Talk:Jem Bendell

Biography? CV?
Let's have the usual dates: Born, Graduated, First smoked tobacco, etc. 75.84.183.87 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Need more info to judge
A man who writes so pessimistically about the climate (and that may be right), we need to know his qualifications to consider it. On his website at his university it says that he has a doctorate, but the subject is not stated.

Would anyone who has information about his background please inform this. We need to know if he is educated and trained in science and statistics to believe this. Without such a background, it can be difficult to take this seriously. We need to be enlightened and often intimidated, but if it is very exaggerated we do not need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:E6E3:0:5911:FDEB:4569:6903 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He is not a scientist. Deep Adaptation is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Notable climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have dismissed it for lacking scientific rigor and making unsubstantiated claims, and even Bendell himself calls it a "guess." His perspective is WP:FRINGE, but only gets media attention because he makes outrageous claims (note that the Vice article treats him as an authoritative source even after debunking his work early on). The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested page move/notability issue
I suggest moving much of the content here to a page on Deep Adaptation (either the specific paper or maybe the general concept if that exists). I have not found significant sourcing to establish notability for Bendell as an individual, and I am unsure whether he satisfies any of the alternative notability criteria. Where coverage does exist on him, it almost always has to do with his paper, rather than with him as an individual. In contrast, I've collected a number of sources over at User talk:Jlevi/Deep Adaptation that I believe are more than sufficient to show sustained coverage of that work in particular.

Thoughts? Jlevi (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you wrote the first draft, and, you okayed that draft. Do you have a position on this? Jlevi (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge This is a routine CV, the only possible notability is the self published a paper which isn't an RS in itself, except to the extent actual RSs discuss it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is fairly straightforward. I think that the two users I pinged no longer edit on Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with merge processes. Is there some sort of comment period that should be done? Or, since it is a pretty simple decision, is it reasonable to go ahead and do? Jlevi (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MERGE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually: I think this 2020 Bloomberg article and this February 2019 Vice article may have sufficient coverage of Bendell as an individual to satisfy WP:GNG. Do you feel that this is sufficient? I am not wedded to the idea and am open to your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those two and the 2008 NYT article pass GNG and estabilish WP:N. Wikipedia has a low bar for notability and this person passes it. It could be that deep adaptation or some other concept is also notable, or maybe that concept already exists in some other Wikipedia article. I have no objection to content being cut or moved from this article. In general, once GNG is established, even biographies which are only a few sentences long remain without merging.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially after finding the additional sources in the section below, I'm glad I spent some time looking further. Looks like a keep to me. Jlevi (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree, Deep Adaptation as a concept deserves its own page. Thanks for doing this. (Apols for the late reply, the Wikipeda talk pages are a bit of a black art for me, still, and you don't get notifications so I missed your post.) Ndaniau (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jlevi (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible additional sources

 * this February 2019 Vice article
 * 2009 NYT article on luxury (one-paragraph reference) (added)
 * Extinction Rebellion Is Creating a New Narrative of the Climate Crisis (NYT opinion article, mentioned alongside 'The Uninhabitable Earth' and Franzen's New Yorker piece)
 * Blockchain Leaders to Gather at the United Nations in Geneva This Month Bendell likes Bitcoin? (AP News Oct 2018, press release)
 * Uncovering Davos Ma'am (Al Jazeera, 2013, opinion, written by Bendell)
 * Bitcoin tuition fee payment at Cumbria University (BBC, 2014)
 * World Book Day (Chris Evans Breakfast show, Mar 2014, 3 hour interview including some amount of interview with Bendell) Note: I can't tell how much time is given to Bendell, because the episode isn't available here
 * Professor Sees Climate Mayhem Lurking Behind Covid-19 Outbreak (Bloomberg News, March 2020)
 * New Climate Debate: How to Adapt to the End of the World (Bloomberg, 2018)

Jlevi (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Verification tag
Could someone take a look at this page to see if the verification tag is still necessary? I feel like it's good, but I've been editing and staring at sources related to this subject a little too long to be sure. Maybe, , or , or ? You all edited this page recently but lightly. Are there any significant statements that feel like they need to be sourced? Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I could not see any so I removed the tag. But then I did not check all the cites at the end of paragraphs to see if they covered the previous sentences. Also someone else has suggested his date of birth could be added and cited.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Progress to B-class?
Hey ! Thanks for rating this article. Any suggestions on which among the six criteria need the most work to move this to B-class? Jlevi (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I think probably fix that ref first. I'll take a look. I've never rated an article before.   scope_creep Talk  07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would take that deep section and ref it properly, or potentially take it out, or explain why he is doing that. You can only discuss a persons work if done by third parties and it is verifiable as a historical discussion point. I would expand his life, need family, his early history, why he is doing it, some discussion of outside forces that provides him direction, other aspects of his life, motivation. scope_creep Talk  07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I updated the page, using newer references up through 2023
For the past several days I have been updating this page, especially after reading the 2023 long article on Jem Bendell in GQ magazine and taking a look at his 526 page book published in 2023. After doing a lot of editing, this morning I finally looked at the intro para — and made some important changes. At 13:59, 14 September 2023 in the History tab of the article itself I explained what I did to the intro para:

I made major changes in the opening para. Most important is I used a 2023 reputable reference, as it is the most inclusive history to date. As well, I removed the weasley modifiers ("hypothetical" and "perceived dangers", as while these may have been appropriate several years ago, they are no longer. As well, the sense that "deep adaptation" is scaled to the individual and community levels, rather than "systemic change" globally, and also "positive" are important distinctions in the DA concept)

What inspired me to begin editing this page a couple days ago was something had me want to see this wikipedia page, and I knew his "deep adaptation" paper and concept had been very controversial. So I looked at how the controversy was handled. One para was very unbalanced, and even the quote by Michael Mann (which remains) had no reference attached to it. So I had to track down the reference for the quote (which was accurate). And then I easily found another senior climate scientist who agreed with Bendell. So I changed an unbalanced, uncited para into a balanced and cited one, per wikipedia standards.

I don't think I did much, if anything, to the long "Career" section, but what gets me to want to look at a wikipedia page often is when I read something in the news about a controversy — and so I depend on wikipedia to give me the basics of the controversy in a balanced way, and especially with references that I can then click on myself to learn more. I believe this page is now something that I, as an experienced volunteer wikipedia editor, would deem worthy of wikipedia's aim for high standards. I look forward to hearing if anybody is out there who watches this Talk page, and therefore can give the whole page, and especially the short intro para, a look-see. Cbarlow (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

One more thing: Right after I edited the intro para to remove the outdated modifiers, eg. "hypothetical", my husband brought to my attention a powerful article in The Guardian that was posted yesterday, Sept 13, with the title and tagline, "Climate crisis Earth ‘well outside safe operating space for humanity’, scientists find. First complete ‘scientific health check’ shows most global systems beyond stable range in which modern civilisation emerged." I normally stay out of wikipedia pages that have to say something about "climate change", but I will be very disappointed if some climate-denier paid hack comes into this page to add back the "hypotheticals". Here is the url of The Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/earth-well-outside-safe-operating-space-for-humanity-scientists-find

A few more changes, with approval by Jem Bendell
I asked Jem Bendell to carefully look at this page and, if necessary, suggest edits to improve the factual nature and completeness. I have just finished adding the small changes, plus one new para that he suggested. All have good references that I also included. Cbarlow (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reporter?
Jem here. The preview in google says that wikipedia says I am a reporter. I'm not. 180.249.184.102 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that comes from Wikipedia. The "Short description" for this article says "British professor of sustainability leadership" and that's used within Wikipedia in a similar way to what you're seeing on Google, so I think the Google "Reporter" is coming from elsewhere. Ahh, I just used the 3 dot menu beside it, and selected "About this result", and it says "Source: This content comes from the Knowledge Graph, Google's collection of information about people, places and things" -Lopifalko (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)