Talk:Christopher Booker

message: I question (A) the notability of this person in a general purpose encyclopedia, and (B) NPOV.  Phrases like "published ... to critical acclaim" read like press releases or publicity blurbs and not neutral POV articles. Editing it to read "some critics acclaimed it, and other critics dismissed / criticized it" which would be both more accurate and more neutral still wouldn't get at the question of whether or not Mr. Booker is "notable". For instance, is he a "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" or "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" or has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field"?   -- LQ 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: I propose reverting the edit which changed the phrase from "false assertion" to "disputed assertion" in the above sentence. There are no reasonable grounds on which Booker's claim that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder could be considered true, so this edit is a watering down of the truth, rather than a clarification. The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. The chemical formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4. They are definitively and demonstrably not identical. To say that talc is chemical identical to chrysotile is as inaccurate as saying that Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) is chemically identical to water (H20), a statement which I hope we can all agree is not simply "disputed" but false. 86.163.241.163 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This interpretation is too literal. When something is expresses in a way that makes it possible to interpret it as absurd, then maybe it's something wrong with the interpretation. Maybe a more sensible strategy for the leftist smear machine would be to try not to be too obvious?--83.108.21.155 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The most cursory glance at his writings would confirm that Christopher Booker isn't a professional scientist. He is however a professional journalist, and if he can't clearly express what he means on fairly elementary scientific issue, that's entirely his responsibility and it is not our job to second guess him. If he's issued some sort of clarification or retraction, feel free to include it. However, an equally cursory glance reveals that Booker believes many things that are patently absurd, or at least claims he does. Finally, linking to a crazed (and tenuously related, at best) conspiracy theory article isn't the best way to put forward your case, especially as the implication is that the academic discipline of chemistry, at high school-level, is a constituent in a 'leftist smear machine'. Please think about the impression that may create, even to those who might otherwise be sympathetic to your viewpoint.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "The disputed assertion that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder"

message: "Defence of the Realm" has repeatedly deleted the entire section on criticisms of Booker's work. Defence of the Realm has claimed that these criticisms are "libelous", but they are merely reports of facts sourced from mainstream publications, including the Guardian newspaper and the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. Unless the user can show that these statements are untrue or defamatory, I can see no basis for removing them.86.157.92.127 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated deletion by "Defence of the Realm" of Criticism section within this article

message: 86.159.138.195 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section deleted again without discussion, 28/12/08 - reversion again necessary

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. --TS 11:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article probation 

message: I'm new here, but I am not surprised this article is on probation when such overtly non-neutral/original research material is reinstated without discussion by editors. Even basic copy editing errors [Christopher Booker ad nauseaum, etc.]are reinstated immediately. Jprw (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on article probation 

message: Jprw, before deleting or watering down content from this article, it would be helpful if you first discussed it here, otherwise this could be seen as vandalism. Just to give one example, and as discussed previously on this page, the claim that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" is strictly and literally false, not merely "controversial". The chemical formulae are totally different - more different in fact than the difference between water (H20) and hydrogen peroxide (H202), and there is no scientific controversy around that fact. So it's a false assertion, and describing it as "controversial" simply muddies the waters. Wikipedia aims to report demonstrable facts, not merely produce a woolly summed average of different people's views. Please ensure that you are actually improving the quality of the article, not merely deleting well-referenced content that you dislike...     
86.182.26.58 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've removed a substantial expansion of the treatment of criticism by George Monbiot. While I think such criticism probably merits coverage, dwelling so much on the comments of a single competitor in the opinion-mongering business is excessive. --Tasty monster 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monbiot 

message: I should very much like to see a page that summaries this book, the way we have Campbell's Monomyth and the related book The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers.  I'd consider starting the page myself, but I've already done so on a different wiki and I'm not even finished over there (it is a lengthy book and thus has a lengthy summary).  Also, despite the "be bold" policy here, I'm concerned about my ability to be neutral and not to add my own interpretations of the material, because I have been working with the book so long and enjoy it so much (not that I agree with all of it).
Therefore, I request that someone summarize the book The Seven Basic Plots on its own page and stick a link on here.  Thank you.  Kilyle (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Seven Basic Plots 

message: MN is removing valid material again taht doesn't support his POV William M. Connolley (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is not valid, it is an attack piece on a blog, self revert now or i will again remove it per wp:blp mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: look it quite simple, if you wish for that piece to stay please find a wp:rs for it and then put it back in, i have no issue with negative stuff being in a bio, but it must be reliably sourced do you not agree? mark nutley (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: I think someone has mistakenly inserted a "not in citation given" claim within the "Views on Science" section. Just to clarify, here's the contested sentence:
In an article in May 2008, Booker again cited the Hodgson and Darnton paper, claiming that "they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was 'insignificant', while that of lung cancer was 'zero'".
And here's the full quote from the May 2008 article "Farmers face £6bn bill for asbestos clean-up"
as of 14/3/10: (link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3558729/Farmers-face-6bn-bill-for-asbestos-clean-up.html) - 
The HSE remains adamant that white asbestos is far too dangerous for the law to be changed. Yet this position was comprehensively contradicted by a major study by the HSE's own statisticians, John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton, published in 2000.
After the most extensive review of the literature on asbestos ever carried out, they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero". It is hardly surprising, then, that the HSE is so reluctant to discuss the science behind that law with the £6 billion price tag.
I will tweak the syntax just to make it 100% clear.
86.180.153.113 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them anon, they are essentially clones of each other. mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I think you're going to have to better than that. Specifics, please...
86.177.179.15 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er no i don`t. Have you read through both sections? Tell me why you think saying the same stuff twice should be in an article?
I think that Mark is right and that the article needs further restructuring, along the lines of collapsing the two sections into one -- probably views on science into the crit section, or morphing the two together and renaming it -- "controversial scientific views" (as a pretty crappy intial suggestion). Also, the Monbiot crits towards Booker are so vituperative that they may need to be taken out altogether or toned down. Jprw (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous "not in citation given"

message: I have:
*put all the criticism into one section
*lost a lot of excess information on Bridle -- that can go into the crit section of his article (if he has one)
*removed a lot of disproportionate and inappropriate detail from the criticism section (which can easily be accessed by interested readers by referring to the references).
I think that the article reads a lot better now. Jprw (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking sections significantly

message: I have removed this as it is as usual giving undue weight to monbiot, if he is the only person to have blogged about this then it is wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it, since your assertion of undue is clearly wrong. The issue is important enough to mention in RKP's bio, and making such a public assertion erroneously and then having your newspaper retract it is clearly significant - it impacts directly on Booker's credibility. OTOH, I've removed Monbiots opinion, which I agree isn't needed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you just committed a BLP violation as neither of those refs you used mention booker. Please self revert or i shall have to do so mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have very odd ideas about BLPs. There is no rule that states you cannot use a ref that doesn't explicitly mention the name. You know full well what happened: Booker wrote a false article; the Torygraph published it, but has now retracted it. Linking, in the biog of the person who wrote the article, to the retraction notice is entirely appropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are engaging in wp:or if his name is not in those articles the nit has nothing to do with this BLP. Last chance to self revert mark nutley (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The piece is identified by George Monbiot (The Guardian) and subsequently John Collins Rudolf (New York Times). Sourcing is no problem. Wikispan (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No the references currently used do not mention booker, this is OR and as such is a BLP violation. mark nutley (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then simply add one additional reference. Wikispan (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: No, as the only person to have written about it monbiot, so it is also wp:undue as only one person has actually blogged about this mark nutley (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

text: As stated, the ref`s used do not mention booker. As such they do not belong within this article. Also as stated, it is wp:undue as only monbiot seems to have blogged about this using bookers name, not much coverage = undue weight to this one thing mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a source that explicitly mentioned Christopher Booker by name, but you deleted it from the article, citing undue, before proceeding to argue that none of the remaining references mentioned Booker by name, therefore the whole lot needs to be removed to avoid original research. Nice. Anyway, we have George Monbiot writing in The Guardian for a start. He clearly identifies Booker. The NYT piece identifies the same Christopher Booker article but without mentioning his name. The Telegraph confirms the retraction without linking to the original story (which it can't, obviously, because they withdrew it from their website). It's not original research providing we cite each one carefully, in a logical order. Wikispan (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Your guys are engaging in wp:or and wp:synth in a BLP, i request you stop. mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. But you are engaged in whitewashing Booker, and should stop William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The New York Times piece also mentions George Monboiot's article in The Guardian, which explicitly identifies Christopher Booker as the author in question. This is not original research. Wikispan (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which, it also says "Richard North, an author of the disputed story..."  republished copies of the original piece are not hard to find, showing Booker and North as authors. Rd232 talk 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I have a couple comments.  First, I don't think we're even supposed to have a criticism section to begin with.  Second, it would be nice if editors were more concerned with writing an actual biography, rather than use BLPs as coatracks to re-argue the case for/against AGW or to score points for/against each side's ideological adherents/opponents.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both counts.  It's questionable whether this pachauri bit is even notable enough to include in this BLP - it is very thinly sourced and not widely reported.  Plus, there are large unsourced portions of this BLP.  I am going to watch this for a couple of days and anyone who wants content to remain in this article, please source it to reliable sources (something other than a Monbiot op-ed ...it's gotten to the point that Monbiot's activist opinions are now scattered throughout many skeptic BLP's).  Otherwise, i'm goimg to start removing unsourced content in a couple of days per BLP policy. Minor4th 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There generally shouldnt be a "criticism" section in biographies. the persons actions should be noted and their impact (including negative responses from recognized experts in the field) integrated throughout the article. WP:STRUCTUREActive Banana   ( bananaphone 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. Furthermore, it would be very easy to get rid of the "criticism" section, since virtually all of it [if the Pachauri bit goes back where it belongs] is discussing his work on asbestos, and the Delingpole quote is hardly "criticism" now is it? Article should be restructured to be more topic-based. For instance it currently says hardly anything about Booker's work on the EU. Rd232 talk 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the OR and synth is still in the article, i suppose i shall have to remove it again then. It is also wp:undue you know, so it has to go mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see tendentious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No serious argument for it being either OR or SYNTHESIS or UNDUE has been advanced. Furthermore, removing the same topic from Richard North leaves the ludicrous situation that a blogger best known for blogging about climate change has the subject barely alluded to in his article. Frankly, the Arbcom case can't conclude soon enough, this is bullshit. Rd232 talk 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: You're not seriously suggesting that we use a blog as a source, are you? GregJackP Boomer!  04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I pity the fool who thinks I was seriously suggesting we should include the issue in the article based on that source. I was just asking if editors were aware of this history, of Booker's collaborator Richard North (blogger) having (allegedly) edited Booker's WP entry. Rd232 talk 08:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Fair comment, and a serious point for Wikipedia.  Ill-informed opinions and crank science should not be given equal weight as the well-informed and non-deluded.  The editing process has actually made most articles just on the science itself quite accurate, but articles about misguided commentators are inappropriately "balanced".Gordoncph (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pachauri stuff 

message: 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) 16:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christopher Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100424020940/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Like certain other articles about prolific journalists this bio relies too much on what Booker himself has said and other primary sources such as what a judge has said. Primary sources do not establish notability of any particular event or opinion, for these we need secondary, reliable sources, hence my tag and also my deletion of material that has not been sourced with secondary sources. Editors who want to return deleted material need to provide secondary sources that establish the notability of the material being returned. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources