Talk:James Delingpole/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

JD Writing style

Peter (and everyone): on a different topic, much (all?) of this misrepresentation is likely unintentional. JD's writing style is deliberately rough, over-the-top, "take no prisoners", with satire, sarcasm and (attempted) heavy humor. I spent a little time y'day looking for 2ry sources on his style. None (usable) turned up. Help??

Primary is easy: "I see myself as a combatant in an ideological war in which I'm fighting against the tyranny of Big Government and fighting for free markets, small government, openness, honesty and personal liberty. " "Yes I am polemical, yes I can be abusive, but that's because I think righteous rage is a useful weapon in a war where so much is at stake: ultimately the freedom for us all to live our lives as WE choose rather than as the fascistic control freaks of the environmental left would prefer us to live."

Whew. Both from [1]

And from his masthead[2]: "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books..."

Easy to see how this sledgehammer style would offend many.... -- and easy to pick a quote that makes him look like a nincompoop.... ;=[

As another editor noticed, we really need more good secondary sources! If they exist. Maybe he is just another marginally-notable loudmouth. Still, WP:BLP governs.... Pete Tillman (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How about The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism " Delingpole has an engaging, witty writing style, unlike the turgid prose by imitation authors listed here. This author is at least original and amusing" p=196 It is a review for Welcome to Obamaland. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

He asserts that man-made global warming is not as extensive as is widely claimed, not according to the quote in the source, he questions, not asserts. "It's not climate change we sceptics doubt. What we question is (a) the degree to which it is man-made, (b) the extent to which recent climate change is in any way catastrophic or unprecedented, and (c) whether the measures we are taking to stop it are either helpful or desirable." Please fix it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest?- Mr X 17:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The wording before that revert seems more accurate. "He doubts that global warming is man-made or catastrophic to the extent that is widely claimed." Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems fine to me.- Mr X 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrX:, unfortunately it has again been altered. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over it, but I would hope that @IHaveAMastersDegree would elaborate on their cryptic edit summary: "back up to my inadvertent undo"- Mr X 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I made the mistake of trying to fix a mistake I didn't make. So I undid my mistaken undoes that were supposed to be fixing what I thought was a mistaken undo. That's why I said "nevermind" and returned it to where it was before I started. Sorry for the confusion. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The start point before IHaveAMastersDegree came along was "He doubts that global warming is man-made or catastrophic to the extent that is widely claimed." The end point, as of now, is "He doesn't believe that global warming is man-made or catastrophic." But the original, or what MrX changed to, was better because Delingpole says in the cited source that it's about "degree" and says the degree to which it is man-made is "a tiny bit". Incidentally the citation URL didn't work for me but this did: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/greens-have-got-us-tilting-at-windmills/story-e6frezz0-1226342081269 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I support using that, with the cite given. Why don't you make the change?

OK, I manually reverted IHaveAMasterDegree's revert of MrX. I'll change the citation's URL soon unless the current one becomes active again. But, sadly, I couldn't persuade the wayback machine to archive for the better URL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're finding that a lot of these JD quotes and paraphrases aren't completely accurate. I'll keep going through them, as time (& inclination) permits. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan's reversion was to a statement that wasn't supported by any of the cited references. I had changed it to a direct quote from a cited source. DP said, "AGW is the invention of a cabal of activists." It seems that we don't have a consensus on what he believes or doubts or asserts. So why not just quote him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The wording that you reverted is supported by a source, as Darkness Shines pointed out above. In fact, it is closely paraphrased. What you replaced it with seems to be quote mined so as to cast the subject in a rather unflattering light.- Mr X 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The only place that uses the word "doubt" is "It's not climate change we sceptics doubt." Nowhere in any of the sources does it say that JD "doubts that global warming is man-made or catastrophic." Nor do any of the sources say anything about catastrophic AGW being widely claimed. This is all SYNTH. Only one of the sources was relevant to the statement but did not support it. The replacement quote was a statement that DP actually made on the subject, replacing the previous source misrepresentations and SYNTH. His words should be allowed to speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you need to be *very* cautious in putting stuff in a controversial BLP like this that could be considered derogatory. Better safe than sorry.... Pete Tillman (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand how directly quoting something that a living person wrote could be construed as derogatory. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

IHaveAMastersDegree: Looking at only three of the reverts that you did between 16:50, 17 January 2014 and 03:11, 18 January 2014 (16:50 20:06 03:05) I see your comments about a "straw man", about the words "widely claimed", that Delingpole "is making assertions about his beliefs", and that this is a "source misrepresentation". Re "straw man": I don't know what that might refer to. Re "widely claimed": these words have been here since 2011, and if your complaint is that there must be a source to show that many people believe global warming is to a large extent man-made or catastrophic, er, how big a list do you want? Re "is making assertions about his beliefs": do you mean Delingpole is not a reliable source about what his beliefs are? Re "None of the sources say that": the source says "questions" rather than "doubts", and says "degree" rather than "extent", but you didn't try to change to what was in the sources so I doubt (or question) (or am skeptical) that that's the real complaint here. There will be more sources once we get past the fact that you have been reverting my earlier edits that had citations to other reliable sources.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

IHaveAMastersDegree has been indefinitely BLOCKED for BLP violations, ARBCC voolations, and block evasion. He previously operated the historical sock-puppeteer User:Bearguardian

Delingpole thinks that senior climate change scientists are "stooges"....

This is a claim in our "Views on AGW" section, para 2, cited to Neil T. Gavin & Tom Marshall, 2011, "Mediated climate change in Britain: Scepticism on the web and on television around Copenhagen" DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.00 --- which is paywalled.

Quote from paper supporting this:

"James Delingpole’s [blog] in particular. Like his American conservative counterparts, he incorporated sceptic lines of argument beyond the CRU’s supposed data manipulation. But this could extend to the fanciful, if not preposterous: in one entry it relayed a tortuously convoluted and unconvincing global conspiracy theory, involving the operations of Arab governments over many decades, alongside oil and nuclear corporations, and their well placed stooges at the apex of the climate science community"

Withour seeing the original, it's hard to judge what JD actually wrote that caught G&M's attention. Hence, I added a tag earlier,

According to Neil T. Gavin & Tom Marshall, Delingpole thinks...

--subsequently reverted, without an edit summary that I could find. I think we need the qualifier, or access to the article. IF the OP of this bit has a copy, I'd appreciate seeing it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Tillman: Remove it, it is a BLP vio, the authors of the paper made a serious error, this is the article cited for that claim, Delingpole did not write it, "This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30" Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like that's the one, alright. I'll tag it as dubious, for now, unless/until the OP shows up. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the G&M paper right here, that is definitely the article they cite for the claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I'll pull it. Thanks for checking! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate the alleged problem right now. I will investigate it. When I do, one of the key issues will be that the article Darkness Shines links to doesn't even contain the word "stooges". If things don't pan out the way he alleges, I'll make a fuss. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be because the source you added was the one using "stooges". Darkness Shines (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that the source G & M refer to (the one using "stooges") wasn't written by Delingpole but rather by "Andrew30". But the link you give (written by "Andrew30") doesn't contain "stooges". You don't see the problem with your claim? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Easy to answer this with a copy of the paper. DS, is yours electronic? Can you send me (and Nomo) copies? pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the only source which says "stooges" is G & M. The article they cite for that claim was written by Andrew30. What part of this are you not understanding? Pete, I do not have your email to send you a copy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines was kind enough to send me a copy of the paper in question, thanks!. G & M. apparently failed to notice the credit line, "This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30" [3]. So, that's settled. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

'Class disgust in contemporary Britain', Feminist Media Studies

Thanks to whoever put this bit in -- Darkness Shines, maybe? #32 at present. Good to see some decent secondary sources going in. And what a title! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I added it. Could you perhaps evaluate the issue discussed in the section immediately above & add your view? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Chav" article

We can not "paraphrase" any source and inject stuff not stated in the source into the "paraphrase." This is absolutely verboten by WP:BLP and by WP:RS, and is not something which there can be any doubt about. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not injecting anything. Here's the source: link. Quote:

quote from source

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In a 2006 The Times article titled, “A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in” Delingpole mocks the “hand-wringing prose” of “humourless, Polly Toynbee-style Lefties” who defend chavs. Delingpole describes chavs as “disgusting, selfish, violent underclass specimen[s]” and articulates his class disgust in terms of “a socially necessary” snobbery. As he writes:

As a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male—I see no reason why … the Vicky Pollards and the Waynes and Waynettas3 of our world have got it coming to them. If they weren't quite so repellent, we wouldn't need to make jokes about them, would we? The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction. (James Delingpole 2006, p. 25)

In a perverse appropriation of identity politics, journalists Delingpole and Lewis both claim middle-class identity as a site of injury and oppression (subject to terrorisation by violent chavs) and thus actively defend (and reproduce) upper middle-class entitlement. These accounts of middle-class injury recall Brown's claim that access to political power is increasingly premised on the ability to define yourself as injured (1995). This “middle-class injury” is of course laced with black humour. As Delingpole states, the function of this “chav-baiting” is to “mock them into extermination.” Economic inequality, class-based discrimination and open snobbery are made palatable through claims that this vicious name calling is “ironic” or has a “satirical” function.

If you want to insist on including the term "perverse appropriation", we could do that. But the notion that he "espouses" the identity politics described is (per the source) not in doubt here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was:

Delingpole adheres to a version of identity politics that identifies the middle classes as experiencing injury and oppression, describing himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male". In an article entitled "A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in", he describes chavs as "repellent" and follows with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction.

Which is not what the article says, and seems aimed more at "defining Delingpole" than at reflecting what the article is about and what it cites him as saying. The article does not ascribe to Delingpole what you seek to say it does in Wikipedia's voice. It is SYNTH and OR and is improper. And your quote above proves it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't think the source says that Delingpole "perversely appropriates" an identity politics in which middle class identity involves the experience of injury and oppression? The main thing I did in the paraphrase was to soften the point by substituting "espouses" for "perverse appropriation". (Added on edit after Mr X: to avoid COPYVIO, we must paraphrase (while remaining true to the idea conveyed in the source) -- and I think my paraphrase does that quite well (though I'm open to seeing it improved). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. 'Adhere' may not be the best word, but it is clear that the fact that (according to the source and supported by the quote) he has appropriated/acquired/embraced/espoused/adopted/championed this type of identity politics is not really contestable.- Mr X 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

When one adds claims which are not present in the source it is not "paraphrase" it is misuse of a source. We can not say "but it is clear that George Gnarph is a bigot" unless a source makes such a claim and is a reliable source for such a claim. The article is not a biographical article in any form at all, and makes no claim as to biographical claims. "Not really contestable" is not how WP:BLP works -- we can only use what the reliable sources claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite the case here. By that interpretation of WP:BLP almost all BLP content would have to be direct quotes from sources.- Mr X 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- what it means is We can not add what we 'surmise' into a BLP unless a reliable source makes a claim supporting our 'surmise'. Your reductio claim that everything is either a "paraphrase" or a "copyvio" ignores the fact that a "paraphrase" which says something not backed by the source is not a "paraphrase" at all. Cheers. `Collect (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course editors are expected to read sources and then put the information into our own words. Perhaps the better way to phrase this content is

"Delingpole has defended (championed?) a version of identity politics that identifies the middle classes as experiencing injury and oppression, describing himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male". In an article entitled "A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in", he describes chavs as "repellent" and follows with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction."

I think this addresses most of the concern in that he 'has' done this in at least once in the past, but we are not sure if he has adopted it as a permanent political identity.- Mr X 14:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that it is SYNTH, contains claims not found in the source, and makes claims which require strong sourcing per WP:BLP you are right. The damn problem you have is that policy does not say this is accepted practice in a BLP. And without any actual reason to assume that readers know what "chavs" are, the wording is obfuscatory to the nth degree. The source says In a perverse appropriation of identity politics ,,, and does not make any claim other than that aside which is of an editorial nature utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That analysis of the content and interpretation of policy seems deeply flawed. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that your objection is to the first sentence, since the rest of it is almost entirely quotes. Perhaps you could offer an alternative wording proposal, or at least be very specific about what portions you believe are not supported by the source?- Mr X 14:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What the source actually supports is:

Delingpole described himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male" and followed with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction."

The whole bit about "chavs" is not really relevant to the BLP, and is incomprehensible as a topic to the vast majority of readers. This suggestion sticks to the fact -- which is what we are actually required to do in any BLP. Collect (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If "chav" isn't relevant, then we'll need to remove the bit about "function of satire" -- because the satire in question is all about his writing about chavs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Douglas-Home Memorial Trust Award

Can someone please add a description of what this award is? For example, who bestows it and for what sort of accomplishment? Is it a notable award? (There is no Wikipedia article about the award and I can't easily find any real information about it on the web.) There is a citation referenced in the article, but for me the link does not work. (Perhaps the reason the link does not work for me is related to the message that shows up on my screen saying "By continuing to use the site, you agree to accept cookies" – while actually I do not agree to that demand.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is now included in the article Charles Douglas-Home (journalist) with a redirect from Charles Douglas-Home Memorial Trust Award. GB fan 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)r

There still seems to be very little information about this award. As I now understand it, it is some kind of competition in which people self-submit article manuscripts, and the winner gets their article published in a publication called Frontline (a publication that does not seem to be listed on the Frontline dab page) and gets a 1–3 month internship at The Times? And the best source we can find for information about the award is a four-year-old blog post on a club website? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Journalism.co.uk" is not a "club website". It appears to meet WP:RS for journalism news in the UK. Also cited at [4] (Equity and Excellence in the Public Library: Why Ignorance is Not our Heritage Mr Robert C Usherwood; Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Oct 1, 2012) (an academic book and journal publisher), [5] and fully covered in The Times. Which is also not a "club website." Cheers -- but the case is proven here. Collect (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The website I was referring to is the one cited in the Charles Douglas-Home (journalist) article for providing information about this award. The website address is http://www.frontlineclub.com/charles_douglas-home_memorial_trust_competition/, which is the website of a club called the Frontline club. The posting there is a blog entry dated March 11, 2010 by someone identified only as "pranveras". It says "The winner of the award will be offered a Times internship/work experience in Wapping for between 1–3 months. ... The Trustees have chosen Frontline to publish the winner of this year's award, because they thought that the broadsheet harnessed much of the spirit of the best journalism of Charles's era thoughtful, provocative, international and well-researched." [sic] I looked at Frontline to find out what publication that is, but there does not appear to be an article on Wikipedia about that publication. Since the name of the publication is the same as the name of the club, I suspect it is the newsletter of the club. I don't understand the comment saying "the case is proven here". What case is that referring to? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The award even made The Times -- it is not relying on a "club" of any sort to have it in the BLP. What else needs to be said? The Times is generally considered to meet WP:RS for claims of this type. Collect (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose if the link in this article is working for other people and provides adequate information, it may suffice. I only started this discussion because I was curious what sort of award it was and the link wasn't working for me, so I added a clarification template request to the article, but that was reverted. I'm still curious to learn more about what this award is, but I suppose the information available about it is limited. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Weight and blog references

I made some changes for the following reasons:

Delingple doesn't just dispute "the findings of mainstream climate science", he disputes the findings of climate science as there are only a handful of disparate contrarian views in line with his claims, which don't merit the weight given by calling normal science "mainstream"
The same blog piece by Delingpole was confusingly cited three times in the same section, and should be simplified to the third more detailed reference.
Saying "he is credited with being the first to publicise the term" raises the question, who credits him? The only source is an opinion column by his [unreliable] fellow contrarian Christopher Booker, which should be made clear by an inline reference.
The claim that he is "a sceptic.." is cited to his own blogs, an opinion piece by himself, and The New American which appears to be the magazine of the John Birch Society, not a reliable source on scientific scepticism. So it should be attributed online as "he says he is".

Revision: the Economist piece is apparently by another [unnamed] author, but only calls him a "climate-change sceptic" rather than the more detailed issue covered, and this is of course a misnomer. dave souza, talk 17:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan undid these changes with the summary Original wording was better, in view of the WP:BLPSELFPUB implications I've restored my version and would appreciate detailed consideration of each point before changing wording back. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because, as a package, the four changes did not improve the article. But perhaps we can avoid dispute about most of them.

This is effectively a partial revert of this edit by MarkBalance on January 11 2015. Since the word "mainstream" was not there before, adding it would require some consensus. If that had been the only edit, I would not have objected.
This seems to be about whether references should be moved around, not about wording. If that had been the only edit, I would not have objected.
The change in wording was the addition of the words "by his fellow columnist Christopher Booker" before the words "with being the first to publicise". The trouble is that the sentence is in the present tense (it is my understanding that Delingpole has moved on), and Booker didn't say "publicise" so this would be replacing a non-citation with a wrong-citation. There is a way to make this moot -- Delingpole himself says that he did not coin the term. So the entire sentence could be removed or replaced with Delingpole's denial.
The words "is a sceptic" are based on citations to reliable sources (Dave Souza initially omitted that The Economist is among them). Of course, if the edit had been an objection to the use of The New American as a citation, that would have been arguable -- but that's not what the edit was. Dave Souza left it in. Well, I object to it. So I will replace the New American citation with one from the BBC, calling Delingpole a "well-known sceptic".
Since no explanation has been given how WP:SELFPUB might be involved, I see no need to address that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the points. On that basis, I've made some step-by-step changes

Removed "mainstream", agree no consensus to introduce it.
References moved around to remove duplication, as agreed
Agree that claim that he coined "climategate" is contradicted by later blog posts, to go along with your suggestion I've commented out the claim, and made adjustments so that the rest of the paragraph works.
The "is a sceptic" part itself is a common misrepresentation, two sources use it so I'll leave that for now: note that Andra Neil is a political commentator who is similarly questionable as a source on science. Beyond that, the two sources don't cover the rest, which is Delingpole's self-description and is now shown as such.
The point about selfpub is that the use of D's blogs appear unduly self-serving, and parts of the article seem to have been based primarily on such sources. These changes, in my opinion, have made some improvement.. . dave souza, talk 21:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Three times Dave souza has changed the words "is a sceptic" to something vaguer, despite claiming that he'll "leave that for now" he has changed so the current words are "is widely known as a sceptic". I prefer the original wording but won't revert a third time, for now. All I will do is change a period to a semicolon and move citation references so that there is a single sentence with citations at the sentence's end, as before. Dave souza said that WP:BLPSELFPUB is involved (I made an error above where I misread as SELFPUB rather than BLPSELFPUB), that the use of Delingpole's blogs "appear unduly self-serving". I think he means that Delingpole's blogs themselves appear unduly self-serving. WP:BLPSELFPUB contentions are BLP matters so I suggest he make a claim with a specific explanation on the WP:BLPN noticeboard, and leave a note on this talk page that he has done so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

~~Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once.~~ This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits of this day

Today I read the anthropogenic climate change section, and found citations badly presented. In copyediting those—for instance, on providing time-in-broadcast for information appearing in a 15 min talk Delingpole gave at the 2010 "ICCC"—I found several statements to be mis-cast. For instance, his comment as to his saving civilization was clearly intended as humorous, as the whole 15 min talk was intended to be just that—from the introduction, through mention of Dale Earnhardt alongside Shakespeare and Michelangelo as being an accomplishment of western culture, to the closing joke about Al Gore and representations of Nazi genitalia in anti-Nazi propaganda.

In addition, Delingpole's statements that he re-used a term seen in another blog has to take precedent over others crediting him with "coining" Climategate, especially since those stating he coined it were simply stating that they first saw the term used in Delingpole's blog. These aspects of tone and detail in the Section were corrected to the sources cited.

In addition, the following two citations are moved here, per WP:VERIFY, as unbefitting sources for the statement to which they were attached—since they are from a self-published blog that aims at advocacy of a position (however we might agree with it):

Wright, James. "What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?". Skeptical Science. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
Black, Richard. "The 97% consensus on global warming". Skeptical Science. Retrieved 1 January 2016.

It is not that they are not interesting, or worth reading, or generally well done, or even agreeable. They are advocacy of a position, in a self-publised venue, and so are just not authoritative sources to support a sentence on the consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic climate change—especially given the vast abundance of good secondary scientific sources, and reporting on the same in independent, edited news sources. (There is simply no reason to cite advocacy websites, here, or elsewhere on this subject.) Hence, the Inspector General citation was left, and these two were replaced with a ^{[citation needed]} tag.

Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Delingpole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130324033141/http://bogpaper.com:80/why-bogpaper/why-bogpaper/ to http://bogpaper.com/why-bogpaper/why-bogpaper/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing )

Hi
In the "Controversies" paragraph, the "(Subsequent ..." sentence seems to miss the closing paranthesis.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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) 10:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)