Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge Proposal

How's this sound: move the entire second paragraph in the current version (starting with "Philip Campbell...") to Andrew_Montford#Bishop_Hill, and then turn Bishop Hill (blog) into a redirect to that section. No content lost, just consolidated. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That works, give or take, for me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that. Editors have been removing it from the article on the basis of WP:COATRACK, and I tend to agree. I don't see how that stuff is acceptable in Montford, assuming it is not acceptable here. We have "Channel 4 News" saying that it was posted to the blog and that it "will be" an embarassment to the head of the panel. Then we have the Guardian picking up on Channel 4, saying "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog run by the climate sceptic Andrew Montford and shown on Channel 4 News, risked undermining Muir's claim that the inquiry team was impartial." This seems speculative on the part of Channel 4, whose reliability is unknown to me, and The Guardian then picked up on that and speculating further. We have no definitive reporting that there was a blog-Campbell resigning causality. The sources quoted in the Campbell article (the BBC and a press release) make no mention of the blog. Hence my reservations. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

With the same caveats as Scotty Berg, it works for me. Merge seems to be the bill - the blog is not independently notable. All we have are mentions in passing in various articles (about something different), and as with many of these individually run blogs, its troublesome to separate blog from author with regards to notabilty. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the deletion debate, and I'm surprised it failed to result in deletion. WP:WEB would seem to require far more than the passing references made regarding this blog in even the longest version of this article. As it stands now, it's just a kind of extended hazing of two living people who are supposedly "embarrassed" by this blog. Merger makes sense as long as we don't take the rotten apple and toss it from this barrel into another. Keep in mind that if that paragraph is gone, that leaves this article with virtually no content. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a compromise. While I too don't think we should be highlighting the Philip Campbell stuff to such a great extent--or at all really--in the spirit of compromise, I could live with a merged article as proposed above. And I think that such a merger would be an (minor) improvement over the status quo. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. I'd just be happier if the sourcing was better and less speculative, and if the end product didn't poke this Campbell dude in the eye more than seems necessary. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We've ended up with an article whose only real content is an attack on Campell, effectively. This seems pointless. The content about Campbell, should go to the Campbell page. If it is unacceptable there (BLP?) it shouldn't be here either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this this morning on my way to work, here's what I came up with: In the grand scheme of Campbell's career, I think this flap over the Independent Climate Change Email Review doesn't amount to much. Therefore, if we're going to keep Philip Campbell balanced, then we shouldn't give this incident much, if any, attention in that article. On the other hand, assuming the Guardian and Channel 4's account of events is correct, then this is probably the biggest impact the blog has had on the real world. So if we are going to have an article on the blog, or a subsection of Andrew Montford dedicated to the blog, then it think this does deserve mention there. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the deletion debate, and I'm surprised it failed to result in deletion - welcome to the GW wars. The split was largely on the expected lines I'm afraid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear your views (and everyone else's, including the editors now in the brig) on an essay I've written on the subject.[1] ScottyBerg (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So whether it belongs on Campbell's bio or not, does anyone disagree that the second para doesn't belong here (or in Montford's bio)? Guettarda (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion in the Campbell article that editors here may want to peruse, as to how to whether to expand or change the previous language. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirm my agreement that it doesn't belong here, for reasons stated previously . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for removal. But given LHvU's apparent decision to "manage" this article, I'm not sure how to proceed. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU doesn't own this article. Nor, indeed, has he prohibited reverting (which he can't, anyway). If we all agree it doesn't belong, it can come out. Just to be sure, since the second para isn't the second para any more, we're talking about Philip Campbell, the editor in chief of Nature, resigned ... will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry's chair Sir Muir Russell". - yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the request at my talkpage by Guettarda, I would make the following comments - firstly, I am not "managing" the article; I am endeavouring to ensure that there is no edit warring following the lifting of the protection. As Marknutley will be unavailable for some time, it might be wise to see if Cla68 (whose block has expired) wants to comment. Secondly, I would also note that a further editor has commenced adding sources, etc., to the article and you may wish to both review whether those are reliable and relevant in your opinion and to invite the contributor, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), to comment here on these matter. If there are no substantive reasons given for not removing, etc. then there would appear to be consensus. However, I think that there should be opportunity for others to comment. FYI, I have templated SV regarding the CC Probation, following her edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I support SlimVirgin's helpful edits to the article. In my opinion, of the three related articles, Andrew Montford, this one, and The Hockey Stick Illusion, I think the blog is the most clearly notable. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there is broad support for removing this from the article. One editor shouldn't be allowed to block what otherwise would be consensus; or to turn it around: there's obviously no consensus that this material should be in the article. Also, with BLP sensitive material we should be erring on the side of excluding such content when there is a dispute. LVHU, would you do the honors? I think everyone else too afraid to stick their necks out. (I know I am).Yilloslime ^T_C 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 - the blog fails all 3 criteria in WP:WEB#Criteria. All that has been dragged up are single line to paragraph mentions in articles that are otherwise about something different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mere passing mentions, as has been said before. The only reason why this article has been kept is pure tribalism on the part of certain editors, as someone noted earlier. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD showed otherwise. So, we're wasting our time arguing for merger or deletion. Instead, we need to continue the article's expansion. I'd like to nominate it for Good Article soon. Is everyone here willing and able to help me out? Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD showed absolutely nothing. It ended in "No consensus" which means that we couldn't decide what to do about the article. Such a result doesn't preclude merging, nor does it preclude expanding. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you straight off that I'll strongly oppose any good article nomination. This article is nothing more than a list of a handful of trivial media mentions. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, let alone as a good article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still for merger, but with the added sources I'm now wondering if maybe we should keep an open mind about the notability of this blog. As long as it's not used as a source for third parties, that would not be the end of the world. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the recently added sources are really not much more than what we had before - trivial passing mentions of the blog's content which don't actually say anything about the blog itself. Bear in mind that what was added is literally the entirety, or pretty close to it, of all the media coverage this blog's received. The bottom line is that it's been mentioned a handful of times, in passing, in a handful of media outlets, with no substantive coverage of the blog itself. The notability issue is still unavoidable, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still a marginal article at best. I should probably read through the posts I've missed (only about 400 of them). Amazing the attention that has focused on this little runt. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made this point before: there are a lot worse blog articles out there. If every one got a tenth of the attention this one is getting, they'd be a whole lot better. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Desperate?

I think that

In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

is a bit of a desperate claim-to-fame. A blog (assoc with the Torygraph) reports that another blog has reported that a charity has been funded by DEFRA. Why is this notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially when said Delingpole blog describes DEFRA as: "the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc". I doubt seriously if it is a reliable source - and aside from Delingpole's word, there is no indication at all that it "came to the public attention". So yes, rather desperate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We're also back to the coatracking, where it is not actually the blog that is being described, but content that has appeared on the blog... focusing on issues, rather than the blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's stretching the definition of coatracking. Delingpole's, and newspaper blogs are considered reliable sources, as I pointed out above, reporting is significant because he shows that the blog broke this news. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it is not "stretching the definition" - none of the added references are actually about the blog - they are about content that has been on the blog. The Dennis item for instance is not cited to the blog - and the only mention is a sentence saying "It is understood Mr Dennis has been instructed not to talk to the media, but he posted his account of the interview on a British website run by climate change sceptic Andrew Montford." and that is all the mention in total in the ref given. I've marked this with "not in citation given" since i have no idea whether Montford has other blogs - the reference doesn't give Bishop Hill as the place.

We can't just "blow up" the importance or notability of some blog - by taking articles that only mention it in passing and relate the issues/content to that. That is classic coatracking. Do please also read all of the discussions that have preceeded this. I am certainly not alone in this estimation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is really tendentious stuff, particularly after all the previous discussions. What has any of the material that's been added got to do with the blog itself, as opposed to content that's been on it? These merely just passing mentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I might add that under the logic that is being pursued here, every time this blog is mentioned by the media it should be logged here on this article. The article as it stands says almost nothing about the blog itself; almost every factoid that has been added is simply a reference to when some other source has mentioned it. Compare this article to an actually well-written blog article, Talking Points Memo, which provides information on the history, authorship, remit and activities of the blog. That is useful information. A list of media mentions is not. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by SlimVirgin

Without engaging in the talk page discussion, SlimVirgin readded the Delingpole reference, albeit with reworded text. Clearly, there's no consensus for this material to be in the article, as demonstrated by the extensive discussion(s) above. I propose that s/he self-revert and join the discussion. (I'd jsust remove it myself, but I don't need to be blocked.) Yilloslime ^T_C 22:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'm curious as to why SlimVirgin, an editor who as far as I know doesn't normally edit in this topic area, hasn't edited this article before and hasn't participated in the talk page discussions, has suddenly started editing here. Who's been saying what to who off-wiki? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, which is why i've reinstated the tags... I don't need to get blocked either. I've removed the material that failed WP:SELFPUB though. Using Montfords own words to state that the blog is "..is described as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK" is simply too blatant a violation to let sit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And if i had any doubts about coatracking, this[2] dispelled it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking accusations, accusations of off wiki collaboration... just looks like article improvement to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Delingpole reference wouldn't be a reliable source (or at the very least significant undue weight) in the COIN article, nor would the blog, so put it here instead, and make a "See Also" to the blog, which has absolutely no relevance to COIN, except for one blog-posting. That seems like pretty clear coatracking to me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks increasingly bad. I've removed that link - there is no way that we would allow the use of a blog as a source on a third party, as SlimVirgin knows perfectly well, so the link is totally inappropriate. I've asked her to explain her edits. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Its just a harmless little stub about a silly blog, its not going to change anything at all in the real world at all, one of the things I find is a good thing to remember is that what is written on this wikipedia is more or less irrelevant, no one puts any store on it, why not just take it off your watchlist if you don't like it? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So why are you here, if you think it's so unimportant? -- ChrisO (talk)

Chris asked me to explain my edits. First, I haven't discussed this with anyone offwiki. It's not an area I normally edit in. It caught my attention because of the recent discussion about it onwiki, and I saw it was a little untidy and unreferenced, so I added some material and tidied some refs. [3] I'm concerned to see that some of this has been cut already, [4] though it's all properly referenced by mainstream reliable sources. Kim's point that the material is about the content of the blog, not the blog itself, is a little odd. This is a blog that has recently been referenced by The Guardian, the Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and Channel 4 News, organizations that have differing political views but that are all mainstream and high quality. It's unusual for blogs to be mentioned so often, and there's no reason for us not to include that material in the article.

I also added the blog to a couple other articles, because someone had added the orphan tag, but Kim and Chris have removed those mentions. [5] [6]

Editors can't reasonably claim an article isn't notable while at the same time removing references that illustrate its notability, or add the orphan tag while removing mention of it in other articles.

Chris, the news organizations that mentioned the blog are the sources, so it's compliant with BLP to mention the blog's role. We're also allowed to use the blog as a direct source per V (so long as not about living people), because the author has been published independently on this subject, and is viewed by the media and parliament as an expert on climate-change skepticism. V says: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edits. Similar views on the relevance of these sources to the topic have been expressed by others, and failed to gain consensus. Would you consider self-reverting? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I wouldn't want to self-revert, as the material is relevant and properly sourced. I'm concerned that some of it has been reverted already, so I've asked LHVU what the rules of engagement are. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your opinions are no more important than anyone else's, and they're in the minority. We (claim to) work by consensus, not minority/majority rule, and there's no consensus to include this in the article. So you should self-revert and then seek consensus here. You are big fish, so if your opinions are "right", then it should be easy for you to convince others. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We work by following the content policies, YS. We then seek consensus in areas where the policies offer no guidance. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Content policies also include WP:UNDUE - and all this material can summarize to is: "...has been mentioned in mainstream media, as ...." (refs given). None of the content (as said before) is about the blog but about issues that the blog has touched. Most mentions are in passing (except for the Delingpole ones - and it is really doubtful if those constitute reliable sources - at the very least they raise significant WP:REDFLAG's). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Kim

Could Kim please explain why the Telegraph is an unreliable source, why he added the "not in citation given" tag to the Daily Mail paragraph, and why he removed the Hansard reference? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the various comments given here on talk - i've explained each and everyone of these. But let me be specific on one of these: The so called "Hansard" reference (the only thing i've removed)[7] is written by Montford himself... It is in effect a self-published source, since the HoC panel had an open request for memorandums, and every memorandum was published there. It fails WP:SELFPUB by "unduly self-serving". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also not from Hansard. It's something that Montford wrote himself and that was republished without comment, along with every other submission received by a House of Commons Select Committee, as an annex to a report of that committee. Montford played no part whatsoever in the deliberations of the committee. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that every single submission was published, Chris? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Para 15 of the report states that they received 58 submissions.Here is where 57 submissions are listed (the discrepancy isn't explained - I suspect a typo). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by self-published source. This is a statement published by the British parliament. If you prefer we can make clear in the sentence that it comes from Montford himself, but that's a question of tweaking, not removing. And even if it were a self-published source, these are allowed in articles about themselves (and elsewhere too; see WP:V).

As for the Telegraph, it is a reliable source, whether it calls its articles "blogs" or "columns." WP:V covers this too:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010) ...

I'd therefore appreciate it if you could return Hansard, and remove the tag from the Telegraph material. Can you explain the Daily Mail issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not from Hansard. How many times do I have to say this? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was published by parliament; it's not self-published. Why are people being so aggressive, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know; perhaps it's because all the extensive previous discussions have been ignored and these changes of yours were made without any prior discussion here? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing aggression against others too, whether they've been discussing the issues or not. If everyone who turns up here is going to be snapped at, reasonable people will wander off, and that won't be good for the article. Seriously, guys, this is an article about a blog. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but whatever happened to discussing contentious changes before making them? It's not as if you're adding something new and exciting. Just about everything you're adding has been discussed at length and there's no been any consensus to include it. If anything, good progress was being made (under #Merge proposal above), which you've just blown up. Might I ask if you actually read this talk page before editing the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was adding anything contentious, Chris. I saw an almost empty article about a blog. I found source material and added it. This is bog-standard editing, and if the climate-change situation on WP has reached the point where a person can't make edits like this anymore in an article that's practically empty, I hope someone will soon take the issue to ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much admitting there that you hadn't read the talk page and therefore didn't realise the contentiousness of the material you were adding. If you're intervening in an article, it's always a good idea to see what's been happening on the talk page. That's part of what you call "bog-standard editing", or at least that part of it which is outlined at WP:CONSENSUS. It's not a matter of not being able to "make edits like this anymore"; it's simply a question of doing due diligence to make sure that what you're doing is in line with the current consensus. You didn't do that, which is why you're (quite understandably) getting flak now. It's the kind of situation that needs to be approached with tact and consensus-building, not jumping in with both feet and then wondering why people aren't happy with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm tapping my nose right now, because that's where you've hit it. Well said. 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not return "Hansard" (why you insist on calling it that is curious) since that fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduely self-serving" as stated before. There is no editorial review evident here - and it is per content policies your responsibility to convince us that it is a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were entirely self-published, it would still be an RS, because the article is about his blog. Please read V on this issue. All you had to do was tweak the sentence to make clear he was the person behind the description. WMC added the same source; you didn't remove it then. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly isn't even close to a reliable source for the information that you cited it for. WP:V is very clear on that, we cannot cite the owner of the blog for material that is unduely selfserving. You will have to find an independent secondary reliable source for such material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not unduly self-serving to say that it is a website for global-warming sceptics. Do you object to even that description of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly find secondary reliable sources that state that - so there is no need to rely on Montford's own estimation. The content that you added was not just that it was a climate sceptic blog - but that it was "...one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK.", which is unduely self-serving. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Delingpole - please do read the policy that you quote - it says "may be acceptable", not "is acceptable". The Delingpole reference raises significant WP:REDFLAG's. Amongst others by calling DEFRA: "the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally (as i've stated elsewhere on talk) - Bishop Hill is not mentioned in the Daily Mail (perhaps it is about this blog - but i don't know if Montford has other blogs) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't mention it by name, but it's clear that's what they mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm? I thought we had policies that ensured that "it's clear" is not enough? Let me see WP:OR seems to fit the bill. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you're not allowed to reject a mainstream journalist writing for a mainstream newspaper because you don't like what he writes. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bait not taken - I'm rather indifferent as to what Delingpole writes, i'm applying content policy. Its a newspaper blog, and we have no evidence of editorial control - the blog makes extremely contentious claims, that are certainly extremely fringe - or do you argue that claiming that DEFRA is mainly about "murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc." isn't a fringe viewpoint? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which country you live in. I can tell you that the Telegraph is a high-quality newspaper, Delingpole is one of its respected writers, the blog is of course under its editorial control (you think it might publish it otherwise?), and the view that DEFRA mishandled the mad-cow situation and other farming controversies is practically universal. You're not applying policy, Kim, with respect, but your own opinions. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SV, but while i am living in Denmark, i do follow british media - and the Delingpole blog is not widely considered a respectable source for factual information [please show me wrong] - Delingpole's writing here is polemic. You are dodging the issue - which is that the Delingpole blog is making contentious claims that are extremely fringe. The Telegraph's reliability does not automatically "rub off" to blog content that they carry. Nor does it do so to material produced in other opinion sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The world has turned upside down if someone is calling The Daily Telegraph and James Delingpole fringe. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Telegraph is a mainstream outlet. However, it has two contributors - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker - who publish extreme fringe views about matters of science. Fringe material can't be laundered into mainstreamness merely by virtue of where it is published; it's fringe-y in its own right. Interestingly enough, Delingpole's blog is only available on the Telegraph's website - it's not printed and it's also not archived by news archives such as Factiva, which indicates that the Telegraph itself doesn't regard it as part of the newspaper's content. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll write to the Telegraph to ask about the blog's status. But it's normal for some material to be made available only on newspapers' websites. As our policy and the British Press Complaints Commission make clear, that does not affect editorial responsibility. Calling a column a "blog" doesn't change its status—the Telegraph is publishing it, and under its own name. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see you demonstrate that these views are "fringe" considering a significant portion of the population seems to think they're true. For a view to be "fringe", a tiny minority of the population must accept it. I doubt you'd refer to Christianity as a "fringe religion", would you? No, you wouldn't. So no, Delingpole does not an "extreme fringe view". Macai (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is DEFRA really amongst a "significant" portion of the population described best as "murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc."? Interesting viewpoint. [and no, it is not undue focus on a particular phrase - it is from that particular article, and the particular section where BH is mentioned] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, a company of 9,000 in a population of well over 60,000,000 is not a "significant portion of the population". However, 41% is.[8] That's right. 41% of the U.S. population believes that the whole AGW thing is exaggerated. I sincerely doubt that a portion of the population that high can be considered an "extreme fringe" view (that is, a very fringe view). Describing this common a view as "extreme fringe" is like describing a gallon jug at 40% capacity "almost entirely empty". Sorry, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water. Macai (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of milk? We are talking about a specific Delingpole blog posting, where he is making fringe claims about DEFRA. This has nothing to do with whether global warming is exaggerated or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, Wikipedia has gone downhill if some hack's blog is now a "reputable source". WTF. ChrisO has nailed it. Extreme views don't become mainstream just because some guy blogs it at the Tele instead of at his own blog. A wanker is still a wanker. Grace Note (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence

Kim removed:

It is described as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK.

Sourced to: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. "Memorandum submitted by Andrew Montford", The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Hansard, Session 2009-2010, retrieved 6 May 2010.

May I return this as "Montford describes it as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK"? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good me. As long as it's clear that this is Montford's opinion I'm good with it. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? It is not a Hansard publication.. Please try to get this right. -- 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisO (talk • contribs)

Maybe I'm missing somehting, the way it's currently referenced, there's no mention of it being a Hansard pub. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin seems to have addressed my concern - the original reference above referred to Hansard, which was the focus of my comment. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the blog author's unsubstantiated description of his own blog has any place in the article, and certainly not in the beginning of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed

If anything is clear from all this discussion, it's that there's simply no consensus that this material belongs in the article. I won't reiterate my objection to this material or that of others, as it's all laid out in gory detail repeatedly above. I'll just say that: something can be reliably sourced but not worth mentioning, either because it's off topic, WP:COATRACKy, etc. Please find consensus--(!or a least majority support)--if you'd like to have this stuff in there. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NB: As I said in my edit summary, I'll self revert upon request. I think I said if requested by an "uninvolved party", but let me change that to "anyone". Yilloslime ^T_C 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, there was no consensus to remove it either. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the burden to find consensus is on the those editors seeking to include contentious material. We don't throw whatever we want into an article, and then require that there be consensus for removal before taking it out. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you revert yourself, YS. Parking here the material you removed in the meantime: [9]

The blog has come to public attention several times in connection with the global warming debate. In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

In February 2010, the Daily Mail reported that Paul Dennis, a British climate scientist, had posted an account on Bishop Hill of his interview with police concerning their investigation into the unauthorized release of emails in November 2009 from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I said I would so I will, but could you please explain why you think you're opinion should trump that of just about everyone else here (Cla excluded). Please address the weight/COATRACK issue rather than falling back on the specious argument that the sourcing is reliable. Also I request that you explain how consensus works: Is it proper procedure to put contentious material in an article and then require consensus before it's removed, or should one build consensus first, then insert the material. Thanks.Yilloslime ^T_C 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to return the material. It's not my opinion, it's the policies. V says that these are reliable sources, so we would need a good reason to keep them out, especially in a very short article that needs expanding. As for consensus, I don't know how it functions on a page like this. All I know is that people arriving at the page shouldn't be insulted. Where that's happening, consensus kind of breaks down, so it's best just to stick to the content policies very rigidly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you haven't answered my questions; I'd expected more of an admin and prolific editor. We both know that it isn't as simple as --to paraphrase the argument i'm hearing--"all verifiable factoids from reliable sources must be included in an article." WP:NPOV is also a policy, albeit more difficult one to apply than WP:RS, and the sub-policy of WP:WEIGHT must be dealt with. And we both know that this isn't supposed be how consensus works, either. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree and I share your disappointment, particularly as I've worked constructively with SlimVirgin on other articles. Consensus-building was already underway in #Merge Proposal above. That has now been completely disrupted. The responsible approach would have been to contribute to that discussion and come to an amicable conclusion about what content to include. Now we're back to square one, and further needless controversy has been generated. All this could have been avoided with a more tactful approach that took account of the current discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And this entire thing could be avoided if people would (a) stick to the content polices, and (b) stop discussing other editors. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I can't find where Kim objected to the D/Mail paragraph on the grounds that the Mail didn't actually name the blog (simply described it), but I've tweaked the sentence so it says what the source says, [10] though I wish Kim had just done that himself instead of tagging. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requirement to read article talkpages?

I have made this point elsewhere, but unless there is a policy or guideline that insists anyone who wishes to edit an article is required to review the talkpage (and presumably the history, just in case) that I am unaware of - possible, but I have been looking - making such assertions is bollocks. I would draw people's attention to the article as SlimVirgin would likely have found it, with particular note to the second sentence within the template, where the talkpage option is the second one. To question someone's motives for wishing to edit an article (per AGF it is because they wish to improve the encyclopedia) and then upbraid them for not immersing themselves within the culture of the particular editing environment before doing so is frankly laughable. I suggest that the established editors here review their (initial) comments and ask themselves if they were likely to be conducive toward producing a good editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New source

Ian Dale's Guide to Political Blogging appears to be a reliable source and includes some information on this blog. Hopefully, we can get this information added to the article soon. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked at this. It's just a biographical profile in three short paragraphs of Andrew Montford himself. It's also rather old (2007); it says nothing whatsoever about the anti-climate science activism for which the blog is now used, so I presume it was written before Montford turned it into an anti-science blog. It actually says nothing at all about the blog itself but describes Montford's background and his reasons for getting into blogging. It might well be relevant (though I'm not sure it's current) to Andrew Montford but it's not at all relevant here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be relevant to the "Founder" or "Background" section. In order to get this article up to Good Article standard, it would need to have one of those sections. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has no chance whatsoever of getting to GA status, given the paucity of content. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? You didn't know about Dale's book until I brought it up here. How are you so sure? Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure because (I guess unlike certain other people I could mention) I've actually made an effort to find reliably sourced material about the blog itself, as opposed to these passing mentions that have been added to fluff up the article. It's only been mentioned a handful of times in passing by the media. Dale's mention of it is nothing more than a brief biographical summary of the blogger, with negligible and out of date info about the blog itself. With that kind of extremely thin sourcing it blatantly fails WP:WEB, let alone the good article criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was able, with help, to get DeSmogBlog to Good Article with similar sourcing. Wouldn't you at least like to try? Couldn't we build the article up as much as possible, as SlimVirgin just helped to do, with the sources available, and then see what an independent Good Article reviewer thinks? Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think DeSmogBlog deserves Good Article status as it currently stands, since there's too much fluff in there. But that's a side issue. The bottom line with this article is that the sourcing is hopelessly weak and tangential to the blog itself. DeSmogBlog actually tells us something about the blog. Here, the equivalent of DeSmogBlog#Notable issues or media mentions comprises the entire article - and they're not even "notable" media mentions, they're literally every media mention, the entire handful of them. The article would be more accurately titled List of media mentions of the Bishop Hill blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know, the first page says "Supported by APCO worldwide" which makes me suspicious. APCO is PR firm that's worked with the Tobacco Industry... I can't actually see the page you linked to, so I have no comment on whether how significant BH's coverage in the book is. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, if you could send me your email address via my email link [11] I can send you the text. I wouldn't mind a second opinion on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

General comment, and with the caveat that I have not read the voluminous comments since I last looked in: the article is definitely fleshier, and I see no glaring problems. However, I think there is too much on Campbell. I also would like to remind everybody east of the pond that "Channel 4" means nothing in the U.S. Every major city has one. I'm still not satisfied that the British Channel 4 is any more reliable than the numerous, sometimes tacky TV websites that we have in the states. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Britain's Channel 4 News - the source in this case - has a very strong reputation as one of Britain's best news broadcasters. You don't need to worry on that score. Bear in mind that we only have three main TV news broadcasters in this country, namely the BBC, Sky News and ITN (who produce Channel 4 News). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it may be good to make that clear to the U.S. readers that this is the supremo British Ch. 4. Most US readers will just think, "what? A TV station website"? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

General comment

I just looked over the comments, and I have a suggestion. Rather than squabble over every single source, why don't we just concede, just for the sake of argument, that they are OK and reliable sources? I think that even if you do so, a good case for merger can be made. I wonder whether it's really necessary to expend such energy over every single source being proposed here for this article, when at the end of the day these don't seem to stack up to very much and the article probably should be merged. Do you think that is possible? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ScottyBerg. I am not particularly bothered about the current state of the sources. However, this article is horribly WP:Coatracky. It takes the most minor mention of the blog and becomes a coatrack for Montford's position. The blog mentions in the sources are so utterly minor and insignificant that it is a clear merge candidate. Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I've saying all along. But just to clarify: "reliably sourced" doesn't automatically mean "should be included in the article." Whether this article is merged or not (and my !vote is for merging), we still need to guard against it being a WP:COATRACK. WP:NPOV is policy and needs to inform our content decisions, and sometimes that means we exclude factoids even when they are impeccably sourced. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to deal with coatracking and NPOV when it is not across multiple articles. Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a similar situation in several articles. Much of it seems to do with this Campbell fellow. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotty's right. Building this article up with reliable sources is separate from the issue of whether the material would in the end be better merged elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something, we're all in agreement, right? Yilloslime ^T_C 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I see a lot of comments from people who don't like the sourcing. I'm not saying the sources are good or bad, myself, I just would like to cut to the chase on this thing. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem arises because some people want to see it gone for political reasons. It confuses the issue and sets people at each other's throats. We should be deciding on the merits of the article alone, and deciding how best practice and comparable articles suggest we treat it. A period of calm reflection would give those editors who want to keep it time to seek out sources without all this fuss. Then perhaps we could ask for input from uninvolved editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This won't do. Notice how one-sided you are? Some people want to *keep* it for political reasons. We should be deciding on the merits of the article alone - sounds good, but then give those editors who want to keep it time to seek out sources - so you're admitting that there are people who want to keep it regardless of its quality? This blog, the author, and his book together make one moderately-notable article. Seperately, they aren't notable. You're really arguing that all three should exist, independently, and that the only "politics" is coming from those who want to merge them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that people want to keep it for political reasons too. The reason I'm focusing on the anti-side is that they're the ones I see being aggressive here. As for the argument, personally I would write one article, probably about the person. My only point is that the politics are overshadowing what should be a fairly simple decision, and maybe some time and space would allow other people to make that decision without the interference. A hopeless request, but I make it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the request is indeed hopeless. What should have been a simple merge of this articles content into the person has been flamed up by those who can't bear to see this deleted, entirely for political reasons. If you're looking for a quiet debate, then fine: help us merge this stuff over there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Putting aside the question of motive, maybe we can reconsider the merger question. See below. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

In this two edits [12] the {{rs}} template is added. WP:VERIFY states in a footnote the following "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" [13]. I.e. the source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/ written by a professional (journalist) James Delingpole and hosted at the domain telegraph.co.uk (a news organization ...). So this is a WP:RS source per WP:RS as outlined in WP:VERIFY. Nsaa (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Delingpole's blog column meets the definition of a RS. As long as it is attributed, Delingpole can be used as a source in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. That newspapers may call columns "blogs" doesn't affect their status as reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Which of course is contrary to what WP:V says. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Red herring. Ok sure, remove the {{rs}} tag, BUT: just because the source is reliable, that doesn't mean we should be citing it. WP:RS defines the pool of sources that could be included, but the policy of WP:NPOV tells us which of those should be included, and how we use them. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Reliable sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking. Since Delingpole reprinted Solomon's error-filled column without bothering to fact-check it, his blog fails the "reputation for fact checking" criterion for a reliable source. Clearly his blog can't be considered a reliable source for anything other than his opinion. So you need to make a case for the notability of Delingpole's opinion. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is The Daily Telegraph, with in-text attribution used because it's an opinion piece. Its reliability stems from the Telegraph's decision to publish it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave aside Delingpole's reliability for a moment. The line in question says: "In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.[3]" The problem with is is that doesn't say anything about the blog itself - the subject of the line is a grant by DEFRA to a charity. This is a textbook example of a coatrack: something that "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." There's no indication of why this claim is in any way significant or notable or that it had any impact whatsoever. Delingpole seems to be the only media source to have mentioned it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Well said. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the Telegraph is using the blog as a source, and acknowledging it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph is using which blog as a source? Delingpole is giving Montford a hat tip in his blog post. The Telegraph isn't using Delingpole as a source, they're hosting his blog, much like Seed Magazine hosts PZ Myers blog. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's column is one just like any other in terms of being a reliable source: see WP:V, footnote 4, and above. He is citing Bishop Hill as a source: "But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes.... That would merit a sentence like "Bishop Hill is sometimes mentioned as a source of information by Delingpole<cite a few>". Which is the information pertinent to this particular article. the rest is simply coatracking an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual to use sources like that e.g. DeSmogBlog#Notable issues or media mentions. It would be obtuse to say the blog was mentioned by this and that journalist, but without telling readers what the mention was about. Imagine an article about a novel: "X is a 2010 novel by John Smith. We can tell you who reviewed it but we can't tell you much of what they said, because that would be about the content of the novel, not the novel itself."

It's true that we have to watch out for articles turning into platforms, but a brief mention of what was on the blog that others felt was notable is fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a strawman as well as trying to move the goalposts... With a book-review the content of the review is directly related to and about the book. Thus a rather different thing. As for the DeSmogBlog: Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.... Do you really think that i believe that coatracking is good because it is in a "pro-" article? No - i don't. In fact i believe that DeSmogBlog contains many of the same problems as we see here....(and i have made that view clear before).

It is really very very simple: What the blog is quoted for is not pertinent, it is that it is quoted that is interesting. Otherwise it is simply a coatrack for discussing/presenting issues without due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, can you point me to a policy or guideline that supports your view that, when writing about blogs and similar, we're not supposed to include reference to their content, even when that content has been referenced by reliable secondary sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of not including reference to their content, as of whether that reference is significant and notable to understanding the ostensible topic of the article, i.e. the blog itself. See my comment below. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First: While WP:COATRACK is not a policy, it is rather relevant here. Second: I did cite one policy that i find pertinent: WP:UNDUE - Third: There is no policy stating that we shouldn't discuss the sex-life of bees, in detail, in an article about book-binding. Finally: ChrisO surmises correctly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And why is it notable that "the Telegraph is using the blog as a source, and acknowledging it"? By the same logic, every time this blog is mentioned by the media we should be logging it here, right? Something like the Campbell incident does appear to have some notability because it had some wider repercussions than just a media mention. This on the other hand is a claim that has been mentioned in passing by one source and has not gone any further - no wider controversy or even any mentions by any other media sources. The problem with the logic being followed by including this reference is that it implies that every time the blog is mentioned, no matter how trivially, it should be recorded in this article. Undue weight, anyone? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One additional point - it's wrong to say "the Telegraph is using the blog as a source." Delingpole's blog is hosted by the Telegraph. It is not part of the Telegraph. As I've said previously, Delingpole's blog is available only on the Telegraph's website, and is not archived by services such as Factiva or ProQuest. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline that I know of that differentiates between a news organization's online and print content. V specifically says that content may be on- or offline. The Press Complaints Commission in the UK recently ruled that there was no difference as far as they were concerned either, [14] and there certainly isn't in law. We need to follow the policies here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked here. I'm not saying there is such a policy or guideline. I'd appreciate it if you could address my point about the triviality of Delingpole's mention and whether you think that we're supposed to log every media mention of this blog, which I think would be an absurdity. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We're waaaaaaaaay off track here, devoting megawatts of bandwith to whether or not a tiny tag should be added to a footnote. But let me just throw in my two cents. As I read our policies, and I admit I probably haven't read all of them, blogs aren't reliable sources. I think the spirit as well as the letter of that policy needs to be enforced, and it's absurd to talk about something coming to "public attention" when it's really just one skeptic blogger quoting another skeptic blogger. I'd either take it out completely or make it just a passing reference, maybe in a sentence like, "The BH blog has been quoted by climate skeptic bloggers James Delingpole, Arthur Cupcake and Melanie Rugelach." That can go either in this article or whether this winds up, if there is a merger, as is the real issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we should park this issue for now. Let's deal with the issues one at a time. First priority has to be the disposition of this article, i.e. the proposed merger. Let's get that out of the way, using the present content, then go through the merged content with a fine-tooth comb to see what we need to retain in its new home. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)