Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Neil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


David Irving

[edit]

I think the passage "He also employed Holocaust denier David Irving in 1992 on the dubious assertion that Irving was one of the few people who could read German gothic typography." should be removed unless there is credible evidence to suggest that David Irving's appointment was not for the reasons disclosed.

I have removed the sentence. I have done this for a number of reasons.
* The statement has sat for over a month with fact tag - and no source has been added for the claim.
* Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - which was formed as a result of the Seigenthaler controversy - gives very clear guidance. In short - biographies of living people should strictly adhere to NPOV and verifiability policies. The sentence I removed was not verifiable and of questionable wording. SFC9394 19:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say how pleased I am to see the Eye's Brillo-AsianBabe photo employed in this article. Made my day. -- GWO

Removal of Radio 4 reference

[edit]

To the paragraph about his current media activity, I added the sentence: He hosts Start the Week, a cultural programme on BBC Radio 4.

This sentence was removed, with no reason given. I cannot think why. I would rather not engage in an edit war. If reasons are not given for its removal, I will re-add it in a few days. BrainyBabe 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be cited, just add it. The JPStalk to me 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The presenter of Start the Week on Radio 4 is Andrew Marr. Philip Cross 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how embarrassing. I hold my hands up in shame. I guess their voices sound similar to me. Or I just wasn't paying attention. An honest mistake. BrainyBabe 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye photo

[edit]

Is the 'much younger woman' in the photo mentioned in this section Pamella Bordes? To me, it reads as if it isn't, but it's sandwiched in between two bits about Bordes. If I knew for sure I could rewrite it to be clearer. Rissa (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the woman is not Bordes. The cited British Journalism Review article explains all. Philip Cross (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons reference

[edit]

Is this really relevant? As the head of Sky, a company with an affiliation to Fox, Neil would have inevitably added The Simpsons to his schedule. Philip Cross (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image on this page may be deleted

[edit]

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Andrew Neil recurring joke in Private Eye.jpg, found on Andrew Neil, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Andrew Neil. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Neil. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Neil. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No connection ever with The Telegraph

[edit]

My edit was reverted, citing WP:RS, fair enough. The clarification I was attempting has since been made again by another. For some background, in case it's useful for future edits, and because the links are hard to find again after time has passed: The Internet keeps suggesting Andrew Neil is Chairman of Press Holdings. Their main asset is The Daily Telegraph newspaper. He has stated he has never had any connection with The Daily Telegraph. Press Holdings smaller interest is Press Holdings Media Group and Neil is chairman of this, as detailed in his entry in https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmjournl/journalists.htm PHMG owns The Spectator magazine, amongst others. Tweets from Neil's account where he rebuts claims to the contrary are many, and include https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1033814019214372864, https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1033806907226636294, and https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1033805691276980224 -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shapiro interview

[edit]

Shouldn't the Neil-Shapiro interview be mentioned: Neil falsely indicates that he doesn't make a lot of money (~200000 pounds according to this Wik article), and Shapiro doesn't know that Neil is a conservative. The interview is on various Youtube videos, with commentaries, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AgfNTZP9ck . 37.99.33.34 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil is left-wing not conservative. He is not pro-life and favours abortion. He works for the BBC.

Shapiro is well-known in US circles as a conservative; Neil is well-known in British circles as a conservative -- so well-known so that is usually goes without saying. But look at these facts for evidence:

'“Why don’t you just say that you are on the left? Is that so hard for you? Seriously, it’s a serious question.”

To this Mr Neil laughed and said: “Mr Shapiro, if you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn’t have said it.”' 'Mr Neil is currently the chairman of the Press Holdings Media Group which owns the Spectator.' (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ben-shapiro-us-conservative-brands-andrew-neil-left-wing-before-walking-out-on-bbc-interview-a4139451.html)

'When Neil questioned him on his views on abortion, Shapiro bizarrely accused Neil (the chairman of conservative-leaning magazine The Spectator) of being “on the left”.' (https://www.indy100.com/article/ben-shapiro-interview-andrew-neil-politics-live-bbc-left-wing-8908336). for a more in-depth characterization of the man, see https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jul/28/sundaytimes.comment . Just because some-one has a BBC program does not mean that that individual is in concert with the organization's leanings any more than just because some-one is on Fox News means that that person toes Fox's line. Kdammers (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining sanity after the Ben Shapiro debate

[edit]

Since Andrew Neil's widely viewed interview with Ben Shapiro, the activity on this Wikipedia page has been blowing up with several highly questionable and charged edits being made. I've already had to restore this page twice. I therefore ask fellow sane editors to prevent any attempt at introducing charged language into this article or giving more than three sentences of space in this article to the Shapiro interview, which is obviously a passing speck in the half dozen political outrages that occur every day and used by the righteous warriors of truth to "fix" Wikipedia so it sounds more like what they read on their cars bumper stickers.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not usually a Wikipedia editor but considering the type of behaviour these people usually exhibit wouldn't it be better just to lock the page until they get bored and move on? --Thebobbrom (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change views

[edit]

To editor Snooganssnoogans: Normally I would immediately revert your edit, but you seem to propound that Neil "misrepresents" rather than "misunderstands" the climate science. The latter term, which I'm using, is neutral and allows for the possibility of bias simply making someone unable to understand a topic, however, the wording you prefer appears charged. If you have reliable sources indicating Neil "misrepresents" climate data, feel free to offer it here. Otherwise, we'll maintain my wording. The preference of "non-scientists" to "people without scientific expertise" is not a discussion worth having, my wording (the latter) is obviously preferable for an encyclopedia.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've found a reliable source that uses the phrase "misunderstanding". https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/28/bbc-coverage-favouring-climate-change-sceptics Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per that source, "Neil was accused by scientists afterwards of putting forward partial data and discredited arguments. Miller said allowing Neil to air these views as if they were authoritative fact was misleading viewers, because it suggested that the arguments carried as much weight as those of climate experts. He said: "Given that the BBC's avowed mission is still to inform and educate, as well as entertain, it is remarkable that it allows presenters, like Andrew Neil, to repeat misinformed scientific arguments on climate change as though they were fact."" That's what it is to "misrepresent" something. "Misunderstands" is a term that I've never seen used in wiki voice in the context of proponents of fringe theories - probably because it claims to know what a particular individual understands and doesn't understand (which is entirely unknowable). Neil may very well understand the science of climate change, yet choose to misrepresent it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that Neil "may very well hypothetically hoo da" understand climate science is not relevant unless a reliable source backs it. The Guardian article says that people have accused of putting forward discredited arguments, but not that he's been accused of knowingly putting forward discredited arguments. So it supports my phrasing. Since it requires mind reading to know if Neil is intentionally lying, it doesn't look like there's a good reason to put it in the article.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources supposedly backing the first sentence in the climate change section, and none supports the assertion that Neil "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", so I changed the wording to represent the sources - here. This was reverted by Davey2116 here, with the summary "restore correct wording". Please reveal a sentence in any of those sources that can be used to support the statement "Neil rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". It appears that what is occurring here is WP:SYNTH - cobbling several sources together and editorially drawing a conclusion from them. This is not acceptable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is also wrong to editorially represent people's views on Neil, and criticisms of him, in Wikipedia's voice. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresent "to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair " (Webster's online). Kdammers (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, please reveal a sentence in any of those sources that can be used without editorial manipulation to directly support the statement "Neil rejects the scientific consensus on climate change".
Andrew Neil: There is "no consensus" on climate change.[1] Furthermore, the section documents a wide range of falsehoods about climate change, all of which are part of climate change denial rhetoric. I asked for input from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Snooganssnoogans: If there is no source where Neil explicitly rejects climate change, then the page should be corrected. On that note, you haven't objected to my critique of your claim to support the 'misrepresent' phraseology. Indeed, the Guardian article never implies any intentional misconstrual of the facts, so it supports "misunderstood" wording. Given your lack of a response to my critique, I'm assuming we agree on my wording.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Misrepresents is perfectly consistent with the source. Misunderstands is just your original research and mind-reading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which original source? The dictionary definition of misrepresents includes intentional deceit. Can you quote the Guardian article suggesting Neil is engaging in intentional skewing rather than skewing as a product of being dumb or a lack of research? I recommend you read over WP:OR.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term does not necessarily refer to intentional deceit. I have absolutely no clue what dictionaries you're reading, because your interpretation of intent in this the word does not show for me. If we'd want to say he intentionally deceived ppl, we would say he "intentionally misrepresented" the science of climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using Wikipedia's voice to state either that Neil misrepresents or misunderstands. Wikipedia editors should not be judge and jury of disputes. We should state that he has been criticised for misrepresenting - that is what the sources state and what WP policy advises. In fact all this shouldn't come under a heading of 'political positions' because, unless Neil has explicitly stated, "this is my position here", we don't know what his views are. Neil is a journalist. It is his job to interview people from an opposing perspective. It doesn't follow that his questions must reflect his views.
On the matter of Neil stating there is "no consensus" on climate change, that is not what he stated. His article states, "The recent standstill in global temperatures is a puzzle. Experts do not know why it is occurring or how long it will last. Climate scientists have proffered a variety of possible explanations. But there is no consensus." It is this one aspect - the recent standstill in global temperatures - on which he stated there is no consensus. This cannot be edited into the article to state that he rejects climate change consensus, as that implies that he denies that it is happening at all. And we don't know that. And on top of that, his article is 6 years old. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Snooganssnoogans: According to Merriam-Webster, "misrepresent" means "to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair". Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on intent here[3], here[4] and here[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. That's cherry picking. Plus your second link does mention intent. Since misrepresent can and often implies intent per your own source, Wikipedia editors have a job to make sure that the articles are as clear as possible. Misunderstood is unambiguously better since it never implies deception and is explicitly used in a WP:RS (unlike misrepresent, see WP:OR).Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your RS does not say Neil "misunderstands climate science". It talks about "arguments based on misunderstandings, even ignorance" in a different context not concerning Neil. What it says about Neil is:
"Neil was accused by scientists afterwards of putting forward partial data and discredited arguments. Miller said allowing Neil to air these views as if they were authoritative fact was misleading viewers, because it suggested that the arguments carried as much weight as those of climate experts."
It is not acceptable that you just reinstate your own version, which does not make sense - see Kdammers' "refers to a state of mind" below - and misrepresents (yes, misrepresents) the source, while the discussion is ongoing. You should self-revert.
"Misrepresent" is clearly better. With or without attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The political positions section is really not very good. Most of the political positions are from some years ago. Also, most were taken with minimal evidence, and have little discussion of how his position may have changed since additional evidence was produced. There is really very little to tell what Mr. Neil's political stance is. From what is posted it's difficult to predict, for example, which political party he might vote for.

The climate change section has become more of an assertion that those who question climate change are denying a scientific consensus than it is a presentation of the subjects views on climate change. The leading language should be replaced by quotes and clearly held positions of the subject, not editorial and novel research thereof.2600:8801:9800:12B1:D970:2589:5646:2532 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

while 'misrepresents' >usually< includes intent, intent is clearly not necessary. My argument against 'misunderstands' is that it refers to a state of mind, and that can not be observed. Is there a third option acceptable to all parties? How about 'falsely presents' or 'incorrectly states'?Kdammers (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this debating about whether to use misrepresents or misunderstands is misplaced, because it reveals editors trying to use Wikipedia's voice to make a judgement on Neil. The article should not be saying, "Neil misrepresents...", but instead "Neil has been criticised for misrepresenting...", because then the article correctly assigns the critical voice to others, and avoids WP:SYNTH. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hob, when the Guardian article refers to misunderstandings in the BBC, Neil is clearly part of the anchors being referred to.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aids /AIDS

[edit]

The Wikipedia article on AIDS has all the letters in caps. Is there some reason that this Neil article only has the initial letter in caps (excluding the quoted material, which should maintain what-ever form was originally used)? Kdammers (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the quoted material that generally is that way - the main text is ALL CAPS. It's increasingly common in the British written media to only use ALL CAPS when the acronym is said as letters, such as HIV, and to only capitalise the first letter when it's said as a word, such as Aids. However this is not a globally followed standard and Wikipedia's style guide seems influence by US usage. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders and 2019 GE

[edit]

I have removed the unsourced paragrapgh falsely claiming Boris hasn't taken part in leadership interviews. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and so we must not assume Boris isn't going to be interviewed until Wednesday night and even then we would need a source. We could mention the empty chair already with a reliable 3rd-party source. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Left wing bias

[edit]

The section on his political views is terrible. It's just a hit job for the left. Not balanced at all - and I generally think Neil is actually on the left with a lot of his views, no matter how he may dress it up - so I'm not even defending him. I'm simply saying this page is riddled with left wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.71.122 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from going around Wikipedia accusing people of bias. Bacondrum (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the article, either articulate the problem properly, or fix it yourself. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 04:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would fix it, but then your lot come along and undo it. You've ruined Wiki. 51.158.65.127 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GB News

[edit]

The Guardian is reporting that Neil has left the BBC to run a 24-hour news channel on GB News. JezGrove (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HIV: this paragraph simply wrong

[edit]

The section quoted below claims to be from a Radio4 interview. If you go to min 33 of the interview you can see that it is not true. Neill says that he regrets his position because it was wrong. He does not try to push the blame onto his medical correspondent. He does say that he thought that thry were right in as much as not everyone was at equal risk from HIV.

Please listen to the section on the interview and correct this paragraph, if not, I will.

"In a 2021 interview Neil said that he now regretted certain aspects of the paper's coverage of HIV and AIDS, but he was unwilling or unable to accept any personal responsibility for the falsehoods published while he was editor. Neil chose instead to blame an employee, stating that he had placed faith in a trusted correspondent who was found to be wrong.[103]" Rustygecko (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GB News

[edit]

The I says that there were potential legal disputes following his appearance on QT.[6] Now it seems his exit contract has been cancelled, per his Tweet reported in The Telegraph.[7] It would seem that the exit agreement was cancelled because of the critical comments made on QT. This has not been confirmed, but putting it here for now. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Neil&oldid=1207144944"