Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

I believe the RfC supported #4

The summary at the top of the RfC said the weight seemed to support 4 for the climate change section but that has not been implemented that I can see. I'm not sure if that is the original 4 or the amended 4a - I'll assume the amended on and will substitute that in. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That was a very odd reading of the discussion and should have been challenged at the time of the close. There was no clear balance of support in favor of any of the options. Two individuals supported option 4, but a third regarded it as "duly representative of the most egregious undue weight violations." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52:, how did you arrive at a finding of consensus for #4, when it appears that only 3 of ~10 editors expressed support for it? Tarc (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the top summary by the closing editor. Also many editors expressed themselves as disagreeing with the others. I think at the very least there was a definite preponderance against the minimalist version in number 1 which corresponds most closely with what is in the article. The article had a lot of that section removed and an RfC was set up to decide if that was right - and then the RfC seems to have been ignored. Or does anyone here really think option 1 had the preponderance of weight for it? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit broke references to some extent, and more significantly introduced an opening sentence completely at odds with the source cited, purportedly supporting that sentence. Due weight isn't achieved by presenting what the source calls climate change denial and "confusing the facts about climate change" as though it was mere "criticizing". The RFC was over a year ago, and appears stale. Please discuss fully before implementing changes. . . dave souza, talk 14:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the RfC was over a year ago, it should be expected that significant changes may have occurred since it was closed. Blindly implementing the RfC (that probably should have been closed "no consensus") probably isn't the right step forward. What is wrong with the current section that we are trying to fix?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think due weight is achieved with it looking as the only thing he has done is clash with Abraham? Or should it say something about his trips and other stuff he has done as is in the cites in the other options in the RfC? That is what the RfC was about.Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point about covering his trips and other stuff. From the first source, for example, alone we should note that "The Heartland Institute sent him to crash the 2007 UN climate talks in Bali", his position as "chief policy adviser" to SEPPI, and his expressed fears of the global warming movement creating "a one-world government". . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Support moving forward from and fixing the current text rather than re-interpreting the RfC. Hugh (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If the close of the RfC is disputed, then the proper course is to hold a new and concise RfC with the proposed changes. Collect (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect Yes, that would have been reasonable to do a year ago. I don't see a benefit to doing that now.

@Dmcq We can fix the weight of Abraham without replacing the entire section, including parts unrelated to Abraham. It doesn't intuitively strike me as proper weight now, but I'd have to investigate the sources more extensively to see if my suspicions were correct. I have no objection to including more sourced content; what did you have in mind?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hah, I for one completely missed that all that was from last year ago. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To expand, I don't see a problem with including the 4 final paragraphs in this edit. I have some concerns they are representing Monckton's views uncontested, but we can fix that if need be. I do have a problem with the first paragraph. Why don't we add the 4a version to our existing content, instead of replacing it?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it clearly misrepresents at least one source, I don't think we can just add the 4a version, but as commented above, there's merit in going through the sources and adding what they cover. For example, NOAA responds to his fairly early global warming hiatus claim, and other points from his 25 March 2009 testimony. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, this is a biography and not a primary article on global climate - we should be careful not to give undue weight to a single issue here. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles which have a lot of discourse on the scientific issues and models, and thus there is little need to have extended material here. Collect (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dave, yea, that's what I had in mind. That looks like a good step forward to me. Thanks!

@Collect yes and no. Since Monckton is a widely known figure in the climate change denial movement, a reader would expect more than cursory coverage of his involvement, and we need to respect WP:FRINGE in that coverage. We're only talking about a few paragraphs, so I don't think extended material is something to be too worried about.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that people have been asking how I arrived at the conclusion - with the best of respects, this is well over a year ago now, and unfortuantely, I can't really remember. It seems a new RfC may be the best course of action here. Mdann52 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Top "Promulagator of Disinformation"

An editor haas added an opinion piece (Top 12 list) that describes the subject as a top "promulagtor of disinformation". I think this is a BLP violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In 2009 Mother Jones magazine included Monckton among the twelve most prominent promulgators of climate disinformation.

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 22, 2015.

The source is not "an opinion piece," it is not a list, it is not an editorial. The source is a feature article spanning 13 web pages. The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine), not an editor. The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed by Mother Jones (magazine) under "Top stories." The added content is a noteworthy, significant point of view and inclusion is required as per WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. The content added is not a WP:BLP violation, it is not in Wikipedia voice, it is perfectly verifiable WP:VER, and attributed in-text as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We understand you do not like the source. Thank you for not deleting the contribution. Thank you for your engagement on this article talk page. Hugh (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In case you did not realise it - listing anyone as "one of the top promulgators of anything" is intrinsically an opinion and is not a fact as people use the word "fact." Did this elide your notice or did you think it is a "fact" in the nature of "gravity pulls things together" is a fact? "Pount of view" is tha same as "opinion" as far as most people are concerned. Collect (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Any "top 10", "top 12", "top 100", etc., list is an opinion piece unless objective criteria are used and the "universe" of all entities considered is also objective. Perhaps we need to set up a centralized discussion for HughD's insistence on using an opinion column for a source of information about living people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The material was clearly attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. My understanding is that opinions may be included so long as they are attributed as such. The question then is whether Mother Jones's opinion is sufficiently important to merit inclusion. I don't think it is, but that's just one man's opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup - we include opinion about living people all that time - (e.g. Ronald Reagan was "An icon among Republicans, he ranks favorably in public and critical opinion of U.S. Presidents, and his tenure constituted a realignment toward conservative policies in the United States") The question is whether such opinions are significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One question here is whether the biased opinion is significant. WP:GOSSIP comes to mind. Another question is whether we must explicitly note that it is an opinion, not an "article".

Proposed text (to deal with the s3 conditions concern only, as significance is still in question):

In 2009, Mother Jones opined that Monckton was among the most prominent "promulgators of climate disinformation".

Seems the minimum required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, although significance is still in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How is commentary about one of the things which Monckton is most notable for 'gossip'? He has expressed his opinions regarding climate change, and others have responded. 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The person with the opinion appears (by-line) to be "Josh Harkinson" who is the person to whom the opinion ought to be attributed. As I do not find any reason to find him notably competent to adjudge such matters, we ought to at least give his name. Collect (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis in policy for including a red-linked author? The author is not notable in and of himself in Wikipedia terms. The source for Wikipedia purposes is a feature article, a special report, a top story in Mother Jones and clearly attributed in-text. This is not a blog post or letter to the editors. Of course a article in a magazine has one or more authors. Think of our readers, your inclusion of a read link author in-text would only needlessly distract our readers WP:RF. Do you favor including a red-linked author in-text whenever we reference an opinion from The New York Times? Do you favor a red-link author as a sort of red flag for this content? Hugh (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to oversell the ref, the article is an opinion piece. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is entirely adequate to support the contended content, a significant point of view that requires inclusion as per WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV, with in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I understand you do not like it. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in a Biography article, a BLP. This "significant point of view" accuses this living person of being a top global promulgator of disinformation. "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false." So the addition of this material says not that this person disagrees with the consensus on global warming but that he intentionally lies about it. This is most certainly undue, and a fringe view of this subject. Yes, we have plenty of other refs about dissenting opinion and denial etc. This is the only one the goes to the gutter with personal disparagement. It has no place in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The contended content does not accuse anyone of anything. The proposed content reports what a magazine said. The proposed content does not mention any gutter. It is entirely conformant with policy including WP:BLP. I understand you think Mother Jones (magazine) is fringe. I understand you don't like it. I'm sorry you don't like it. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's a particularly "fringe" opinion that Monckton is deliberately misrepresenting the facts among people familiar with the issue. Peter Hadfield, ex-science reporter for the BBC has had a long running challenge to Monckton about the inconsistencies in his arguments and posted extensive commentaries and open letters on the subject. While he doesn't explicitly say that Monckton is deceiving, he strongly implies is through the use of rhetorical questions and challenges to Monckton. Mother Jones is not off on a tangent on this point. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The Mother Jones piece is simply stating the facts, as the author has determined them. This view is not controversial in the UK (Monckton is British, after all), and is only "controversial" to denialists within the context of the global warming manufactroversy. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(od) The issue at hand is whether the material is an opinion - which must be stated and ascribed as such to the person stating it - or a matter of "fact". The issue is not whether the opinion is "fringe" or "widely held" - only whether it is, indeed, opinion. Collect (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The content is appropriate with attribution. It is, as noted above, a proper article in a proper source, and it is entirely in line with the facts as documented - Monckton has indeed been a prominent figure in the climate denial machine. Monckton may dispute the obvious fact that he promulgates disinformation, but there is overwhelming evidence that he does just that, my only quibble with the source is that I don't think he is a leading promulgator any more, I think that by now he is a figure of ridicule after exposes on the BBC and elsewhere and most denialists who want to retain some illusion of credibility probably won't go near him. We fix that by attribution. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So you think it is ok to allow someone to be described as an intentionally deceptive liar? But only quibble that he's no longer one of the biggest 12 liars on the planet. And that's not a BLP violation because its a properly attributed opinion, and its not Undue to call him deceiving because while the BBC "doesn't explicitly say that Monckton is deceiving" one of their writers has (in your opinion) implied it. This is entirely improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I find this opinion (top 12 global disinformationist) to be an exceptional claim, one that is designed only to disparage the subject of this BLP article. It is one that is not supported elsewhere. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Our article includes, in the lede, "In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to his advocacy of climate change denial," with four (4) references, please see. I understand you do not like the contended content. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC) The contended content is important because it supports a claim in our lede. Hugh (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion is that an accusation of "disinformation" (by definition intentional lying and deception) from an opinion piece somehow supports the well-ref'd "advocacy of climate change denial" in some sort of important way. I disagree finding it to be a BLP violation, as apparently do other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not my assertion. Seems to me something of finesse to claim that that a source that says one of the most significant voices in climate disinformation does not support other refs that say noteworthy advocate for climate change denial. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it is such an exceptional claim to say that Mother Jones claims that he is one of the most prominent "promulgators of climate disinformation." He has been a prominent climate skeptic for at least a decade, and has generated a fair amount of publicity and fact checking that has found his work deeply flawed. What specifically his ranking is, among the other "promulgators" isn't the point so much, as the fact that he is one of the most prominent, as determined by a largely reliable publication. There are other sources making largely the same claims about his unreliablity, ie the Guardian [1] "The results of Abraham's investigation are astonishing: not one of the claims he looks into withstands scrutiny. He exposes a repeated pattern of misinformation, distortion and manipulation, as he explains in the article he has written for the Guardian.".."Monckton has already been exposed for falsely claiming that he is a member of the House of Lords (the UK's upper legislative body). Now that his claims about the science have been exposed to such withering scrutiny, it's hard to see how he can bounce back in the eyes of anyone other than his ardent disciples." I don't think we should shy away from including such claims where they appear to be backed up, as is very much the case here. Counter arguments can of course be included, but omitting this seems to run contrary to NPOV policy. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate: not in a Biography article, a BLP. Your point about "misinformation" proves why this shouldn't be included. This opinion accuses a living person of being a top global promulgator of disinformation. "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false." So the addition of this material says not that this person disagrees with the consensus on global warming and denies it but that he intentionally lies about it. This is most certainly undue, and is not a common view of this subject. Yes, we have plenty of other critical refs about denial etc, no one except this ref says he doesn't believe what he says and is being intentionally deceptive. This is the only one the goes to personal disparagement. It has no place in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither "misinformation" nor "disinformation" nor "promulgator" is in the well-referenced, neutral, noteworthy contribution you deleted. Please WP:FOC. There is no BLP violation here; the claim is not in Wikipedia voice, it is attributed in text and verifiable. We understand you do not like the contribution. Please cite policy or guideline in support of your objection to this well-referenced, neutral, noteworthy contribution. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text is not a BLP violation, although it probably would be if we linked "climate change denial". However, the MJ source is am opinion piece, and legitimate sources are preferred. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The piece calls him a promulgator of disinformation, because that is what he is. WP:BLP does not require us to whitewash facts that the subject wishes were not true. That is not the same as calling hima liar (though he is, as the House of Lords letters prove). He could be a "useful idiot" who sincerely believes the claptrap he promotes. Admittedly that would require wilful fact-blindness, but there's a good deal of evidence supporting exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages,[2] including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• What do you want to change, specifically? It appears to be included in several articles after long debate. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See comment by User:Peter Gulutzan at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter is a climate denial apologist. We are entitled to ignore his kvetching. The source is just fine, it summarises the facts well enough and the reader can safely be left to judge any slant it might have. This is, after all, not a political left/right issue, it's a facts v. ideology issue - the fact that MJ is left-leaning and the ideologues are mainly from the far right is not actually relevant in this case because the science is neither left-leaning nor right-leaning. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy: insults and lies about me do not belong on this talk page, which is supposed to be about Monckton. Try defending the fact that you have repeatedly called Monckton a "swivel-eyed loon" on Wikipedia pages, rather than attacking other editors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I will bear that in mind if I am ever tempted to use them. I already defended the comment that Monckton is a swivel-eyed loon, multiple times, you might try rmemoving your fingers form your ears and stopping the chant of "laa laa laa I can't hear you" while you read this again :-) As I said last time, the term swivel-eyed loon is in common enough currency over here to describe a certain subset of right-wing politicians who espouse homophobia, europhobia and various other forms of nonsense, and it is reported to have originated within the conservative party itself. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I've read some silly things, but the argument that increase CO2 causes cooling knocks it out of the park. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Monckton was criticized for saying CO2 causes some warming, and by someone who thinks it causes cooling. Blog posts are worthless in BLPs and Guy shouldn't be pretending this one is evidence of something, but if it were, any cherry-picker could use it to show that Monckton is a global cooling denier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Whereas he is, ion fact, a climate change denier, as the sources say. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think the term "swivel-eyed loon" should be avoided in this case (even in talk page discussions) because of the fact that Monckton actually is swivel-eyed, due to his medical condition. It muddies the water too much when there's a danger of straying from mere rhetorical comment to the disparagement of someone's personal appearance which, in this case at least, is absolutely not the fault of the man himself. Prioryman (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be fair to indicate that the discussions about the Mother Jones editorial (in the guise of a "special report") are inconclusive. I've provided the minimum attribution necessary to indicate context, but I'm still not sure it belongs, even if the editorial were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic states that the Mother Jones list is helpful in identifying climate change deniers. That should eliminate most concerns of importance.

Given all that's available from reliable, independent sources in Monckton, it does seem undue to include so much detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

But the question posed is, is the MJ source suitable? And the reason the question has been asked is because a number of people, probably including the OP, want to purge all mention of the d-word form articles on climate denialists. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's suitable for The Atlantic. It's suitable for the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"the Mother Jones editorial" The source is clearly not an editorial, it is clearly a feature article. I'm sorry you are not happy with what the source says. Hugh (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Mother Jones source

Should the Mother Jones article "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" be included?

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 22, 2015.

1. No, omit altogether.
2. Yes, in the format In 2009, Josh Harkinson, writing in Mother Jones magazine, said Monckton was among the most vocal climate change deniers.
3. Yes, in an equivalent format but attributing to Mother Jones, as the publisher of this feature, rather than Josh Harkinson.
4. Yes, in a form other than as specified in 2 or 3. [Note: this option added after original RfC]

Opinions

• 3 (first preference); 2 (second preference). Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• 3 (first preference); 2 (second preference). Source is noteworthy for its commitment to coverage of our environment. Content is a noteworthy significant viewpoint WP:YESPOV. Source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones magazine. Source is used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. Author is not particularly notable in and of himself in Wikipedia terms. Hugh (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1. WP:NPOV violation as already discussed on WP:NPOVN. I wonder how many simultaneous discussions we need for this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. In fact, I see more support for including it than excluding it there, with the caveat that it would have to be properly attributed (as this RFC suggests).

I agree that that RfC is stepping on the two current discussions of this exact citation, the NPOV discussion above and the RS discussion here [3]. HughD is aware of both discussions yet decided to add the RfC here as well. Second, I have added a 4th option to the original 3. The original RfC basically offered only two, prescribed ways to add the reference. Other ways other than to leave the reference out exist and thus the RfC should not be inherently limiting. This suggests the RfC was not neutral in it's original presentation. Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 (prefer) or 2 - as I noted in the discussion at NPOVN, this source is referenced and treated as reliable/notable by some very high quality RS. It's a notable opinion, and should be included. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 1. Given the large number of sources that suggest the subject of the article has promoted climate change misinformation/denial I don't know that this particular reference is notable enough to be included. That topic should be decided in the above mentioned RS noticeboard discussion. However, assuming it is, I don't see why this wouldn't be grouped with other similar references with a sentence such as "... has been identified as a source of climate change misinformation by a number of sources [citations here]. Given other more neutral sources stating the same thing I'm not sure why MJ would warrant special mention vs acting as a backup source. Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)