Talk:Christopher Booker

Top

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)

I do not question the notability of the person, given his extensive career and apparent critical status, but I do question whether it is necessary to list every one of his publications. It may be more sensible to detail just the ones he is best known for, for example The Neophiliacs: A Study of the Revolution in English Life In The Fifties and Sixties and The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. -- Stratman07 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"The disputed assertion that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder"

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)

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)

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)

Repeated deletion by "Defence of the Realm" of Criticism section within this article

"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)

Criticism section deleted again without discussion, 28/12/08 - reversion again necessary

86.159.138.195 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

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)

A note on article probation

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)

Vandalism

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)

I removed the claim about white asbestos being "chemically identical to talcum powder" because it is original research and in any case far too much detail for a Wikipedia article. There are also other serious (from a Wikipedia standpoint) issues with neutrality, mild personal attacks against the author, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc.

I find it staggering that you can assume such bad faith against me by using language such as "content that you dislike" and even resort to accusations of vandalism, when all I am doing is trying to bring the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. As I state above, it is therefore of no surprsie that this article is on probabtion. By the way I have had independent verification from Wikipedia that the changes I made in this article were non-problematic. It would also be helpful if you could identify yourself.Jprw (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

JPRW, I think you may be misunderstanding the wiki rules on 'original research'. Highlighting Booker's scientific claims (which have been widely discussed elsewhere, not least in Monbiot's article), with fully-referenced citations pointing people back to the primary sources, is demonstrably not 'original research'. Deleting such information is therefore vandalism - though it is a welcome step forward that you are now prepared to engage in a discussion about it.

Likewise, giving a factual account of a person's own words cannot in itself constitute a "personal attack" (mild or otherwise) on them. And again, if we're simply reporting facts - even if those facts are not particularly flattering - this is fully consistent with neutrality. In fact, to delete facts simply because a particular editor doesn't like the picture that they paint, is in itself a breach of neutrality... 86.25.255.92 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing problematic material from the Criticism section

As Booker is to some extent a rather polarising figure one might expect entries in the criticism section to be on the vehement side. Nevertheless, there is no justification in my view for basic Wikipedia guidelines to be so egregiously violated, in particular: WP:BLP; WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:NPA. In this spirit I have removed, now for the third time, inappropriate material from this section. I trust that these changes will not be reverted (as they were twice before – by, I might add, anonymous editors assuming bad faith). If such a reversion does indeed occur I will report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.Jprw (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the two versions side-by-side I'm not really sure why you made the revert. Some of the detail about his asbestos howler is missing from your version. Am I missing some major change? --TS 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material has been removed in line with WP:BLP, not to mention problematic language ("he falsely asserts" kind of language) plus basic copywriting and original research issues.Jprw (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean this?

'Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[22], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.'

If the assertion was false (and it was) then we should say so clearly and without pussyfooting. That isn't a matter of point of view or style. --TS 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of WP:BLP do we not need to be spot on with our sourcing before making "he falsely asserted" claims? If the information is sourced well and reliably I don't have a problem with it. When I first came to the page it read like an attack piece. Also, do you not agree that the following large chunk which I removed constitutes original research:

"Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg₃(Si₂O₅)(OH)₄. It is worth noting that even if the composition were identical, which it clearly isn't, the actual structure/connectivity is what is significant, a situation well known in chemistry as isomerism at a molecular level and polymorphism (materials science) in the case of non-molecular materials or crystals. What makes chrysotile dangerous is not its composition - silicates are common - but its fibrous structure".

Not to mention far too detailed for a Wikipedia entry? And do you agree with the copy editing changes I made? Best,Jprw (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your changes, but I'm still somewhat mystified as to why you changed it. The small bit of chemistry background there isn't original research. You can source it to any A level chemistry textbook. I have stylistic problems with it: "it is worth noting that..." , "at a molecular level" and so on. One of the few things worth writing about Booker is his propensity for making ridiculously false statements on matters of science. --TS 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"The small bit of chemistry background there isn't original research. You can source it to any A level chemistry textbook". For a scientist, perhaps, but to a layman it will just go over their heads. It still appears to be unsourced original research in my view. Perhaps a rewritten simplified version, properly sourced, as a compromise? Or perhaps it can in fact be left out altogether?Jprw (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the wording that remains, I think it's enough: "Structurally, asbestos or Mg₃(Si₂O₅)(OH)₄consists of linear fibers, while talc or Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂ consists of planar sheets. Both minerals are hydrated magnesium silicates, and are similar but not identical in terms of chemical composition. Their microstructure differs significantly. "

Examining the remainder of the article, I think I'm changing my mind about Booker's main claim to fame. He's been around for a long time and has done a lot. I think we could probably flip the position of the "Views on science" and "Career" sections, giving more prominence to his lifelong achievments. What do you think? --TS 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think that the criticism section is also perhaps overlong and creates imbalance.Jprw (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I think we should consider ways of trimming it (don't take that as opposition to bold editing). The main point in my view is the bust-up with the HSE over asbestos. The other points establish Booker's persistent oppositionism on mainstream scientific views (evolution, smoking, and global warming). --TS 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that all seems fair. By the way, what about a wording along the following lines: "According to [RELIABLE SOURCE], Booker confused the chemical structure of asbestos and talc".[REFERENCE] Much more reader friendly to the layman. Also, I still have a problem with language like "One of the few things worth writing about Booker is his propensity for making ridiculously false statements on matters of science" -- in a scientific forum this may be acceptable, but to the Wikipedia layman comes across as being at worst an attack, at best the words of someone taking a non-neutral position. I think that we should always be checking the language we use here.Jprw (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a hint: Bookers hyberbolic statements about asbestos are pure journalistic exaggeration, but basically hes got a point. First its not chemical but mineralogical difference - most chemists dont get the point (and blunt lack of understanding goes as far as infamous parts of REACH guidelines, which dont take minersalogical composition or chemical structure and especially technically guidelines and practical use into account). Fiber asbestos contained in cement is harmless untill you drill it without water and enhale the dust or if you wait 20 years and have it weathering openly. Second NATURAL Talc is not pure but contains smaller amounts of asbestos in minor amounts. Face powders and Creams based on natural talc contain(ed) smaller amounts of white asbestos. The negative aspect of asbestos overall have not been noted for a long time, since the time between often benificiary use and caused illnesses have been to long - people died of other causes. --Polentario (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of "Criticism" of Booker, I think that the statement "Booker has been described by English writer James Delingpole in The Spectator as doing "the kind of proper, old-school things that journalists hardly ever bother with in this new age of aggregation and flip bloggery: he digs, he makes the calls, he reads the small print, he takes up the cause of the little man and campaigns, he speaks truth to power without fear or favour" is dubious at best. The idea that Delingpole could be a sound and dispassionate critic of Booker is not sensible. Delingpole's opinions on scientific matters are just as dubious as Booker's. Do we agree to delete this statement? Gordoncph (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively - and I think probably better - we could add an alternative view to that of Delingpole's, so that one positive comment is balanced by one negative one, and then Wikipedia users can follow both links and make a judgement on who should be trusted. I'll do this in a few days unless anyone disagrees here. Gordoncph (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Monbiot

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)

The Seven Basic Plots

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)

Rv: why

MN is removing valid material again taht doesn't support his POV William M. Connolley (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've removed the claim sourced to scienceblogs, which is not appropriate for a BLP. And aside from this particular issue, this BLP needs a lot of work. It's full of coatracks and opinions. Monbiot seems to be mentioned more than Booker himself. ATren (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous "not in citation given"

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)

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"' This is not in the ref given Farmers face £6bn bill for asbestos clean-up which is why i put a verification failed tag on it mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

==> When I click on the reference (7) and then the link at the bottom of the page, it takes me to the page without a problem - not sure where it is you're clicking? If there's a reference elsewhere on the page that needs updating, surely better just to update it? This weblink appears to work fine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3558729/Farmers-face-6bn-bill-for-asbestos-clean-up.html 86.180.153.113 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jprw (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)== Views on science & Criticism ==

These are essentially the same, booker says this, monbiot says this. It is just a repeat of the same stuff in two sections. I propose removing either one or removing all the crits which are repeated from the views on science section mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'removing either one' is such a good idea - taking out the whole of either the 'criticism' section or the 'views on science' section would not simply cut out duplicated info. We've been here before with people trying to remove valid references to criticisms of Booker from this piece and I'm slightly worried we may be heading back to that same territory again now. If there are specific facts that have appeared in two different places then let's focus on those. Which points did you have in mind? 86.178.158.236 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All of them anon, they are essentially clones of each other. mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Criticism for views on science" may be an improvement. Jprw (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reworking sections significantly

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)

Pachauri stuff

[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then simply add one additional reference. Wikispan (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

I confess I am unable to understand MN's assertions of OR, and (as I've explained before) his justification for removing the text is clearly spurious. MN has had problems with sourcing before (is he still on parole for it) so I'd ask him to go and check with one of his usual "mentors" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are complaints that the original retracted article is no longer available on the Telegraph website. It remains, however, easily available if you google the title. I feel we should not link to republished copies, but those that wants can verify well enough what they actually said. Rd232 ^talk 07:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

No. But you are engaged in whitewashing Booker, and should stop William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Besides which, it also says "Richard North, an author of the disputed story..." [2] 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)

Does anyone else have a view on whether the section belongs in Career or Criticism? [3] I think it's pretty ridiculous to have it in Criticism, it's not like Pachauri disagreed. A public retraction with legal costs in six figures is a career thing (even if one of the co-authors (that is, North) appears determined to get sued for libel). Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Incidentally, I've just come across this. Were people aware? Rd232 ^talk 20:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that we use a blog as a source, are you? GregJackP Boomer! 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

I've revised the article substantially, removing the criticism section, and making various improvements. The asbestos paragraph could probably be reduced a little, but with the many lengthy footnotes it's hard to edit. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This joke of an article is, all by itself, compelling evidence that once the anti-science lobby has designated some area as a target, Wikipedia will go right along, thanks to the persistent stream of zombie attackers. All by itself, the fact that a liar and a crank of the first order cannot be pinned down to even the most obvious, provable, and egregious falsehoods is evidence for what's becoming conventional wisdom - that after the first blush of popularity, Wikipedia is no longer crowd-sourcing, it's a propaganda mill, just as Amazon.com reviews are. The main distortion on both is a kind of crank complex that thinks that market fundamentalism and a smattering of some sort of specialized technical knowledge (engineering, meteorology, or even business) can simply hand-wave away scientific reality, as long as it's sufficiently complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.56 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Review

I have reverted the insert quote from the grauniad becuase the actual review does not justify the comment. It is thus a polemic rather than being a fair comment on the book.Peterlewis (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The review does justify the comment - the phrase "including the central claim, is bunk" is a direct quote from the article. As it stands, the only part of the review to be used is about the only positive-sounding part of an overwhelmingly negative review, so it is misrepresented without the line you've been deleting. Your opinions on whether it's absurd, polemical, or fair are irrelevant to whether the reviewer's point of view should be represented accurately.

I've reverted. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer does nothing in his review to justify the bunk comment at all. Theer are actually some better points to be made rather than the wholly trivial and unjustified comment you have inserted. I am thus reverting your revert. Peterlewis (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a requirement that the reviewer justifies his position to your satisfaction - it is a requirement that we give a fair and balanced portrayal of a review we quote, rather than cherry-picking one sentence which is atypical of the review as a whole. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not my requirement but a need to eliminate name-calling, which seems to me very un-encyclopedial. A reviewre should state his reasons for making such comments, and he did not in the review at all. I am thus reverting yet again. Peterlewis (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a requirement that the reviewer justifies his position to your satisfaction - it is a requirement that we give a fair and balanced portrayal of a review we quote, rather than cherry-picking one sentence which is atypical of the review as a whole. It isn't "un-encyclopedial", it's a matter of accurately representing the cited source. Why do you think it's OK to pick a single phrase that misrepresents the tone of the review quoted? You're looking like a POV troll here. Stop it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:09, 2 September 2011 (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) 16:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Booker. 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/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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 03:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

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)

--- Does this explain the removal of references to Booker's published opinions on evolution and Intelligent Design? 51.6.91.123 (talk)

--- I too wonder about the current absence of any mention of his documented views on Evolution and Intelligent Design, which did feature in a previous version of this page. 31.125.76.2 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

--- Just what I was wondering about, too! At least people who read this Talk page will now be aware of his anti-evolution/ID opinions. CatNip48 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

--- Oh look. Here is a secondary source that gives a brief mention to his stance on evolution: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/04/christopher-booker-obituary

Here's another one: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/13/christopher-booker-misleading CatNip48 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)