Talk:Iain Dale

Guido?
Isn't Guido Fawkes the Pseudonym for political blogger Iain Dale? Or is that vice versa. Think this should be included as informed rumour at the least.--JamalQi 09:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no, Guido Fawkes is Paul Staines 131.111.195.11 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

18DS
I note that there is a minor skirmish going on concerning some of the activities of 18 Doughty Street. I don't know whether the information is defamatory, as one anonymous contributor has claimed, but it does strike me as being a bit off topic. Dale is very much the "front man" of 18DS, but he doesn't own it, nor is he personally responsible for its activities. I think that stuff about 18DS really belongs in the appropriate article. Laurence Boyce 10:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dale is very much the public face of the programme, appearing frequently in mass media where he is introduced equally as "Conservative blogger Iain Dale" and "director of the new internet conservative TV channel 18 Doughty Street". He is much better known in that role than either Shakespeare or Montgomerie. MarkThomas 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned user calling himself "Iain Dale" editing his own page?
Several different IP number-users calling themselves "Iain Dale" at the end of comment lines are busy deleting referenced material and adding in their own text. I propose Iain - if it is you - that you sign in - it only takes a moment - so that we can discuss things with you properly. If it really is you, then you are not best placed to edit your own article. For example, take a look at Dealing with edits by the subject for more information. If it is not you, and these unsigned edits are just straightforward vandalism, then the page could be blocked from editing by new and unsigned users. So it would be best to register. In the meantime I propose we revert all the unsigned changes. Thanks. MarkThomas 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Followup - unsigned user continuing to make changes claiming to be Iain Dale - have requested on the IP page that he sign in and discuss. If we don't know this is the Iain Dale, how can we treat these edits except to revert? MarkThomas 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody could create an Iain Dale user account. Changes stand or fall on their content, not on who the author claims to be (which we cannot verify). Nssdfdsfds 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fairly clear that the user below is the Iain Dale - are you claiming for some reason that he isn't? This can easily be resolved by asking him to email Wikipedia. MarkThomas 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia and didn't know of the existence of this page until tonight. I have indeed edited the page to remove inaccurate and potentially libelous material posted by Mark Thomas. I have left in some of what he wrote at the beginning of the entry about Tim Montgomerie and Joseph Loconte, apart from deleting the word 'extreme' in front of the phrase 'right wing Heritage Foundation'. It is a perfectly mainstream think tank. Words like extreme do not belong on factual profiles.

I have deletd the following passage: "The channel is designing and planning US-style attack-ads (not previously seen in the UK) in the upcoming elections for Mayor of London; users of the channel's website are invited to vote on choices including criticism that Livingstone supports "gay rights", or that he has plotted terrorist acts with Yusuf al-Qaradawi[3]. Dale has stated on his own blog that he is gay."

Fact: The Ken Livingstone advert is being screened next week, not during the election period Fact: The ad campaigns are managed by Tim Montgomerie. I present programmes. I do have no input into the Ad Campaign. Put it on his Wikipedia entry if he has one. Fact: There is no criticism of Livingstone's support for gay rights Fact: There is no assertion that Livingstone has plotted terrorist acts (indeed, your allegation that we are saying thgat is as libellous as our suggestion would be, if in fact we had suggested it, which we haven't (I sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby!) Fact: We contrast Livingstone's support for gay rights with his friendship with Islamist extremists who think all homosexuals are deviants and should be shot. Fact: Yes I am gay, but the way you word it here is deeply offensive when allied with the previous statement.

I hope you will now understand why I removed it.

I apologise for any transgression of Wikipedia policy. I am not familar with its functionality. Now that I am, I shall ensure I am logged in before I edit anything.

If you have any further queries Mark I would be happy to discuss them with you. My email address is on my blog. In addition, we'd be delighted to have you on as a guest on 18 Doughty Street.

Iaindale 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for logging in Iain and for taking the time to check over the article about you. Of course, you are entitled to remove anything defamatory or critical. Also note that I am not the TV left-wing comededian Mark Thomas, we just happen to share the same name. However, you should not be changing anything on the article that you happen to disagree with or feel puts you in an insufficiently good light - that is for other editors to do. I am reviewing the attack ads more carefully to see what Wikipedia should say about them, but I do think they meet WP criteria for including in these articles because they are notable (first attack ads in the UK) and at least one of their targets (Ken Livingstone) is very notable. Thanks again for joining Wikipedia! MarkThomas 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as an ego article.Added by Iain Dale for self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.206.61 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Christian Conservatives" in Introduction
This content seems like original research, implying that Dale is linked to Christian Conservatives in a formal or ideological sense. Two people are listed, out of many dozens of contributors to 18 Doughty Street, and are described as Christian Conservatives. The selection of these two people is apparently arbitrary original research designed to present a particular POV, one which you have elucidated in your edits "Information of great interest to Dale-watchers", "Important: associates of Dale". Why is it important to pick out two people apparently at random and then choose to associate them with Dale? This blogger has decided that Dale's attack ads against Livingstone must in fact be motivated by 'associations' with Nick Boles. This attack is an equally arbitrary process that says Dale works with x, therefore he must be "linked to" in some way whomever x might be. You could use identical logic to link him to leftish Cameronites as you would to your arbitrary decision to link him to US Conservatives, as the lead of an article about someone who exised long before he worked on 18 Doughty Street. It just smells of original research. Could you explain your edits please, MarkThomas. Nssdfdsfds 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho hum. NSSS-whatever is now discussing as he is up against 3RR - normally he just goes right ahead and wacks whatever pro-Tory comments in he feels appropriate. Dale's links are well known and frequently discussed on his blog - it's discourteous to not share them with WP readers generally. As with the new attack ads, the aim here from certain editors is to censor Wikipedia articles to gloss the actions of certain extreme-right British conservatives. MarkThomas 08:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please be civil, and address the comments, not the person. I have not made any pro-Tory comments whatsoever. OTOH, you have repeatedly referred to people as 'extreme-right' (his site doesn't show anything that could remotely be called extreme-right) for no reason other than they are members of Conservative party. Being a Conservative is not 'extreme right'.


 * If you have links that are 'well-known' to prove your allegations: just add them. Otherwise, forget it. Nssdfdsfds 12:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My source is any typical day on Iain Dale's blog. Do you ever read it? Also frankly I think the civil warning from you is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle. MarkThomas 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, 'any typical day on Iain Dale's blog' is *not* a source. Sources are links to any single page proving a statement made in the article. A single link. It's not too much to ask. Nssdfdsfds 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How can it not be a source when the most known thing about Iain is his blog, and that's how he gets introduced in his many TV appearances as "Conservative blogger Iain Dale" - or are you arguing that the most important thing about him is 18 Doughty Street, in which case, we should re-introduce the material about that. Please confirm which it is. Thanks. MarkThomas 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like saying BBC News is a source for the 2005 general election. It might be, but you need to provide *SPECIFIC* links. Just saying vaguely 'look at his website, that proves my POV' isn't good enough. In this case we appear to have been rather sidetracked from the key point: you have attempted to link agnostic Dale specifically with the Christian right, but haven't given any good reason why you have done so, rather than any number of dozens of other conservatives of various leanings that you could choose to link him to. Nssdfdsfds 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the user MarkThomas really be involved so closely with this page?
I suggest he takes a step back and allow someone without such obvious politcal bias to edit this page.


 * Can you sign in when you comment please? Your comment is against Wikipedia policies - please read and reflect on WP:CIVIL. Thanks. MarkThomas 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Having reflected on WP:CIVIL, I note the following:


 * More serious examples include:


 * Calling for bans or blocks


 * So my first response is to suggest, AGAIN, that you take a step back from this.


 * Secondly, your general attitute on this discussion page is most unpleasant, but being a civil person (in line with wikipedia guidelines) I steered clear of mentioning this, I hope you will reflect on this and read thepages that you yourself have linked to.


 * Thirdly, if saying that someone is displaying bias (several examples on this page) is offensive, then you are very thin skinned and also threaten to bring down civilised debate on wikipedia. --London1982 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, there's no prohibition against saying that people are biased. At least I couldn't see it on WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. If you believe a user is demonstrating bias then do you think it should just be ignored? Secondly, please assume good faith, especially with new users WP:AGF. Thirdly, it is not considered nice to greet brand new users with threats of permanent bans - while new users can be blocked for incivility or vandalism, it is not going to be a permanent block for a first offence. Nssdfdsfds 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop removing edits on talk pages that are nothing to do with you (if they aren't - I smell a sockpuppet!) and try to learn some manners. There would be no need for any of this if your comments weren't so bloody rude in the first place. MarkThomas 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments bloody rude? Which ones would those be? The user's criticising you, not me. The fact is that you have added edits to this article such as '[Dale's channel criticised Ken Livingstone because he] supports "gay rights", or that he has plotted terrorist acts with Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Dale has stated on his own blog that he is gay.' These edits are not based in fact, and are quite obviously biased, and contrary to NPOV. You have also smeared the subject of the article by sayin he is linked to the "extreme right-wing US Heritage Foundation)" (first of all making the link is a smear, and secondly referring to it as "extreme right-wing" is biased POV pushing), and then said 'Please don't remove this accurate material without discussion - and if you are Iain Dale, please register and discuss', yet subsequently when I pointed out that rejecting content because you don't know who it is proves nothing, you attack me about it on my user page. Nssdfdsfds 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected page, make sure page doesn't violate BLP
I've protected this page until this edit war is resolved. The entering of any unsourced, negative information is a violation of WP:BLP and is not allowed. Once people here work out their issues, let me know and I'll lift the protection. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material
I dropped by to look at what qualifications Iain has, but noticed the entire section has no references. Not much use really. Should it be included at all if there are no sources quoted? --91.104.6.253 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no truth in the fact that Iain Dale was the first openly gay Tory parliamentary candidate.Dale was selected to fight North Norfolk in the 2005 General Election,but in fact Derek Laud was selected to fight Tottenham in 1997.Laud did not go on to contest the election,so a better distiction would be for the article to state Dale was the first openly gay Tory to contest an election,which Laud did not.But Laud is the first openly gay Conservative candidate.The information comes from the Wikipedia article on Derek Laud,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Laud

Paul Radbourne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.90.62 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Specialist Speakers extlink
Could those adding the Specialist Speakers extlink explain why it should be added in terms of the External links standard. The only possible reason I can think of is if Iain Dale is an owner of Specialist Speakers, in which case that should be mentioned in the main text instead. Rwendland (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am on their books as a speaker. They book me for speaking engagements. Simple as that. So why shouldn't there be a link as it is part of the work I do, just as Total Politics is? (Iaindale (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Because that constitutes advertising. The external links should be about the topic of the article itself, not anything remotely related. Also, since you are closely related to the topic of the article, you should read over WP:COI to learn about how to edit with a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
Is it worth mentioning criticism of Iain Dale? See, , and. Computerjoe 's talk 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Those sources are all blogs, which are not in general considered a reliable enough source for WP. Rwendland (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

weekly evening presenter
What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Provocative statements"
I have removed the passage beginning "Dale was known for provocative statements..." on his 'Iain Dale's Diary' blog. As it stood, only Dale's blog was cited, which is insufficient for establish notability. There was a minor edit war over the inclusion of this passage about two years ago, with a bot suggesting it was vandalism and contained BLP issues. Using the terms contained in the passage about Dale's various comments an editor has considered provocative does not reveal that the mainstream/RS media has picked up on them, of whatever strip. There is no basis which has anything to do with Wikipedia for restoring the passage. 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

'Puff Pieces' or are these profiles meant to accurately reflect the individual
This profile is rather sanitised CV that does not reflect the character aberrations and the extent of smear campaigning that this individual has conducted. Surely this should be properly reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.143.70 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iain Dale. 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:
 * Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20111103131158/http://politicalpromise.co.uk/2011/04/14/interview-with-iain-dale-part-1/ to http://politicalpromise.co.uk/2011/04/14/interview-with-iain-dale-part-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iain Dale. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204631/http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/167156.htm?ginPtrCode=10410 to http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/167156.htm?ginPtrCode=10410

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Slight issue with statement
While I am sure the cited statement "In 2005, he became the first openly gay Conservative candidate to contest a parliamentary election" was included in good faith I am not sure that it is strictly accurate. The 2005 election was also contested by the incumbent Conservative MP Alan Duncan whose article says "He became the first openly gay Conservative Member of Parliament, publicly coming out in 2002." Additionally Michael Brown, MP for Brigg and Cleethorpes unsuccessfully contested the new Cleethorpes seat at the 1997 election. His article notes that he "subsequently acknowledged his homosexuality" after he had resigned from a government post in 1994 "after The News of the World published pictures of him on holiday in Barbados with a 20-year-old gay man", though it is not 100% clear if this was before or after the 1997 election (the cited source dates from 1998). Thus I wonder if the statement needs to be modified perhaps to say something like "In 2005, he became the first non-incumbent openly gay Conservative candidate to contest a parliamentary election". Dunarc (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Structure of article
I have just restructured the article to make it look less like a CV which has meant several subheadings. I was wondering if this is a constant issue or just a one-off problem?

- HyacinthBucket55 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

LBC
Has he resigned from LBC? What does "stepping back" mean? I find that ambiguous. 82.35.219.102 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Stupidly I reviewed the only evidence available, which was an interview on LBC, and decided he had clearly resigned. So I edited the item to reflect that. But tuning this evening to LBC, find that he is back on the air. I cannot keep up with his flip-flopping. I leave the item to someone else to correct - because I failed to hear the beginning of his show, which presumably contained some kind of explanation. Also I am fed up with him.


 * Your tone very clearly shows that you're not here to uphold our content policies; I've reverted it. "Stepping back" is pretty clearly something of the form of a temporary leave of absence, but with – as you've said in your edit – no further communication from the subject, we won't get clarity, so restore to the shared wording. Please, in future, bear in mind the Biographies of living persons policy. James F. (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How silly to criticise me for asking for clarity. That's all I want.  Let your tone be seen clearly for what it is. 82.35.219.102 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)