuffexists. Second, just because Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The Guardian referring to Delingpole as a denier.
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- Consensus is not needed to fix an obvious violation of NPOV and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 13 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 Misplaced Pages:Edit_requests#General_considerations. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:26, 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)
- 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)
- There appears to be disagreement about all that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 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)
- 'I think it's moot' -- because the original section heading was "Climate change scepticism". Kaj Taj Mahal changed on December 25 to "climate change denial". Darkness Shines changed on January 3 to "views on climate change". Kaj Taj Mahal changed on January 5 to "anthropogenic climate change denial". Even if there's no consensus, then WP:NOCONSENSUS will apply, all of Kaj Taj Mahal's bold/contentious edits will be reverted, and we'll be back to "Climate change scepticism". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:01, 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)
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)
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. Now, 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 mental-midget Delingpole is no Planck. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- See what I mean? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 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)
- No - it implies the section is about his views. Collect (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class University of Oxford articles
- Low-importance University of Oxford articles
- Start-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- Start-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles