Talk:James Delingpole

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Delingpole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122151302/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ to http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/ICCCs/ICCC4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Delingpole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529123609/http://jamesdelingpole.com/wordpress/about/ to http://jamesdelingpole.com/wordpress/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

A link to Companies House was used in a way that seems inappropriate to me, even if it weren't wrong, which it apparently was. We attributed a place of residence that was not in the references given, and in any event linking to what could very well be the home address of a prominent and arguably controversial person does not fit with the values of Wikipedia. Please do not revert without engaging in a discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Climate change "denialism"?

why is this still going on two years later? Dronebogus (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Mr Delingpole is a critic of what is referred to here as "the scientific consensus" on man-made climate change. However, the word (if it is a word) "denialism" is a smear intended to take a side on this issue with that so-called "consensus". I have said many many times here on wikipedia that any encyclopedia should be strictly neutral in it's characterisations of the individuals that is features. Neutral. However, many people who edit on here engage in the smearing of people that they disagree with, citing news media articles - many of which make no pretence of neutrality - in order to promote their personal views. Now, you will notice here that I am not telling you what my personal position is on climate change. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I would like the smear directed at Mr Delingpole to be removed, and his explicit opposition to the narrative on "man-made" climate change to be couched in strictly neutral language. I am going to remove the smear. I don't think that this will in any way detract from the article. I fully expect that it will be reinstated. So I do this by way of protest. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC) A beautiful display of Both sidesism... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Prior discussions on this talk page were Denier versus skeptic and Edit protect, result was more neutral terminology. Despite that JzG changed on 24 September 2018 without discussing on the talk page at the time. John2o2o2o has in effect removed that here and WP:BLPUNDEL seems applicable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Your understanding of the word "neutral", as it is used in Wikipedia, is wrong. Wikipedia is not intended to be half-way to Crazy Town. See WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC) John2o2o2o:Nomoskedasticity has reverted your edit and thus re-inserted climate change denialism, claiming in the edit summary that's "Per discussion". In fact I consider it contrary to the discussions I mentioned earlier, and there's no consensus here. Did you remove on good faith BLP grounds, which are a requirement for WP:BLPUNDEL to apply? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC) WP:WIKILAWYERING will not help you here. It does not matter who changed what when with which justification. In the end, we will have to follow WP:FRINGE and call this guy what reliable sources call him. If the definition of "climate change denial" were so extremely narrow that there were only one denialist on Earth, it would be Delingpole. He is the most ignorant, the most arrogant, the most hateful, and generally the worst of all of them. It is very easy to find sources calling him a denialist: [1] [2] [3] Instead of using sources like that, the whole section is full of quotes sourced to the guy himself. It should be cleaned up per WP:PRIMARY. I guess Nomoskedasticity just referred to those parts of the discussion which can be taken seriously. The ones with relevant content, which are based on guidelines instead of just on users' view of what is "neutral". Consensus is not a vote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Now, you will notice here that I am not telling you what my personal position is on climate change—indeed, it is not at all obvious what your position is from phrases such as what is referred to here as 'the scientific consensus', that so-called 'consensus', and the narrative on 'man-made' climate change. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Your post reminded me of this essay WP:GOODBIAS. This project is run on consensus, and so it is not undecided between the scientific consensus and fringe theories. CT55555 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC) There are two issues to consider: is the term climate change denial fair and is it what reliable sources use. Some may challenge the term because of its ad hominem comparison with Holocaust denial. But if it is the common name among experts, then we have to accept that. Climate change sceptic is of course a euphemism. They are not sceptics as the term is normally defined. They are either dishonest or irrational. Anyone who questions the term denialist must show that expert sources use another term. TFD (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC) See climate change denial#Terminology – In academic literature and journalism, the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change deniers" have well-established usage as descriptive terms without any pejorative intent. ... The usage of "denial" long predates the Holocaust, and is commonly applied in other areas such as HIV/AIDS denialism". . . dave souza, talk 05:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Re what sources say: if people who google James Delingpole + denier would google James Delingpole + skeptic instead they'd get many hits. Re what Wikipedia says: it can be like that in a non-BLP article, in a BLP requirements are supposed to be stricter. Re whether it's pejorative: if you don't intend to offend, it shouldn't be so hard to use a term your subjects don't find offensive (and apparently Mr Delingpole sometimes does find 'denier' offensive). Re whether good sources e.g. academic literature and journalism are used: we recently had an example when Hob Gadling inserted the term using Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy (which is a blog) and desmogblog.com (which is a blog), which I reverted with edit summary "Use of blogs to express a Wikipedia-voiced opinion in a BLP", but Hob Gadling reverted the reversion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC) DM source? Have added a better one. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC) it shouldn't be so hard to use a term your subjects don't find offensive If that were the case, blatant white supremacists could say they just find that term offensive & we'd have to avoid calling them that. Convicted criminals could prevent us from calling them criminals. It's a nonsense argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) I'm hopeful that people who read the whole sentence that I wrote won't be misled by the above partial quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) The quote completely reflects the entirety of the sentence. If you're uncomfortable with the implications of what you say please don't just pretend to have said something else. XeCyranium (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Since when has "Person X finds that word offensive" been a reason to exclude well-sourced text? "Skeptic" is a euphemism for people like that, and [[Scientific skepticism|real skeptics}} are offended by being pooled with them. So, we have to offend someone anyway, and we might just as well use the more accurate word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Dave souza, see Nelaeva, G., & Sufiyanova, G., Memory and Punishment Springer, p. 6:[4] The term 'denialism', meaning the systemic and ideological negation of reality and truth, was first used to identify the theories that negated the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps and was associated for a long time mainly with Holocaust denial. Today, however, the concept of denialism has a much broader connotation. It now includes the questioning of other crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (for instance, the Armenian genocide by the Turkish Government during World War I, the Porrajmos, that is to say the Nazi extermination of European Gypsies; the Holodomor, also known as the Ukrainian Holocaust; or, more recently, the crimes perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and Cambodia). More recently, the term has circulated in contexts other than that of criminal law. For example, we speak of climate change denialism, the negation of the moon landing or the belief that AIDS is a hoax. It's not clear that your source says that the term "denialism" was used to mean denial of the truth before the term Holocaust denial was coined. It could mean that the word denial was used. In any case, the Library of Congress includes "Holocaust denial" in its list of subject headings published in 1975. It is defined as "the diminution of the scale and significance of the Holocaust or the assertion that it did not occur."[5] AIDS would not be reported until 1981. Before the term Holocaust denial, the use of the term denial was neutral as to whether the facts denied were true. "Following the defendant's denial of guilt, a trial was set." There is no implication in that sentence that the defendant was guilty. TFD (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) TFD – As updated, this article doesn't use the term "denialism", and your reference may explain why. Weart, Spencer (2011). "Global warming: How skepticism became denial" as cited says "As a defense mechanism, denial is familiar to psychologists, for example, when somebody is diagnosed with a fatal cancer and refuses to believe it. Psychologists studying how citizens reacted to warnings of climate change found that this type of denial was common. The more harmful and costly global warming was said to be, the more some people insisted it was not a real problem (American Psychological Association, 2009)." That pretty clearly refers to Denial (Freud) as published by Anna Freud in The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1936);[6] chapter "Denial in word and act".(translated into English 1937, this 1946 translation still predates 1975 by a few years). So, reasonable for Weart to say in a footnote to his History he does "not mean to use the term "denier" pejoratively — it has been accepted by some of the group as a self-description — but simply to designate those who deny any likelihood of future danger from anthropogenic global warming."[7] and for Timmer to say "One of the big hangups with denialism is that some of the people who deserve that label are offended by it, thinking it somehow lumps them in with holocaust deniers. But that in its own way is a form of denial; the word came into use before the holocaust, and "living in denial" is a pretty common phrase".[8] . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Freud and other psychologists from the early 20th century used the term denial as a form of unconscious self-deception when confronted with devastating news. An So people cannot accept that they are an addict or abuser, that their spouses are, or that they have terminal cancer. Your source, the article in Psychology Today, describes it as a "defense mechanism." That's different from using deception as a tactic to persuade people to take or not take action. There's no evidence that the concepts of Holocaust denial or global warming denial were using a Freudian concept. Fossil fuel companies for example have long been aware of global warming, but deceived the public in order to protect their profits. I prefer the legal textbook description of the evolution of the term to a commentary by a senior science editor in Ars Technica. I think the most useful position is that the concept of denialism used in climate change denial originated in Holocaust denial, but that we use the term because it is now used in reliable sources. Criticism of use of the term is a form of etymological fallacy, "when an argument makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on that word's etymology." There is no need to deny the concept's origins in order to use it. TFD (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC) TFD Your source is offtopic – the sentence starting "For example, we speak of climate change denialism" has footnote 6; "This new dimension of denialism will not be discussed in this study." Weart cites A Report by the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change which discusses denial but. doen't use the word "denialism". When you "think the most useful position", who is it useful to? Evidently not to Weart or the NCSE, who are science communicators in the field of climate science. Regarding origins, in Climate change denial#Terminology the shift is traced back to Ross Gelbspan in 1997 saying industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial". Not denialism. It will, of course, be helpful if you can update that article with well sourced information supporting the position you favour. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I prefer the narrative in the legal textbook I provided over your analysis. I do not find your approach productive. When you have the facts on your side, in this case that climate change is real, you do not have to rationalize anything that detracts from your side. When you do that, you bring yourself down to the same level of the climate change deniers. In this case it is not only obvious and known by anyone old enough to remember, but it is supported by reliable sources. When the term climate change denial was coined, it was a reference to the concept used in Holocaust denial, not Freud's concept of denial. And no, I do not see any reason to explain the etymology of the term in this article. Why would you suggest that? TFD (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory views

Since 2020, James Delingpole's has been devoting all his time to promoting conspiracy theories, ultimately arguing that all of history, science, literature and news has been made up by the cabal that secretly control the world. He routinely promotes this idea in his podcasts, London Calling and the Delingpod. I have edited the article to make mention of this, by referring to a Hope Not Hate source that discusses this. However, I believe the article needs more edits to reflect these views, as the article as it currently is is outdated, making him out to be a regular right-wing journalist. In reality, he has been shunned by even right-wing outlets because of his conspiracy theories, writing only TV reviews for the Spectator. Duriannalover (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

[9] I would not call it radically altered. It is just an expansion of the same unhinged way of thinking to areas other than climate change. But yes, this is relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

He is now a conspiracy theorist first and columnist second. Conspiracy theories are central to his views now (he talks about hardly anything else). Therefore, I think it would make sense to introduce him as a conspiracy theorist in the introductory sentence, in addition to the other labels. Duriannalover (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No contradiction from me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A good point. 92.20.190.31 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

[10] @User:Partofthemachine: What is wrong with the source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)