Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Overhaul continued

I updated the lede according to the discussion on this talk page. Now that full protection is lifted, I would like to propose additional changes, although I note that there have been some edits today without corresponding discussion on the talk page.

1. In the section on Monckton on global warming, I have trouble with this paragraph:

Some right-wing media commentators interpreted the publication of his paper as a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change.[1] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."[2] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." The American Physical Society, however, was later compelled to remove the portions of its disclaimer about the opinions of the world scientific community and of its own Council, which had not in fact taken a position on Monckton's paper.[3] In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail".[4]

First of all, the only source cited for the first sentence is The Washington Times, not "some right-wing media commentators." Second, the Washington Times piece does not say that Monckton's paper as a sign that the APS abandoned its earlier support for scientific consensus. I'm not sure why this is cited here. What it does say is "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," Jeffrey Marque, editor of a forum of the physicists' society, says." That is what should be cited to the Washington Times, not a general statement about APS. The rest of the commentary about the APS is just coatrack to get in opposing views. A statement that APS affirmed its views and did not adopt Marque's views is sufficient. I will return with a proposed revision to this section. Minor4th 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph is problematic. I'll await with interest your proposed revision - please post it below so that everyone can agree a form of words that we're all happy with. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with both. I've just added a link to the online version of the source for one one of the articles[1]. Nsaa (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Washington Times source. I think "right-wing commentator" is fair based on the source, although, obviously, the plural is doubtful given we have only one source. I'm not really familiar with this particular controversy, but I do wonder if it deserves so much space. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I recall it did have a significant impact. It's the first and only time, as far as I know, that Monckton has been published in a scientific journal. From memory, the APS wanted a piece on climate science, someone recommended Monckton to them and they asked him to write a piece in the assumption that he was a scientist (and even referred to him as "Dr Monckton"). They were quite embarrassed afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision:

In response to Monckton's paper, Jeffrey Marque, editor of the APS forum, stated "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," [5] The APS pointed out that it does not endorse the opinions of its individual members. [6]

Minor4th 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2. lede revisited -- I had made a proposed revision of the lede and incorporated any changes that were discussed, but somehow we have ended up with an entirely different lede which adds some details but also leaves out some of the changes from the last agreed proposal. It reads:

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and worked for Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. He also worked forThe Universe, The Sunday Telegraph, Today andEvening Standard newspapers. He became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1]In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming.[2]

Proposed revision

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and served as a policy advisor for Margaret Thatcher's in her Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. Monckton was a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph, consulting editor of The Universe, consulting editor of The Sunday Telegraph and Today , and an editor of the Evening Standard.

Monckton became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1] I Monckfort's Eternity puzzle was voted Puzzle of the Year in Australian in 1998 by the Australian Games Association. ""AGA Award Winners"". Australian Games Association. 1998. Retrieved 27 July 2010. 

In recent years Monckton has come to public attention for his outspoken scepticism about the scope and impact of anthropogenic global warming.[2]

Minor4th 02:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • if no comments or objections to these revisions, i will request that they be made. I will be making more proposals later. I might start another sub talk page to house the proposed revisions so they dont get lost among the bickerimg here. Minor4th 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I object - it's inaccurate and you might as well save your breath, no admin is going to change this page for anything other than minor tweaks and corrections. (1) Monckton was not managing editor of the Sunday Telegraph - he was M.E. of the Sunday Telegraph magazine, a supplement that's distinct from the newspaper. (2) He was not "editor of the Evening Standard" (see Evening Standard#Editors), he was a leader-writer. (3) He was an assistant editor of Today, not a consulting editor. (4) The line about "Puzzle of the Year in Australian [sic]" is puffery and doesn't belong in the lead. Put it in the body if you must. Overall, not a good effort - you need to be more careful with the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
When the lead contains as much information on an issue as the corresponding part of the main text (or more than it!), then it's a sign that some re-writing is needed. Conciseness in the lead is virtue, and I'd suggest cropping some of the detail about both the puzzle and his journalistic career from the lead. How about:
  • "Monckton was the editor of several national newspapers."
  • "Monckton became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a geometrical puzzle carrying a prize of one million pounds."
Neither of these needs a citation since the summary will be referenced adequately by the detail in the main text. Then move the detail about the four year time limit into the Inventions section, since the lead certainly should not be containing detail not mentioned there. For consistency, stick with either "one million pounds" (as in lead) or "£1 million" (as in main text), but let's not have both. Finally, please try not to use constructions such as "He served in ... and served as ..." since the repetition of the verb is clumsy and the present "served ... worked" reads much better (although I think I'd prefer "worked in ... served as policy advisor ..."). --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would rewrite the whole thing because it's a pile of steaming doo doo but as you'll notice, even minimal efforts to improve the article are met with fierce resistance. I dont disagree with any of your comments however. ChrisO here follows me around from article to article reverting every edit I make and calling me names and belittling as if he is the supreme arbiter of wiki content. It's become rather comical :) In any event, this article is protected and ChrisO is apparently tasked with gatekeeping (7 reverts in a few hours) so I'll come back another day. Minor4th 14:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Your allegations that ChrisO are following you around reverting you are serious, so I did some dilligence. You and ChrisO have edited 4 articles in common - David Irving, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation, and Anthony Watts (blogger). Your edit to David Irving was apparently 3 years after ChrisO's edit to that article. On this article, your first edit was [2], which was 13 minutes after ChrisO's edit - so he couldn't have followed you here. At Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation, ChrisO made the first edit to the article, so he couldn't have followed you there. At Anthony Watts (blogger), your first edit was 22 hours after ChrisO edited it - and he hasn't edited that article since you did. As such, there's no possible way that ChrisO could have "follow[ed] [you] around from article ... reverting every edit [you] make." Would you like to clarify or retract? Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, since the chronology shows Minor4th making edits after me in almost every case, wouldn't the "following me around" accusation actually apply more to Minor4th? -- ChrisO (talk)
Do you guys think you're clever or funny? Just curious. It's plain to see if you look at how many times ChrisO has reverted me in the past several days. But do carry on if you're having fun. :) Minor4th 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, I'm deadly serious - your allegations of wikistalking were serious, I researched them, they had no credibility. If you continue to fabricate offences against people you dislike, we will have a problem. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deadly serious? Really? Your post almost sounds like a threat, you know. I'm sure that's not what you meant, right? Minor4th 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Hipocrite -- Here's some more research for you, and watch your tone and feigned hysterics or we will have a problem. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
And what is that supposed to prove? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Some good suggestions there - thanks - but one correction - he was not "the editor" of any national newspaper (unless you count The Universe, which I don't, since it's a religious publication). He was an assistant or contributing editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton vs House of Lords

An interesting development: [8]. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cucumber time! But I guess there may now be a case for expanding the coverage of this in the article. Perhaps we should see if it gets further coverage in the media, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It certainly lies to rest any question I might have had as to whether this dispute is notable enough to include at all. It clearly is. (I had already come to this view, but this confirms it.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, it's not an online-only story; it ran in today's Guardian (page 4). It's particularly interesting that the Palace appears to be involved now - I hadn't realised that the portcullis logo belonged to the Crown rather than Parliament. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As an American, this whole issue seems strange to me. I take it that Brits think that membership in the House of Lords is a good thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to the House of Lords, it's become a lot more respectable since the hereditary peers were kicked out. It used to be notorious for its legions of Conservative-supporting "backwoods" peers who almost never attended but would turn up en masse to drive through or block legislation on behalf of the Tory Party (the vast majority of hereditaries were Tories). "Peers versus People" used to be a potent slogan back in the day. Now it's basically a retirement home for former MPs and miscellaneous public figures who've found favour with the main parties' leaderships. Some people still think that's a bad thing and want a fully elected Senate to replace it, but there's not much public pressure for that. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia's resident Italian, in high places, in London, I can tell you that most Brits do not think membership is a "good thing." Most think the whole concept is absurd and/or antiquated as proven by the "elevation" of that well known pugilist and example to the nation's young, Baron I-only-took-it-for-me-long-suffering-wife-Prescot. The current House of Lords has succeeded in uniting both in British upper and lower classes in feeling that the House of Lords is a club, now best avoided. I believe Lord Monckton is considered an charmingly eccentric exception to that rule. He knows very well he's not a member, but publicly claiming to be does give him and his causes rather a lot or press attention - doesn't it?  Giacomo  18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Hey, can some admin take a break from the war and disambiguate the link from University of St. Thomas to [[University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)|University of St. Thomas]]? Thanks, --JaGatalk 22:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting this. Fut.Perf. 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming"

This is what the lead says and it is technically true, but it seems to me that his notability in this area is much greater in the US than in the UK. In the US, he has been invited onto significant TV shows and even to the US Congress, whereas he has had no similar invites (as far as I am aware) in the UK. Should the article not reflect his notability in the US, instead of the UK? --FormerIP (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Monckton has a negligible profile in the UK - in fact, thinking about it, I don't think he's done any press articles since his much-criticised Daily Telegraph pieces in 2007. He certainly hasn't appeared before Parliament, nor has he appeared on TV shows. Climate change simply is not the kind of divisive issue in the UK that it is in the US. All the major political parties accept the science and the need to act on the problem; the only parties that don't are Monckton's UKIP and the neo-fascist British National Party. (It is perhaps significant that UKIP has been dubbed "the BNP in blazers.") Given that, Monckton simply doesn't have the traction he's gained in the US. Plus there is the whole embarrassing business of Americans fawning over Brits with titles... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
His recent world tour included several stops in Australasia but I think none in UK. I imagine he was well paid for his appearances. Kittybrewster 09:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO - there didn't seem any particular need to end a good point like you did :( (as it is I agree his notability seems mostly in the US) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps events will overtake us, though, and he will be invited to give a presentation to the House of Lords... --FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Monckton an advocate of feudalism?

close down 90 per cent of government services and shift power away from the atheistic, humanistic government and into the hands of families and individuals.

Curiously, it sounds like Monckton is calling for a return to the Medieval Period of human history, with the Church in control and where people are kept in slavery as serfs. Is this true? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for your wild speculations about a living person (and I'm not talking about the citation from The Independent above[9])? Nsaa (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking a question. The quote in the article makes it sound like Monckton is a "feudalist". Is this true or not? Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably. Kittybrewster 11:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I don't know anything about the guy, and I found the quote a little strange. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious how you managed to link this quote with feudalism in the first place? Nsaa (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's about feudalism. Back in the 1980s, one of Margaret Thatcher's themes was a return to "Victorian values". It looks like Monckton wants to go a step further and return to Victorian society as well, when government was far smaller and was not responsible for much more than defence and foreign affairs. The poor had to fend for themselves or rely on churches and charities. Society was run on a paternalistic, vaguely theocratic (well, Church of England) basis by a fairly small number of powerful individuals and families. It wasn't feudalism, but it wasn't modern either. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly distorted temperature data

"You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairs—there to snivel in the darkness".— Monckton on what he claims will be the fate of climate scientists who have allegedly distorted temperature data.

That's an entirely unencyclopedic, uninfo rmative quote, only used as a blatant and gratuitous attack on scientists who have already been cleared in multiple investigations. There has been no distortion of temperature data. Why is this quote in this article? I recommend removal as it imparts no encyclopedic content. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it informs as to Monckton's approach. Kittybrewster 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I get that, but I think it does a disservice to not just the subject (makes him look bad) but also the reader. The quote doesn't have any meaning for me. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it a breach of NPOV to give prominence to one side of that particular spat by putting its POV in a special box? I'm not really sure whether it is or it isn't, but maybe there is a case. As Kittybrewster says, it tells us something about Monckton's approach, so it is at least informative. --FormerIP (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Before I argue why the quote should be removed/replaced, I must observe that there is no source for it. Quotes need sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I have to say that I think you have a point, Viriditas - it's obviously extracted from somewhere, but without any context it's not really very useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The quote should go. It is not informative of anything, and it looks like a pretty colorful attack on certain scientists without any context. If we want to include Monckton's views in the article, there are certainly better examples than that. Minor4th 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

answer of the house of lords

i would insert the next paragraph about Monckton's supposed membership of the House of Lords :

August 5, 2010 the information of the House of Lords wrote a letter[7] saying :

The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.


The reference citing: "Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15)" has an erroneous data "2020". Correct to "2010". Needs link to the original source quoted.DLH (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that source (a blog) is no good. I have however added a reliably sourced update here. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resurrexi pharmaceutical

Apparently this is his new project. Kittybrewster 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RS: [10] --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Also here, from Monckton's own CV on the UKIP website: "2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue." [11] Given that he highlights this in his own CV, I'd say it's significant enough to include in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely significant. Strong evidence that he is delusional, untruthful or a genius. No third party reliable source determines which. Kittybrewster 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an exhaustive list. It would be interesting to know if anybody has been pursuaded to invest money in this enterprise. --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Monbiot's blog is not a reliable source. It's not significant enough to put in the article until it's reported in multiple reliable sources. Minor4th 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an RS per WP:NEWSBLOG and the UKIP website is also an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Evaluate the sources individually. Monbiot is not a reliable source on Monckton's mental state or his opinions about Monckton's personality,etc. any more than Lawrence Solomon is a reliable source about William Connolley. He is an adversary and this is an opinion attacking his opponent. BLP policy requires that negative information be impeccably sourced, and this fails. Minor4th 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the suggestion is that this source be used to comment on Monckton's personality, just his involvement in the company named and the nature of the work it carries out. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize the article is still protected, so the discussion is pretty much a non-starter at this point. I would say his involvement in the company in any event is not yet notable with such thin sourcing. Perhaps it's too recent. Let's let it develop and see if it becomes notable as time goes on. Minor4th 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I actually agree with Monbiot's assessment of Monckton, and I think he's a bit of a nutter and in some instances is less than helpful to the cause that he supports -- nevertheless, that's not the kind of thing that belongs in a BLP article unless there's excellent sourcing that's broader than his adversary's opinion blog. Minor4th 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it would be problematic to cite Monbiot's personal website ( Fortunately, we don't have to, since the sources being discussed here are an opinion piece in a mainstream newspaper and Monckton's own CV - which is certainly under his editorial control and very likely self-written - on the UKIP website. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and added RESURREXI, cited to this press release on the UKIP website, which incorporates Monckton's CV and was issued along with the announcement of his appointment as UKIP deputy leader. That source is, I hope Minor4th will agree, "excellent". It's not at all a recent development, by the way - his involvement with RESURREXI started in 2008 according to the CV. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Monckton Collection

The following statement under "Published works" regarding Monckton's articles is erroneous: "The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published nine non peer-reviewed articles by Monckton on climate-change science.[65]" The supposed link to Monckton's articles at SPPI is incorrect. The statement of 9 articles is incorrect. SPPI's Monckton Collection has 24 pages of article abstracts, at about 4 abstracts per page.

Propose correcting this statement to:

The Science and Public Policy Institute maintains the Monckton Collection containing about 100 of Monckton's articles (August 2010).

DLH (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those look like basically blog posts, though. I'm not saying they all are, but I think noting, from a primary source, how many times someone has blogged on a particular site does not make for something sufficiently interesting or notable to be included in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the statement is probably still accurate, as it refers to articles. Things like "Testimony of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Before Congress, 6 May 2010" and "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My Recent Testimony" are obviously not articles. It seems to be an index of Monckton's output in general - letters, blog posts, articles, etc., which for some reason the SPPI seems to think is worth hosting on its website. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think DLH's proposal is probably a better and more neutral way to describe it. Change "articles" to "writings" or "written works". Minor4th 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've amended it here per the discussion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues

This article is loaded with BLP violations and poor sourcing. Over the next few days, I am going to be cleaning up the BLP mess, removing negative, controversial and poorly sourced information. Before restoring negative BLP information, please discuss here and get a consensus or take it to the BLP noticeboard. Do not unilaterally restore negative, controversial content that is sourced to a blog or self published source, or negative information that is op-ed material from Monckton's ideological opponents. Minor4th 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the contentious history of this article I strongly advise you to take a collaborative approach. Please post your proposed changes here first and work with other editors to obtain consensus. Making major unilateral changes is only going to lead to more conflict - it would be better to collaborate rather than impose. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I should add that I have some BLP concerns too, which I'll be bringing here for discussion later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry ChrisO, I'm not going to be doing anything other than removing blatant BLP violations with improper sourcing. Minor4th 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
As we've already seen, there are conflicting views on what constitutes BLP violations. I very strongly advise you to collaborate and discuss what changes you would like to make before you make them. Wikipedia is supposed to work on the basis of collaboration. We've had some success that way on this talk page - why not continue that approach? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
please collaborate, don't try to impose your views on everyone else That`s a funny edit summary given your recent conduct on Christopher Bookers article. You know were i removed the undue crap you added and you reverted back in without going to the talk page. Were`s collaboration when you need it mark nutley (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me make this clear so there is no reason for an uproar before I even get started. The ONLY thing I will remove is negative content that is either unsourced or sourced to a self published source or is pure commentary from an opinion/editorial from an ideological opponent of Monckton. This is straight BLP policy enforcement. There should be no controversy over this - policy mandates that such content be removed immediately, not wait for consensus. This is simple stuff, it's not controversial. The article has some serious problems and we dont want to slander a BLP or expose Wiki to that kind of liability. Minor4th 17:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    You have some misunderstandings about what BLP actually requires. Please do not remove any material without first getting a consensus for it here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Please clarify (r.e. ideological opponent). Christopher Monckton has described every single person on this planet who believes in Global Warming as a "bed wetter" or a "Communist". Therefore, ideologically speaking, that will automatically disqualify a large amount of perfectly reasonable criticism. What guideline permits such a thing? Wikispan (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    This is exactly what I was referring to above. Commentators have, from time to time, criticised things that Monckton has said and done. This is entirely normal. We do not remove criticism or praise from BLPs simply because they come from opponents or supporters. That's a fundamental violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
To clarify "ideological opponent" - I could have been more specific, sorry about that. I'm talking about Monbiot in particular from what I saw in the article but I have not looked especially closely to say whether the Monbiot source is sufficient or whether there are others whose op ed opinions should be excluded. I'm not going to get consensus for blatant BLP violations, so quit asking. I will comment here when I remove something. Don't worry, I will be very conservative and only remove what policy mandates that we immediately remove. I'm also going to post a general notice at the BLP noticeboard asking the BLP editors for help in solving the BLP issues in this article, so hopefully we'll have some editors previously uninvolved in this topic who will be looking over the BLP issues and editing accordingly. Finally, if you will just read through the article start to finish, you'll find that the overall tone is very very negative and it nearly seems like Wikipedia is out to smear Monckton and make him look bad. That is not appropriate for a BLP, and the whole article needs to be adjusted in its tone -- it is nowhere even close to NPOV Minor4th 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific BLP issues

In re-reading this article earlier today, I noticed a few issues which I think might represent undue weight or trivia, which we could probably lose. They were not added by myself but appear to have been added to the article fairly recently. I've not taken them out myself but am bringing them here for discussion so that we can find a consensus on what to do about them. If other editors have issues of concern, please post them below so that we can address them too.

1) Under "Entrepreneurship"

Monckton and his wife opened Monckton's, a high-end shirt shop in King's Road, Chelsea, in 1995'.

While this is reliably sourced it looks very trivial and I've not seen any mention of it anywhere else. I suggest leaving this out.

  • In my view that is not good cause to remove a section which is balanced, factual, possibly positive and certainly NPOV. I don't feel strongly. Kittybrewster 11:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2) Under "Political views"

Monckton's CV [32] as Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) claims that "the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats... earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate." In January 2010, Monckton voiced this claim on an Australian radio broadcast. When later questioned about this by reporters [33], Monckton conceded that his claim to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was "a joke". As of 6 June 2010, the claim that Monckton is a Nobel Peace Laureate has not been removed from the SPPI web site

This strikes me as a relatively trivial issue and I suggest that this is undue weight. The last sentence of it is clearly unsourced and appears to be original research. At the very least, WP:BLP requires that to be removed.

  • Disagree. One of the reasons there is negativity towards Monckton is the perception of somer people that he distorts truth. This is relevant and not UNDUE. His connection with the SPPI site is close to the point of intimacy. He could have had it removed but he seems to prefer his joke to strict truth. Kittybrewster 11:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
3) Under "Social and economic policy"

Criticizing the campaign to save the Ravenscraig ironworks, Monckton wrote, "The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like crumpled bagpipes and waiting for a fix of English taxpayers' money."

In 1997, Monckton criticized works at the Fotofeis (the Scottish International Festival of Photography) and Sensation as "feeble-minded, cheap, pitiable, exploitative sensationalism perpetrated by the talent-free and perpetuated by over-funded, useless, muddle-headed, middle-aged, pot-bellied, brewer's-droopy quangoes which a courageous Government would forthwith cease to subsidise with your money and mine."

Again this seems to me to be undue weight on comments which lack any context and appear to have been selected to make Monckton look bad. There is no indication of wider significance; it looks very much like cherry-picking. Suggest removal of both of these bits.

I hope these would be fairly uncontentious amendments but I'd appreciate it if editors could indicate whether they agree. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional BLP and related issues

  1. Not sure why the No 10 Policy Unit and CPS involvement is listed under the heading "Journalism" and very little about his actual journalism career is listed there. In the paragraph about CPS and No 10 Policy Unit, there's too much detail about who recruited him and the founding of the CPS, etc. That is extraneous. Minor4th 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a good point about the heading. His involvement with CPS and the No 10 Policy Unit needs to be split out - I'm happy to take that on. I'll post a revised version here for comments in the morning. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of a revision. Minor4th 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please post your revised text here first so that we can agree on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ChrisO -- you seems to be making ownership-y comments, and perhaps that's not how you intend. I am not posting these issues for you to addresss. I'm commenting on issues that I am addressing. Thanks. Minor4th 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Given the contentious history of this article it is a very bad idea for someone to jump in and try to make radical changes without discussion. You know this perfectly well. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making radical changes. You have made numerous edits yourself. Do not tell others they have to get consensus before making any edits. I was only going to remove blatant BLP info, but I can't even get to that until the article is organized properly. Don't worry Chris, the article wills till be here for you to edit in the morning. Minor4th 23:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The changes that I made were to implement fairly small changes requested and discussed on this talk page during full protection. That is rather different from making radical changes without discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO, don't be a hypocrite. You discussed none of the changes you made, until after the fact. BLP policy is clear. BLP violations may be removed immediately by ANY editor. If you disagree, take it to BLPN or ANI. I will be looking at this article and others for poorly sourced BLP information, and will be looking where I can improve articles, hopefully using peer reviewed sources. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Greg. Minor4th 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Family Campaign

I spent some time looking through LexisNexis to see if I could verify this content. I found the relevant article, though it took me quite some time to find as it was not titled as such because "Persuaded to act otherwise" was the subtitle of the actual title – Diary. Here it is:

WHAT of the Conservative Family Campaign, the tireless crusaders against homosexuals, abortionists and those who'd like to open their shops on Sunday? This election time the CFC is circulating a long list of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, including Neil Kinnock and Sir David Steel, that it claims have supported the child sex movement or homosexual rights. On inspection, supporting paedophiles appears to mean having met lobby groups to discuss the age of consent. Meanwhile, the CFC's chairman, Stephen Green, tells us he's nearly raised the pounds 11,000 he needs to publish a book on homosexuals titled (provisionally) Emotional Orphans. It will, inter alia, explain how homosexuals may achieve heterosexuality - a painfully difficult process, according to Green, who has, none the less, met many recovered homosexuals. Perhaps wisely, many of the campaign's MP friends severed links last year, but an interesting list of CFC sponsors remains on the notepaper. There's the London Evening Standard's leader writer, Christopher Monckton, and the Duke of Norfolk. The 20 Tory sponsors range from David Amess and Bill Cash through to Teddy Taylor and Ann Winterton by way of the candidate for Sutton and Cheam, Lady Olga Maitland.

— "Diary: Persuaded to Act Otherwise". The Independent. London. April 3, 1992. p. 25. 

I don't believe that the two are the same, but I am not familiar enough with either. NW (Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Or I could read our Wikipedia article! That should settle things then? NW (Talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any doubt that it was reliably sourced - Marknutley's comment that it was a "dead link" is particularly silly given that the Independent's archives don't go back to 1992, so it was never a "live link" in the first place. It may be relevant to Monckton's 1980s campaign on AIDS, which is well documented in multiple sources, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he was ever known as an anti-gay campaigner. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. Minor4th 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Does "major British national newspaper" ring any bells? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be referring to this Monckton, but I don't think that's a proper source for the content you cited. Diary? Whose? This appears to be part of a gossip column, and note that it refers to sponsors in scare quotes references a "list" on "notepaper." That is way too tenuous for BLP inclusion. Would you also look up these references:
  1. "Tory project to phase out council houses". The Times: p. 1. 1982-12-06.
  2. "Policy unit at full strength". The Times. 1984-11-06.
  3. "Two more advisers at No 10". The Times. 1982-11-25.
  4. "The Undie-Serving Rich". Evening Standard. November 10, 1995.

Minor4th 23:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the first three of those sources from the Times Online database. I can confirm that they are as represented in the article. I discussed them here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Page 25 is the editorial page of the newspaper. There doesn't appear to be an author listed. Gossip page seems to me to be an OK description of the article, but I think a better one might be "news roundup". I can send you the article if you wish. What in particular do you want me to look up from those references? Are they currently used in the article? NW (Talk) 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are currently used in the article - please see my comment immediately above which links to a summary of what sources 1-3 say. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


How is this a BLP violation? NW (Talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ok to include that paragraph in the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The article itself is not so much the issue as Monbiot's editorial commentary. There is much more in the article that would actually be a contribution to this article. What was sourced was Monbiot's own attack on Monckton, as opposed to the events that Monbiot reported. Minor4th 03:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
"cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish" <--- that adds absolutely nothing to this article in terms of content or context, and it is nothing more than an attack on this BLP through an opinion of an adversary who is not at all disinterested. It's stunning that out of that entire article, that is the quote that is selected. You really see nothing wrong with that? And by the way, if we are going to have an article loaded with criticisms of Monckton, then we need to start adding all of the praise for him to balance the article. Minor4th 03:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Come off it - it's a critique of Monckton's arguments from an impeccably mainstream published reliable source. Monckton is notable because of his controversial arguments. Attempting to hide the controversy by deleting any references to critiques is not on. Per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." There is nothing in BLP that would dictate the removal of reliably sourced criticism. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor4th, when you call George Monbiot an "adversary who is not at all disinterested", what exactly do you mean? Monbiot is not a climate scientist. He is perfectly open about this. Nevertheless, in his area of expertise, he has seen evidence that leads him to believe the earth is warming, a topic area of interest, and he has attempted to explain the basic science to a wider audience in his column and by providing endless references to scientific literature on his personal website. Monbiot is a well-respected figure who makes regular appearances on BBC's premiere current affairs programme, Newsnight, and similar news programmes throughout the world. In what context do you use the word "disinterested"? (i.e. unaffected by self-interest). Elsewhere, working climate scientists are being dismissed as "partisans" and here we have writers who attempt to report the science being labelled as "opponents" and "adversaries". I'm puzzled. Wikispan (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am puzzled by "... loaded with criticisms of Monckton, then we need to start adding all of the praise for him to balance the article." for which there is no requirement I am aware of. Kittybrewster 11:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very disappointed

I'm very disappointed to see this need to be protected for a third time, and while the arbcase is ongoing - in the PD phase to boot. And yes, many of the same parties are involved in this most recent edit war as before. RlevseTalk 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There's some discussion (not particularly wanted) on my talk page also. Please don't add to it though, anyone, comment here. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
discussion of editing behaviour, unrelated to content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that is a sort of not exactly accurate characterization -- at least I didn't think so. I thought Doug protected as an administrative matter, noting that it was supposed to have been protected throughout the arb case. Minor4th 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's review, about 9 hours after prot ending, an edit was made. About 9 hours later a rv as npov is made. Another revert occurs about 4 hours later. Need I go on? I doubt Doug would protect if no edit warring was occurring, but let's check... RlevseTalk 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, see User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris/A_pocket_guide_to_Arbitration, esp the part about "your conduct during the case is of paramount importance". I've pinged Doug too. RlevseTalk 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I'm wrong -- actually I wasnt even trying to suggest that there wasn't edit warring, only that I thought that Doug protected it for other reasons. I also didn't know that protection ended 9 hours prior to those edits, but anyway I'll concede your points here and simply say that I'm glad that Scot Mac showed up. Minor4th 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Your own complete refusal of my repeated requests - in fact, pleas - to edit collaboratively was deplorable, and I hope it will be noted by the arbitrators. SirFozzie was right about the editing environment being completely poisonous. If editors refuse point blank to work with each other that runs completely against Wikipedia's ethos of collaboration. I don't think I've ever before, in seven years of editing, come across a situation where an editor simply refuses to work with others. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sure the arbs are paying attention Chris. As Scott Mac told you on the BLP noticeboard when you tried to raise the same issue, we don't wait for consensus on blatant BLP violations. We remove and then discuss. After 7 years, you shouldn't need a reminder. Minor4th 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise it as a "blatant BLP violation". What it is is BLP material where there's currently significant doubt as to neutrality and weight. That's reason enough to remove until we get it right, but I can't see anything libellous or even utterly unreferenced, there's just as whiff of bias and the hatchet job.--Scott Mac 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I was repeating your comment from the noticeboard. Chris is no stranger to BLP policy -- he's been topic banned for BLP violations and lost his adminship over it, at least in part. He's apparently just gotten a little more clever at going about it. Check the references on the material you removed. There are blatant and deliberate BLP violations. Minor4th 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • @ChrisO - would your comment also include your absolute refusal to discuss additions to the BLP prior to you making the edits, even when repeatedly requested to do so? IIRC, that is what led to the article being protected in the first place. I agree, it was deplorable. GregJackP Boomer! 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected editing proposals

Before this article was protected (again) I made a number of edits based on previous discussions and agreements. I note that Minor4th did not attempt to roll back any of them, so I'm assuming that he did not object - hopefully they should not be contentious.

Scott Mac has restored my deletion of a BLP-violating boxout quotation, so thanks for that.

Other proposed changes:

1) Under "Political career", add the following to update the material on Monckton's relationship with the House of Lords, sourced to an article that appeared in the print version of the UK Guardian newspaper:

The Clerk of the Parliaments, the chief clerk of the House of Lords, wrote to Monckton in July 2010 "confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such", and instructing him not to use any emblem resembling the portcullis symbol of Parliament. He was also referred to the Lord Chamberlain over his use of the portcullis emblem, which belongs to the Queen.[8]

Previous talk page discussion: [12]

2) Under "Entrepreneurship", add the following, sourced to Monckton's profile in the UK Independence Party's announcement of his appointment as deputy leader:

Monckton has also been the director of RESURREXI Pharmaceutical since 2008. According to the UK Independence Party, he is "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases", including Graves' Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI, as well as HIV.[9]

Previous talk page discussion: [13]

3) Under "Published works", amend the last para as follows:

The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published numerous written works by Monckton on climate science and politics.[10]

Previous talk page discussion: [14]

Could editors please indicate whether they have any objections to these changes? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, why don't you just hold off for a bit, or make some revisions in userspace or something. There is a proposal being discussed by a BLP editor/admin about editing through protection and stubbing the CC content until the case is over and discussion can resume. Please note that Scot Mac, who focuses on BLP violations, has noted that the article is bad and has BLP violations that should not remain protected. It sounded like he was going to perhaps round up an uninvolved BLP task force to work on the article. His proposal was that anyone editing prior to yesterday be banned from the article while they do their work, and I am in favor of that proposal. Minor4th 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with these. Kittybrewster 12:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is way too much weight and prominence given to the House of Lords issue and it should not be under the heading "political career" - this controversy completely obscures Monckton's actual political career, which is not extensive. The Source for the pharmaceutical bit is not acceptable - self published and not notable,and should not be included in this article at this time. In published works, I think it's better to specifically list any notable published works(if there are any), get rid of the list of Soduko books and replace with a single entry and perhaps a description of the series, the APS paper should be included if its not already, and the reference to SPPI should not be included but cull out papers of particular prominence that have received coverage in the media or other secondary sources. Generally speaking, I think it's best to take a break on this article for a bit, but Chris, I left a proposal for collaboration on your talk page.Minor4th 12:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has a retired template on his userpage now, talkpage redirected to his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll assume he declined my proposal. Minor4th 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

stubbing CC section

I've removed this section. I'm not getting involved in the content, but there is obviously a serious dispute here and questions as to its neutrality, weighting, and use of sources. With BLP material, we err heavily on the side of non-inclusion of material until we are clear that it is fair to the subject. I do not wish to get involved in the CC controversy, in which I have no interest, so I'm utterly "uninvolved" and see myself as enforcing our usual BLP caution in a contentious article.

The material should IMO remain out of the article until a) the Arbcom case is concluded and b) there is a consensus on the talk page as to the weighting and neutrality. If the parties previously waring over this cannot agree, I strongly suggest appealing for more disinterested eyes. Perhaps an RFC.--Scott Mac 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. RlevseTalk 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I took the version of the article prior to the one you stubbed, noindex'd it, and placed it at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Sandbox for editors to work on in the meantime. NW (Talk) 21:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to start from scratch. The version you saved is the AGW activist version, and only encourages them to immediately re-insert it on the protection being lifted. GregJackP Boomer! 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No matter what, that is what will be the result if certain editors are not banned from editing this article or BLP's in general. Chris is on a mission. Just look at the number of edits the last two or three times protection was lifted. It's caused an uproar each time -- and last time it was several uninvolved editors complaining. It will happen again, the protection is just a delay. I liked Scott's idea of banning everyone who had edited the article before yesterday and get a BLP task force to rewrite it.Minor4th 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What the article needs is a concise, well-referenced summary of Monckton's views and how those views have been received. To do this we need both sides to cooperate. Name-calling such as "AGW activist" and "on a mission" (or "denier," etc. on the other side) doesn't help us cooperate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure, there was discussion here leading to User:Scott MacDonald's deletion of the CC material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look to me like a good use of admin powers. There may or may not be weighting issues with the section, but none of the material appears to me to be in breach of BLP, because it was all properly sourced. When an article is locked, are we not supposed to just accept that it may be the "wrong version" as far as NPOV is concerned? I agree that there could be a lot of improvement made to the material removed, but where is the emergency? --FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There were BLP violations and improper sourcing. Please read all of the references that are cited. What's the rush in having the negative content in this article? Maybe make improvements in your userspace or propose them here. That section needs to be rewritten, so why not take a stab. Minor4th 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not at all cleat that the section suffers from improper sourcing, and the decision to delete the material seems to have only been based on a generalised opinion that the section lacked balance. Balance is a matter for talkpage consensus, not admin intervention. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read the sources in that section. Minor4th 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with the sources - given that no rationale has been given in this respect for the blanking, I don't know what I would be looking for in any case. I do see something wrong with an administrator using their privileges to act in support of one side in a content dispute, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
When you speak of two sides, you ignore something. I really don't care too much about fairness to the "sides", and how two warring groups of Wikipedians feel about this, I care about fairness to the subject. I'm taking no position on the details of the article, but sufficient concern has been expressed about the content, to mean we can't have full confidence in it. A quick glance and I saw prima-facia evidence of original research, bias, undue weight, and selective quotation of opponents. At any rate, the neutrality of the content is evidently in dispute. When we've got disputed content on a BLP, we err on the side of removing it. That's because it is better to say nothing about a person, than to say something that might be unfair. I've removed the material until disputes are resolved, noting that the current arbcom case is both evidence of problems with articles like this, and a dispute to be resolved. Now, I expect to be called biased by someone - but I have absolutely no axe to grind on climate change, and a long history of being concerned about BLP subjects. So I think I'm in a better, more neutral, place to be a temporary judge here than any of the "sides".--Scott Mac 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Scott, the contents of the section are subject to dispute by two "sides", based on whether or not they are fair to the subject. You say that you don't take a position on this, but you have blanked the contents because you don't feel we can have "full confidence" in the material in question. This seems contradictory to me. There is no suggestion of a BLP violation, as far as I am aware, and there has been a lot of discussion about the content. I don't think your action will encourage anything positive. We already have one user sandboxing a new version, but we're supposed to work by discussion and consensus, not wholesale removal and consequent drama. I don't think you are correct to say that we err on the side of removing disputed content in BLP articles. We certainly err on the side of excluding material that isn't properly sourced, but that's a different matter. Surely you can see that responding to a dispute over whether content is appropriate or not by removing it looks partial. It is just a recipe for increasing the problems here. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the problems were already there. If the two sides can't work it out - then look for some uninvolved people to help. Better having nothing than material of disputed fairness about a living person. Using BLPS for battleground is not good enough.--Scott Mac 00:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the problems are there doesn't mean you're not increasing them, though. You may be uninvolved, but you appear to be taking a view as to who is right and blanking the material that your side (I say that advisedly) doesn't like. Joining the battleground also isn't good enough IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I suppose any referee will appear biased to someone. What you are tending to say is that unless I take your view that the material is obviously unproblematic, then I'm "on the other side". I'd say that tends to poison the well. The material may, or may not, be fair. However, I can see "probable cause" to say it is questionable in its neutrality. Those questions should be answered in its absence, since, with BLPs, absence of good material is presumed to be better than the presence of unfair material. The article was locked pending the arbcom case, it seemed to me less risky to lock disputed material out than in. I don't expect you to agree that the material was unfair, any more than I'd expect the other side to say it is fair - but I do hope you can see the logic of my position. It seems other disinterested parties can.--Scott Mac 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Scott, I don't see you as refereeing here, but getting involved. The dispute is over whether criticism of the subject is appropriate. There isn't any legitimate claim of a BLP violation, because the material is properly sourced. You seem to be taking the view that it the material indeed isn't appropriate and so you have blanked the section. Ordinarily, this would be called disruptive editing. Your characterisation that your edit merely causes "absence of good material" supposes the neutrality of your edit, which has in fact made the article as a whole less balanced and less representative of available sources. Your logic seems to be that as long as someone is unhappy with material in a BLP article then there is "probable cause" to question the neutrality of the article. But this isn't logical. How would it work in relation to the Michael Jackson article, for example? I would say that you have cause to remove material if there is prima facie evidence of a BLP violation and you have given some sort of explanation why this is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
And you are going to see any referee that doesn't call it your way as playing for the other side, that's the problem here. There's really no point in me repeating my explanation yet again, as you simply don't accept it. Short of me restoring it to the version you favour, you won't be satisfied. Well, I'm just going to have to live with you not understanding me, and for now you will have to live being dissatisfied. There's really not much more I can say. It's the wrong version for you, but there it is.--Scott Mac 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it looks to me like the version in place when the page was locked was the wrong version for you. It's not that I don't understand you, it's that I object to you using admin powers to enter into a content dispute. Please at least explain your edit in terms of policy and where precisely you think there might have been a BLP issue. The fact that some editors were complaining is not good enough. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I note your objections. I have explained my reasoning. I can't think of anything else to add.--Scott Mac 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You could add your reasons in terms of what your BLP concerns are and provide some concrete reassurance that you are not simply supporting the NPOV concern of one side in a content dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nowhere suggested that I acted because of precise citable violation of BLP - I acted because there seem to be founded concerns about neutrality and weight. If you are trying to make the point that it didn't precisely violate the exact letter of BLP, then I'm not arguing. There are quite evidently no reassurances that are going to satisfy you of my even handedness. I wasn't trying to be even-handed. I was erring (yes, perhaps literally) on the side of excluding unfair material. You disagree. There's nothing more to say. I see no point in continuing this fruitless discussion.--Scott Mac 02:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope it isn't fruitless to ask an admin to reflect on a decision they have made. If it is at least possible that you have, literally, erred, then I would suggest that you reach a conclusion that this is not the case, or else undo your edit. The general rule is that we leave locked articles as they are. I find it bemusing that you have taken a decision that the locked version is the wrong one and have decided to blank a section of the article to the preference of one side in a content dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You have so asked; I have so reflected. I stand by my decision. I note your complaint.--Scott Mac 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for reflecting and noting. I have posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Christopher_Monckton.2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley.23stubbing_CC_section. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's SPPI positions

The introduction has old but not recent positions. Propose adding the following summary:

Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute and Editor for theSPPI Monthly CO2 Report.

DLH (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There being no objection, I recommend an editor implement this.{{editprotected}}DLH (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think having external links like that is not usual for a Wikipedia article. And given the popularity of this talk page I would like to see some consensus (more than one editor).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Add parameter expiry=06:16, 29 November 2010 to {{pp-dispute}}. Delete {{pp-full}}. --Bsherr (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

John Abraham

Now in the press [15] so presumably can be re-added William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This affair has certainly gone far past the point at which it can be dismissed as an "unpublished" or "self-published" work, or as a "hack job."
According to a list compiled by the physicist Joseph Romm, the scientists who have contributed to this document are:
I think we most definitely have to cover this now. These chaps cannot be written off as nonentities from a bible college. --TS 11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just remember, this is an autobiography about Monckton -- not an open forum for discussing climate change politics. Anything added has to be relevant to his life as a whole, and not covered in undue depth. Fell Gleamingtalk 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. This document is a response by 20 senior climate scientists to Congressional testimony given by Monckton, where he was called to give evidence on behalf of the Republican Party. The testimony was perhaps the highlight of Monckton's career as an advocate for his beliefs and claims related to climate science. I don't know why all mention of that testimony has been omitted from the article. Would it be normal to omit such an extraordinary event from a biographical article? --TS 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that I would call this the highlight of his career. His appearance itself is notable, but going into depth on all the multitudinous responses to his appearance smacks of a soapboxing attempt to discuss climate change in his bio. Say he testified, and what he testified about. What else do we need to say? Fell Gleamingtalk 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We definitely do need to mention the Congressional testimony, and also the tours of Australia and the United States (he may also have toured other countries). Also missing (in a brief skimming) seems to be Monckton's dispute with the House of Lords over his claim to be an honorary member of the House, which most recently drew an intervention from Buckingham Palace over his alleged unauthorized use of an insignia.

Why is the recent response significant to Monckton, you ask? Because it is almost unknown for so many experts in any field to go out of their way to refute the claims of a layman in any field of science. This is a big deal, and it pertains directly and solely to statements by Monckton and no other party. It belongs in this biography because it pertains to Monckton's principal occupation in recent years. I can't think of anywhere else it might be relevant. It really is just Monckton versus the House of Lords, the Palace, and the entire field of climatology. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. In climate science alone, its a near-daily occurrence that some scientist, somewhere, refutes what they believe to be a 'popular' or laymen's misinterpretation of their field or work. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)a
I agree with Tasty. Definitely notable. Kittybrewster 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you grasped what I'm saying, FellGleaming. The work in question isn't a generic debunking of misinformation about climate change, it is a specific document constructed to address a particular highly prominent set of misinformation delivered to Congress by the subject of this article. Had Monckton not given his testimony to Congress, this document would not exist and those scientists would not have taken time out of their important work to address him. The document addresses Monckton's arguments and Monckton's alone. This isn't about shoehorning something about climate change into the article, but about describing a particular set of activities by Monckton (public speaking, political advocacy, testimony to Congress) and the response of experts in the field to that testimony. --TS 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand that perfectly. Why don't you post your suggestion for text here, and we can discuss specifics, rather than generics? Fell Gleamingtalk 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that's a good idea to post a proposal for discussion. Is this covered in any other RS? I don't think it's a problem to mention it in the article probably, but I'm afraid it's going to turn into a discussion of the science and an attack on Monckton as it usually does. Also, John Abraham is a relative "nobody" other than he's bold enough to put his name behind an attack on Monckton. He is an associate professor in engineering and not in the same league with many of those scientists, like Mann etc. Minor4th 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Abraham. Monckton gave testimony to Congress on the science of global warming. We have unimpeachable sources for that. A score of highly qualified scientists have taken it upon themselves to publish a purported refutation of his testimony. We have unimpeachable sources for that, too. This concerns material that was read into the Congressional record, it's not just some daft nonsense somebody said on a late night radio talk show.

On the question of "attacks", it seems to me that some people equate robust criticism of scientific claims with personal attacks. That isn't how it works. Everything Monckton says could be wrong and it wouldn't make him a lesser man (I think we'd all rather live in the rosy world painted by Monckton than that predicted by the IPCC!). These 20 climate experts aren't attacking the viscount's person, they're attacking his arguments, his assumptions, his interpretation of sources and his conclusions. And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the document itself has been published by a reputable publisher. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talkcontribs) 21:56, 22 September 2010
Sure, but that's beside the point. Even the Guardian has published dodgy stuff. The point is that these people are verifiably and superlatively the best bloody specialists on the subject presently living on this planet. That's what verifiability means. Not this latterday milquetoast "somebody said it in a book so it's reliable" nonsense. --TS 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"' And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. : In case you didn't know, this isn't a science article. It's not a forum to debate science, sources, and conclusions. It's a biography of Monckton's life, not a catalog of what other people think of his opinions. What's you don't understand is that, had this group of people actually been talking about Monckton himself, rather than his "interpretation of sources", it would actually be more relevant to his bio. Again: this is what is significant in Monckton's life, not how to "best do science". Fell Gleamingtalk 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you've misread what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Monckton has verifiably made representations on scientific matters before Congress, and a score of scientists have verifiably responded, by deposition to Congress, to his representation. The statement by Monckton was a scientific claim. The response was also scientific. If we're to correctly represent Monckton's life, we must record what he has done, and what he has said. Monckton has undeniably made scientific claims. Monckton's scientific claims have undeniably been challenged by experts in the field. All of these matters are very public aspects of Monckton's life, and not at all incidental. I only said this is how we do science because some people have misrepresented the scientific response to the scientific statements as a personal attack. Obviously this isn't the place to discuss the truthfulness of his claims, but it certainly is the place to discuss the events of Monckton's life. He made scientific statements very publicly and those statements were just as publicly repudiated by professional scientists. --TS 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
We can debate this all day, but until we see some proposed text, I don't think we're going to make progress. Can these events be added in such a manner that is neutral, relevant, and conforms to BLP standards? Quite possibly, but in the past, editors have used similar openings to interject vast amounts of coatracking and soapboxing. User:FellGleaming 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that we need to cover the response by the 20 climate scientists, but we certainly need to cover Monckton's testimony before Congress. Simply "He has given testimony before Congress". And cite a suitable source. It was in May of this year, I believe. The response, I'm very relaxed about. I'd like to revisit the question some time in 2012 when any heat that may be associated with this issue will probably have died down. This is a man's life work we're talking about. Meanwhile I don't want to thwart anyone else's proposals, so please take this as a statement of personal disposition. I would certainly respect and support any decent and neutral statement that complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. --TS 23:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree it should be included. There should also be some mention of some of his other crazier ideas such as "NWO", a world government taking over the entire planet and killing off millions of people. He has 0 credibility yet people seem to think this layman is a voice of reason on A(assisted)GW. (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Section for drafts of coverage of Monckton's Congressional testimony on global warming

I invite editors to propose draft wording to cover Monckton's Congressional testimony and directly related matters Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Principles for a re-write

I'm not going to be editing this article, but as a disinterested person who saw fit to stub the Climate Change section, perhaps I can offer a view on how this should be re-written. Principally:

  1. Proportionality. This is biography on Monkton, who (among other things) is a critic of CC. So any discussion on his involvement with climate change debate needs to be of a length that is proportionate to Monkton's involvement with the issue vs his other reasons for being encyclopedic. It must not take over the article.
  2. Biographical. This is an article about Monkton AND not about CC. Thus it must NOT be continuing an argument about the merits or dis-merits of Climate Change. If Monkton holds a barmy view, we describe it in outline, how he's promoted it, and give some indication of the reaction to it. We don't use that as a cover to demolish it or to rehearse the arguments he uses for it - other articles will outline the arguments for and against CC not biographies.
  3. Any negative quotations need either to be notable in their own individual right (and quotations rarely are) or illustrative (that means typical not "the most salacious we can find"). We out to describe Monkton's involvement with CC, not record knock-down soundbites.

With that in mind, I'd suggest the following outline.

  1. Describe factually the degree of Monktone's involvement with CC debate. How long has he been involved? In what capacity? Is it a passing hobby or an life obsession? Is he a front-man or an technical expert? What's he published?
  2. Situate Monkton's views within the range of CC scepticism. There is no need to rehearse his arguments here (arguments of CC sceptics are recorded elsewhere), just make clear what he's questioning and any recurring themes. What differentiates his views from other sceptics? The section should be plain description of his position without any assessment.
  3. Record something of the reaction to Monkton's public interventions. This is NOT a rehearsal of "why people think he's wrong". Sure, the scientific consensus is against CC sceptics, but that's a fact about CC that gets recorded on a CC article not a biography. What this section should give the reader some awareness of is how notable have his interjections been and what the reaction has been. This section doesn't need to be long, we know that most scientists are scornful of the sceptics - we don't need to spell that out. What's been significant, beyond that, about their reaction to Monkton. Has it been unusually vitriolic? Have very notable people taken the time to comment particularly on his comments?
If we are going to talk about whether the reactions have been vitriolic maybe we should say something about the vitriol contained in many of his own comments. For instance dismissing a US Catholic university as a "half assed Catholic bible college", its president as a "creep" and accusing the Archbishop of St Paul's as being "probably so busy sorting out the problems with little boys that he hasn’t got time to deal with this one." . or describing protesters (including some young Jews) as Hitler Youth etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majurawombat (talkcontribs) 03:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is to inform the reader always about Monkton, and not about CC or its arguments.

I hope this helps. At any rate, I'd suggest agreeing some outline before re-writing. That way you don't get bogged down on the details of whether this or that particular quote or comment can be justified, whilst ignoring the "overall balance", and I suspect the concern is more with the balance than with any one item.--Scott Mac 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, if not actually blindingly obvious. Thanks. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I'm saying the obvious. But sometimes the way forward is to go back to basics and ask "what's the overall purpose here?"--Scott Mac 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)This is definitely a promising start. That challenge, as I see it, really lies in point #2 of your outline - "Situate Monkton's views within the range of CC scepticism". I really wonder who has written about the range of views. Point #3, the "why people think he's wrong" bit needs a caveat - we also can't give the impression that his views are consistent with the mainstream. Fringe views need to be identified as such, even if they aren't actually rebutted. Probably not as much of a challenge here as in some other articles though. Regarding the "especially vitriolic" thing - I think trying to judge vitriol is something we should avoid. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, is he for instance denying change is happening, or that its man-made, or that it matters, or is he allowing that it is partially man-made? I don't know much about the issue, but non-mainstream views can, as far as I see, range from those who'd question aspects of the orthodoxy, or take slightly variant positions, to those who deny the whole thing. Then there are those who'd question the science, and those who'd question the motives of the mainstream. As for "Fringe views need to be identified as such". I think the over-concentration on this has been the problem. Fair enough, but the article isn't on views but a person. If anything needs said, it should be sufficient to say "these views are at variance from the mainstream consensus of scientists" and perhaps give a comment by one mainstream scientist (or representative institution). It shouldn't need much verification since I don't think anyone is disputing his views are not mainstream. Readers wanting to know how such CC views relate to the scientific mainstream should be directed to the appropriate articles. ?"--Scott Mac 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's quite a challenge to describe Monckton's opinions without sounding like a satirist. On climate change, although there is a veneer of pseudo-science or at best fringe science, the general thrust of his message appears to be that global warming is a massive United Nations conspiracy to bring about world government. It would be difficult to say that of anybody in his biography without making him sound unhinged. It's a perennial problem for Wikipedia: how to write about somebody whose ideas have achieved some notoriety. Getting the balance right is not easy.

In an earlier discussion I made the point that I think it's more important that we record his giving evidence before a Congressional committee than it is either to characterize that evidence or even to note that a score of climate scientists, many of them eminent in the field, subsequently produced a rebuttal. Indeed if anything I think in a bio the latter would tend to magnify his political influence. Write about that, more than his ideas. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This reliable source summarises the views Monckton presented at a congressional hearing on Thursday, May 6, 2010. "His testimony included claims that increasing ocean acidification is not due to rising CO2 levels, that recent decades of warming were due to global brightening as opposed to rising CO2 levels, and that there is nothing unusual about recent rises in global temperatures. He concluded his testimony by stating that anthropogenic climate change is a 'non-problem' and that the correct policy response was 'to do nothing'." Five leading experts in the field prepared a detailed analysis and rebuttal of his claims which they have filed to Congress, and they state that "In all cases, Monckton's assertions are shown to be without merit – they are based on a thorough misunderstanding of the science of climate change." He's made similar presentations elsewhere. Tony makes a good point, this isn't the place for a detailed presentation of the individual's claims and their rebuttal, presumably we can link to articles on the areas of science he disputes and note that expert examination found his claims to be without merit. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but in this instance I would say that we'd only want to mention the subject on which he testified and probably the fact that it drew a rebuttal from many experts. In scientific circles Monckton's ideas have no impact but he is quite influential in the political sphere, and has a strong ally in the Senate in Jim Inhofe. I would tend to avoid an exposition of his ideas for reasons I've already outlined. They don't matter any more than a detailed description of Rep. Markey's views on the effects of the carbon economy on the global surface temperature, though in both cases they are factors in the actions and influence of the two respective politicians. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From the cited source, which also includes extensive replies from Monckton himself: 'Monckton has been among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the "largest fraud of all time" and arguing that it is being used to establish a "new world government."'

Now if we wrote something like that, we would be painting Monckton with the brush he has carefully fashioned for himself, but we would be over-emphasizing the opinions, both in their extreme nature and in their relevance to the dialog. To draw a close parallel, the fact that so many candidates in the approaching mid-term elections espouse a cross section of extreme social conservative and libertarian views does not mean that we should devote significant effort to describing those ideas and various rebuttals in the biographies of the candidates. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Drafting a section on climate science activism

I suppose I'll give it a go. This is about what I think we should say:

Climate science

Lord Monckton has strong views on climate science and believes scientific claims of man-made global warming are part of a fraudulent attempt to impose world government. He has testified on the subject of global warming before an American Congressional committee. The scientific arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.

I think that's about all we need to write. Possibly we could get away with less. Possibly repeating his most unorthodox view, that it's all a big lie, isn't appropriate, but I'm still thinking about it. There is an important nuance, really: he accepts that temperatures have risen, but he claims that temperatures aren't rising within projections and that evidence for the influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is faked or exaggerated (mostly the former). And he can be quite scathing about the idea that carbon dioxide has anything to do with ocean acidification. --TS 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Some witification would be appropriate, suggest
Lord Monckton strongly opposes the mainstream scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and says it is part of a fraudulent attempt to impose world government. He has testified on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.
That way, we show the relationship to mainstream views as well as showing how scientists have received M's views. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also intend that we should give appropriate citations for the facts (mainly the Grauniad article which provides an excellent summary). What do you think on content? --TS 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "opposes the mainstream scientific consensus" is awkward, methinks. I suggest something along the lines of
Lord Monckton disagrees with the scientific consensus on man-made global warming...
ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Lord Monckton believes that the scientific consensus on man-made global warming is part of a fraudulent ...
RDBrown (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
To Tony, the length and content seems about right, rather than going into more specific detail on his claims. He disputes all the science as well as claiming it's a fraud to bring in the black helicopters, so suggest:
Lord Monckton strongly disputes the mainstream scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and says..."
Leave "strongly" out if preferred, but he's certainly not tentative. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"mainstream" seems redundant because I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "non-mainstream scientific consensus". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
First add what he believes, this article is about monkton, not how what he believes differs from others opinions. A comment at the end saying his views are only supported by a minority of scientists will easily cover that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you propose doing that? What does he believe? And who are these "minority of scientists" who support his his views? What source gives a coherent statement of Monckton's views? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Here an alternative proposal:
  • Lord Monckton strongly opposes the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and warns that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one. He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.
  • Sources: [16][17][18] --JN466 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Warns", I think, lends more credence to his extreme views on conspiracy than are merited. I'll have to look at the articles on Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz and the like to see how we handle people's extreme fringe views. My instincts are that we'd omit detail if we can't get it right (see my comments above). Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a coatrack for presenting M's views with only an outline mention that a rebuttal has been issued. Best to omit detail rather than introduce problems of undue weight to fringe positions. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Fringe positions exist and we should report them, by the simple fact that they are in real life a minority then there will be a minority of artcles about the minority position. I am looking to learn from monktons BLP what monkton believes in, not what the majority of scientists believe and that a majority of them disagree with monkton. 19:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I am looking to learn from monktons BLP what monkton believes in - Aren't we all? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself and for the general issues regarding WP:BLP articles. IMO, this article needs to report monktons position and not give undue weight to the people that disagree with him, they can do that as much as they like on their own article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And how do you propose to do this? What is "monktons position"? And I don't understand what you mean by the general issues regarding WP:BLP articles. If you're aware of some source that presents Monckton's claims in a coherent way that they can stand alone, then please share it - it would make writing this article much easier. But if you don't, then I don't know what you're asking almost seems like you are demanding something which does not exist. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not proposing anything, let alone as you accuse ..demanding. Please feel free to join in, this is a discussion request at the BLP noticeboard to agree on a content addition, as yet there is little to assess. I was hoping a new non battlefield environment would be available. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You said: First add what he believes. And I asked how you propose we do that. And your response was to say IMO, this article needs to report monktons position. Which is not a response to my question, simply a restatement of your prior position. Now you say I am not proposing anything. Which clearly contradicts your prior claim. Finally you say: I was hoping a new non battlefield environment would be available. I'm sorry, but there's no one taking a "battlefield" view of anything but you. I was being very civil with you despite the fact that you were calling for something which, as far as I can tell, does not exist. If I am mistaken, please correct me. But don't start throwing out insults.
All I am asking is that you explain what you're saying. What "beliefs" or "positions" of Monckton's are you talking about? That's not an unreasonable request. If you won't explain what you're talking about, how are we supposed to get anywhere? Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The proposal I posted adequately describes them, as given in the sources. --JN466 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
We can drop the "warns", i.e.: "He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and that it is used as a means ..." --JN466 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised proposal

  • Lord Monckton strongly opposes the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one. He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the US Congress by 21 prominent climate scientists.
  • Sources: [19][20][21] --JN466 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Where the rebuttal was filed and how many climate scientists seems not very relevant to the biography of Monckton. I would prefer, "...rebuttal by prominent climate scientists." ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy either way on that; it was in Tony's original draft and is sourceable to the Guardian. However, I note that it was 21 scientists, and was filed with the US Congress, not the House of Representatives. Updated accordingly above, for the time being. --JN466 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful of the quote, which appears to be a paraphrase by an AAP journalist in your first source above. Also unless I'm mistaken the phrase "that would be democratically accountable to no one" doesn't seem to be attributable directly to Monckton. I'd prefer to see attributable quotes if that's possible. --TS 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed quoting the journalist -- that ambiguity involved in using quotation marks that way is always a little undesirable, and I'd rather avoid it too. I'll have a look how to circumvent this. The lack of democratic accountability is a point that comes up in the first and third sources given above, and it is arguably a more valid point, or at least a distinct one from the climate science argument per se. He makes similar arguments about EU bureaucracy; he is after all involved in the UK Independence party, so this appears to be a recurring theme in his thinking. (Scepticism towards the role of unelected EU bureaucrats is a very wide-spread viewpoint in Britain.) --JN466 02:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your reasoning on the words used, and I agree that his Euro-scepticism is part of a common theme in the UK. When he was one of Thatcher's aides, Euro-scepticism was very common within her wing of the Conservative Party, although that party has long-since repudiated Thatcher's little-England stance and they're Heathites in all but name.
I'd just like to see if we can try to summarise his opinions, as far as possible, in his own attributable words. I may come back to this if I see some suitable quotes. --TS 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I think the wording at present is close to being acceptable although we should clear up ambiguity over the quote of the AAP journalist. The idea of going for attributable quotes from Monckton himself is a nice-to-have rather than a must-have. --TS 03:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this summary. To begin with, what evidence is there that the third source, is a BLP-appropriate source? The "About us" link is broken, and I can't find any reliable sources attesting to its reliability. A website that calls itself an "authoritative" news source, but doesn't even list an editorial board or a physical address almost certainly isn't. But more to the point, using two newspaper articles to provide a complete summary of Monckton's views, when the articles themselves don't purport to do so, is problematic. Anything, looking the two apparently reliable sources

The Australian (?)[22]

  • "is known around the world for his argument that humans are not damaging the climate"
  • "Temperatures have not risen in recent years and the Arctic iceshelf was not melting, he said."
  • "If temperatures were rising, it could be because of increased solar activity."
  • "Evidence used by climate scientists to say climate change was real was fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling, Lord Monckton said."
  • "The climate was a complex system that could not be predicted years, or decades, ahead."
  • "He warned of the dangers if good science was ignored, saying the 25 million deaths from HIV/AIDS could have been avoided if those afflicted had been locked away from the start."

The Guardian [23]

  • "His testimony included claims that increasing ocean acidification is not due to rising CO2 levels,"
  • "recent decades of warming were due to global brightening as opposed to rising CO2 levels"
  • "there is nothing unusual about recent rises in global temperatures"
  • "anthropogenic climate change is a 'non-problem' and that the correct policy response was 'to do nothing'"
  • "among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the 'largest fraud of all time'"
  • "arguing that it is being used to establish a 'new world government'"

Comparing that with the proposed text:

To begin with, we don't use titles to refer to people. So it wouldn't be "Lord". More to the point, "strongly opposes" just doesn't convey his all-out rejection of the entire field of study.

  • He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling"

In the first article he (a) rejects human influence of climate, (b) says warming isn't happening, (c) says if there is warming, it's due to increased solar activity, (d) rejects the evidence, and (e) rejects the premise that anyone could predict future climate. In the second article he (appears to) accept warming, blaming it on "global brightening" and saying there's "nothing unusual" about recent warming. So we have two contradictory positions being seamlessly merged.

  • and that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one.

Can't find the "democratically accountable to no one" bit

  • He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the US Congress by 21 prominent climate scientists.

The main problem here is why mention this particular testimony. What - other than recentism - makes this bit especially important? It's not clear to me. Is this the only time he has spoken to legislators? Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    • He seems to travel and speak quite widely. This page has an embedded video of one of his speeches, as well as a transcript (this is just for background info and discussion). --JN466 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The Education News site was just a useful interview I found when researching what Monckton's views are. The lack of democratic accountability is mentioned in the piece: "a 'world government ... that would have shut down democracy worldwide'. This new government would have policing powers, impose taxes, and 'take control over all formerly free markets', he said." They are covered elsewhere as well; for example here by Canada Free Press. All of this was really in the run-up to the Copenhagen Accord, which in the end did not become a legally binding treaty, but only an accord (Monckton seems to have been happy about that). --JN466 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Shorter version - if we say he "opposes the scientific consensus", we miss the point. He doesn't just oppose the dominant position, he also opposes the position of most skeptics. And, if the news reports are to be taken at face value, he also opposes himself some of the time. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We just need a simple informative summary, I like what Jayen wrote and it seems to explain his position clearly. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, perhaps, but not accurately. And surely accuracy is more important that brevity? Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to post your summary for discussion and comparison. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this is notable, Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. from the citation Jayen presented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Which citation? The court did spot inaccuracies but the film is still cleared for showing in schools. It was a mixed result. The classification of the errors as "serious" needs some qualification: they did not detract from the message of the film. --TS 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The cite jayen presented just above, it is a simple statement, and seems clear enough to me. the cite doesn't say the removal altered the general message of the video and that is also not the notable point of the comment. As I see it, it is easy, we find and cite the general position of monkton , this is not a scientific debate, and neither will what we add here affect the weather. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Mainstream source (Times) covering the Al Gore case. There is a video of the house select committee hearing mentioned in the Guardian, which Monckton participated in in May, here (haven't watched it yet, but might be interesting). --JN466 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
For reference, what Monckton does say, is that there were periods of rapid warming: "1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-2001. Warming rates in all three periods were identical at ~0.16 K (0.3 F°) per decade.... From 1950-1975, and again from 2001-2010, global temperatures fell slightly (HadCRUTv3, cited in IPCC, 2007)." So the fact that a journalist quotes him as saying that warming both happened and didn't happen, and that when it happened it might have happened for different reasons than those generally believed, does not involve an obvious logical contradiction in his argument. (Monckon's US testimony is here, the climate scientists' point-by-point rebuttal is here (and also quotes Monckton's paper in full). --JN466 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The current draft is still recognisably based on my first draft, which was based on the Guardian article about the recently published rebuttal. On checking other sources I saw that Monckton was making the "world government" claim in this context in his own writings as long ago as 2006 and that it now forms the core of his message which is informed by deep suspicion of government regulation. In that respect he appears to be a political first cousin of the John Birch Society.

The Congressional testimony, and the extraordinary step of an unsolicited rebuttal, speak to the success of Monckton's advocacy. He is well connected and influential within the Congressional Republicans.

There are certainly other ways of summarizing Monckton's climate advocacy, and some of them might be superior to this. Perhaps somebody would like to produce a separate clean-sheet draft. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping the old school way of editing this subject have gone, it does not sit easy attempting to discuss a living person with users that hold absolute opposite positions to the subject, years of the regretful type POV discussions and adding of as much negative content as possible are hopefully history. I prefer labour and as such don't edit or add much to conservative articles , although I revert vandalism on those articles, I would suggest, users that are totally opposed to this living person would enjoy more editing the articles of climate change activists and let users that are not so strongly opposed to this living subject add some NPOV detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I'm a bit flummoxed by that last comment. Was it addressed to any person in particular? At this point in drafting I hope to solicit drafts for comment and wouldn't want to deter anybody from giving it a go. It's not as if we'd end up all agreeing to put unacceptable material into the article, is it?Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a general comment, if you feel it applies to you then perhaps you could consider it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't, and for reasons I gave above I hope you won't repeat it. Let us not deter contributions of drafts at this stage. --TS 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a simple representation of the last couple of years that this BLP has suffered. I hope for a new beginning . Lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. To recap, I and Jayen466 have made a proposal, basically the same one with a decent revision (which I support with reservations). Guettarda points to serious structural problems, and I explain the reason for the chosen structure and solicit further proposals. --TS 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SA proposal

This is my proposal after being involved in the discussion. I think most of the reliable sources indicated above can be slapped on at the end as references:

Monckton has made statements that contradict much of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He believes that the ecological, scientific, and political concern over global warming is part of a conspiracy to defraud the global community in an attempt to impose a world government.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this captures his reasoning very well. --JN466 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What's his reasoning? This version, to me, reads very similar to yours except that it singles out what aspects of the discussion he dislikes the most. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he thinks that the objective of the governments is to raise money and or create jobs in this vast new industry. But it is interesting that all his arguments are kicked into touch by the scientists. Kittybrewster 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
First look is that the link has been redirected from scientific opinion to scientific consensus and that starts me asking questions, such as , why? [[ Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific consensus on man-made global warming]] Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's where scientific consensus on global warming resolves to. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Its a users created redirect, WMC added it with three reverts Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but do you think it's an improper redirect? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it was disputed and I didn't like it when I saw it added. Opinion and consensus are two different things, aren't they? And there are some scientists of differing opinions, so its not a correct replacement or redirect. IMO Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Who disputed it? Opinion and consensus are two different things, but the article does indicate a very broad consensus about anthropogentic global warming among scientists. IMO. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I gathered, one of the things he was most upset about was the lack of democratic accountability which -- to his mind -- the government and bureaucracy envisaged in the Copenhagen accord would have had. --JN466 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Others above pointed out that this concern is not indicated in the sources provided. I have a similar concern. Can you point to where this was described? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Imagine, now, decisions being made about your life, your choices, by unelected bureaucrats in some far-off place, completely protected from public opinion. A YouTube video of Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British PM Margaret Thatcher, addressing a recent event at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN, has gone “viral” as people share it with friends, family, and colleagues. In his speech, he says of the Copenhagen climate change treaty that “a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. How many of you think that the word ‘election’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘vote’ or ‘ballot’ occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties—and because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.” [24]
  • Lord Monckton told a Canberra audience that proponents of climate change wanted to establish a "world government ... that would have shut down democracy worldwide. This new government would have policing powers, impose taxes, and take control over all formerly free markets, he said to applause from more than 200 people at the National Press Club. [25]
  • At Copenhagen this December, the states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet to finalize a treaty intended to prevent global warming caused by mankind's emissions of CO2. The Treaty of Copenhagen, which is already in draft, would create a new world government (the word "government" actually appears in the draft), with powers of direct intervention in the economic and environmental affairs of individual nations. The world government will have the power to redistribute up to 2% of gross domestic product from wealthy to poor countries, and will have the power to enforce its decisions by various methods, including unlimited fines on states who do not obey. The world government will also be given the right to control all markets worldwide. In my long experience, I have never seen any international treaty give so much power to a transnational bureaucracy before. Yet the words "election", "democracy", "ballot", and "vote" do not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty draft. [26] --JN466 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
These sources seem to be talking about his views regarding the climate treaties mostly. I'd say that's a different issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Copenhagen treaty was the specific context in which he spoke of attempts to establish a "world government". He lobbied for people not to sign it, using that as a meme. (In the end it was signed as an "accord" without legally binding force.) --JN466 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The first use of the term "world government" that I can find by Monckton is in 2006, when he invokes it in the context of the Stern report and attributes the term to former French President Jacques Chirac. He was not referring to the Copenhagen talks at that time. --TS 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe Monckton may have been referring to the phrase "global governance" in this speech in 2000, where Chirac hails the institution of the UNFCCC, which to be fair is the organization that organizes the COP (Conferences of Parties) talks of which Copenhagen was one. --TS 11:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you have the 2006 source? --JN466 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)--JN466 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, here it is in the Sunday Telegraph of November 5, 2006. --TS 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The French original of Chirac's speech is here; FWIW, in the French original, Chirac speaks both of "un véritable instrument de gouvernement global" ("an actual instrument of world government") and "une authentique gouvernance mondiale" ("authentic global governance"). So, he wasn't making the "world government" bit up; combine that with his views on Europe, and it's not hard to see what ticked him off. --JN466 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, his views on climate change only start appearing in news articles from 2006 onwards. That's after the 2005 G8 summit, where Blair made climate change a priority, and around the time people started talking about a post-Kyoto treaty. His interest in climate science may actually be secondary to his interest in national sovereignty. He denies climate change because, in his view, any binding treaty on climate change would remove an element a national sovereignty from the UK (as well as other countries), which is anathema to him. That a Frenchman first used the word "world government" probably wouldn't have helped. As far as the article is concerned, we should note that he started commenting on climate science from 2006, and later on lobbied extensively against the proposed Copenhagen treaty, calling it undemocratic. There is an interesting article in the Australian here, title Heated moments mar Monckton, both praising and criticising Monckton: "Warning people about the genuine threat to national sovereignty from a centralised global-warming bureaucracy is one thing. Talking about a new front of communists marching your way is another." --JN466 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Politically it is a very extreme conspiracy theory of governance, which is why I described it above as politically similar to the ideas of the John Birch people. This aligns quite well with the right wing populism of the Tea Party (in speeches Monckton has even pandered to the Obama conspiracy theorists known as the "Birthers" by jokingly refering to the supposed non-existence of the President's birth certificate).
The Guardian piece, quite correctly I think, joins the dots in a way that reflects Monckton's own expressed views. In his view climate science is not only wrong, it's a political tool being used to impose global tyranny of the sort his mainly American audiences are preoccupied with. Monckton's signal failure to make headway in Britain, where we have no history of such conspiracy theories, is explained by this. It's also why he's now deputy leader of a fringe party rather than hanging around in the ruling Conservative Party in the hope of making converts there. His views are too unfashionable in Britain. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
According to our article on it, the UK Independence Party polled 3.1% at the 2010 UK General Election, which makes it fringey at the national level, but 16.5% at the 2009 European elections, which suggests that its stance on Europe enjoys a significant level of support in the UK (they actually beat the then-ruling Labour Party and the now-co-ruling Liberal Democrats in that election, coming second place after the Conservatives). --JN466 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not right. European elections attract a much smaller and skewed electorate. They cannot be used to draw conclusions about the general public support. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It shows support in that election, that is a simple fact, they came second in the election. 33 percent of possible electorate voted and 16 percent of them voted for the Independence party and its policies. The voter turnout in the 2010 general election was twice as many 66 percent. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The statistics of small turn-out elections are well-understood to favor niche political causes as that portion of the electorate is far more likely to vote when the rest of the electorate does not. This is basic political science fact. It is irresponsible to claim that the European elections show evidence of greater support in the populace for this group than the general elections, and there are no reliable secondary sources I've seen presented which indicate that. The conjecture of JN that this somehow represents a greater popular trust in UKIP for European politics is bald original research and flatly contradicted by a simple understanding of how such low-turnout elections work. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The smaller parties generally do better at the European elections; that also goes for the Green Party. It is well known that at national elections, people vote strategically -- if they think their actual party of preference does not have a chance of beating Labour or the Conservatives, they will vote for whichever party is closest to their own point of view. Britain's "first-past-the-post" electoral system (as opposed to the proportional representation common in many other democracies) is also a big factor in this. At the European elections, these constraints don't apply, so people vote for the parties they actually support. There is no way round it: they got 2.5 million votes, 16.5% of voters at that election. If everyone of those 2.5 million voters had voted for them at the national election, they would have polled 8.5% there. --JN466 14:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is all extremely peripheral to the topic at hand, but, to be clear, there is no reliable source which indicates that the European elections somehow indicate that UKIP is less of a fringe political party than is indicated by their performance in the general elections. Further arguments on this topic should be referred to in sources. I choose this source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466 that Monckton's views and fringe claims about global warming can be viewed as coming from his Euro-skepticism which in turn is a kind of Little Englander tendency quite common on the political right in the UK.

Monckton has taken this further than others, while in recent years the Conservative Party has moved towards the center and its leadership has embraced a general view formerly more common on the left of the Labour Party and the old Liberal Party, especially on the environment. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a side point, but one needs to take care about how we use terms like "fringe". It's relative. The fringe of what - and how "far out" is any particular fringe. For instance, in an article on Climate Change, Monkton's views are pretty fringe and merit a passing mention (if at all). However, in an article on Monkton, his views are in fact extremely pertinent (if his involvement with Climate Change is a significant part of his C.V.). Indeed, in such an article, I'd see the response to his views by mainstream scientists to be "fringe" at best to the article. As for UKIP, the notion that they are "fringe" to UK politics is nonsense. Even ignoring the EU election as untypical, any party polling 3% nationally is not fringe - elections are often won and lost on less that 3% of the vote, and UKIP's presence certainly had the potential to severely damage the Conservative party. Once could not have an article on any recent UK general election (particularly 1997 and 2001) and ignore UKIP - 920,000 people voted for them. The media regularly interview their spokespeople, and their anti-European platform has (I suspect) an even larger support among the populace. Having said that, UKIP's views on climate change (I've no idea what they are) are probably "fringe" to any understanding of why people support them - they are pretty much seen as a single issue anti-EU party.--Scott Mac 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is ambiguous about the word "fringe" here. He's got political views that aren't reflected by any of the three mainstream UK-wide political parties and he's got views of the science that are flatly contradicted by almost every scientific paper he cites in his support (and the authors are not slow in telling him so).
But that's beside the point, which I think is what you mean. Ideas that are on the political or scientific fringe should necessarily form the core of this article where they are important to Monckton. So I think we're on the same page. --TS 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Should state when he "references" data, articles, papers etc he is lying about what they actually say or he is so ignorant he gets the completely opposite idea to what they actually say. This has been been proven many times and can be easily verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Rachman, Gideon (October 29, 2010). "A night at the Oxford Union". Financial Times. I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases — and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? “Both”, he said, “and prions”. At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate.  Too recent? Not RS? Needs more sourcing? RDBrown (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No. That's hardly neutral biographical material, and you just picked out the least-flattering bit of it. This is the type of juicy one-sided quote from a critic that we don't need. Its also hearsay.--Scott Mac 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't hearsay what journalists provide?
Another ref

Morton, Adam (February 2, 2010). "Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue". Sydney Morning Herald. His interests stretch beyond climate change. He makes the extraordinary claim, one that he admits sounds bonkers, that he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.

Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu, he said.  line feed character in |quote= at position 274 (help)

Lord Monckton's documented claims re inventing a drug are well documented (I added links to the sources for this information) and should be put back in- the current biography has had anything that is factual but unpleasant to Lord Monckton's followers removed- it is a model of PC. His biography should include hist mistakes and missteps as well as his achievements. e.g. his claim of inventing the drug is in his CV at the UK Independence Party (UKIP) where he is the joint deputy leader "2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue". Indulis.b (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Kittybrewster 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
So do I. We have a problem here in that an article remains incomplete because the subject is a member of a political group and people sympathetic to that political view keep interfering. We get an edit war and the thing gets protected so that they get their way. I notice that quite frequently these individuals end up getting banned. Someone needs to start re-editing the article and putting the removed stuff back on. I may give it a start myself. Neilj (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree too. Neutral bio's must include ALL things relevant to the person concerned, provided clear sources are provided (in this case more than one per contentious statement is what is strongly recommended to help stop unjustified removals), not just one sided or the other, as both positive and negative aspects should equally be conveyed. Jimthing (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New content

In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming seems to be sourced to this article, however in reading it I can see nothing that supports this statement about a) his views being outspoken and b) that he has come to public attention for them. It is an article about a film he is promoting... The other sources appear to be op-ed pieces by him... --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Never was science advisor to thatcher

Contrary to his lie he was never her science advisor this should be stated int he article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not state that he was a science advisor.Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

However he has claimed to have been and there is a common belief that he was. As far as I am aware there is no evidence apart from his word that he was and not much evidence (apart from the lack of positive evidence) that he wasn't. However Thatcher clearly believed that global warming was a problem and set up the Hadley Institute to do research on it. She also had much better scientific qualifications than Monkton.

He also claimed to be a member of the House of Lords - which the relevant authorities deny.

As a the contributor to the top of this page stated there is more to Monkton than his position on climate change and these aspects should be included.

Surely articles on living persons are not meant to be puff peices. Majurawombat (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is to suggest that this article is a puff piece without actually giving any examples of what you are referring to. To suggest that we should write about his every claim is all well and good, but we need to cite that A) he made that claim, and B) someone else talked about it and that it was published in a respected source. Koncorde (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Like that anything that could make Monckton look bad gets kicked out even when sources are given - often quotes by himself. Lars T. (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If it's in a respected source and a matter of public record, then it can be reported by wikipedia (so long as it is delivered NPOV). I would guess previous attempts have been POV and/or included solely for the purpose of pushing a POV. Koncorde (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Kelly, Fran (21 March 2011). "British MP calls for a carbon tax". RN Breakfast. Australian Broadcasting Commission.
Fran Kelly: ... But I wonder what impact the climate sceptics, for instance like Lord Monkton from your country, have had on the political response?
John Gummer: Well, Lord Monkton isn't taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come here. Mrs Thatcher used to have the best scientists in the world in and she would nail them to the wall as she argued with them, because she was a scientist. And, like me, she didn't want to believe in climate change, it's the science makes it absolutely impossible not to believe that this is the most likely interpretation of what facts, which are becoming more and more clear.  line feed character in |quote= at position 160 (help)
RDBrown (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims regarding RESURREXI

I have made some changes to the claims regarding resurrexi. I think it is important that we are quite precise about exactly what has been claimed. Partly to avoid any accusation of bias, but also because this is BLP. For that reason, I have replaced;

"the affected diseases listed on his UKIP bio include "multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI". In addition he claimed it to show considerable promise in curing cases of AIDS in the show itself."


The UK Independence Party CV for Monckton states that "patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves' Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue." (ref name=UKIPbio/)

The Monbiot reference is unnecessary here and is used elsewhere in the article anyway. Monckton did not claim that his cure "show[s] considerable promise in curing cases of AIDS" in the CV but does claim that a "HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days" which I think makes the point. If we really want to include the "cures AIDS" claim, I think it would be best to show that as an actual quote.

On a slightly different matter, there is no wiki entry for herpes simplex VI. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this should just redirect to Herpes simplex virus or whether that's something altogether different. Thepm (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Monbiot reference is far from unnecessary when it makes the following statement:
His Ukip CV adds more details to Baron Monckhausen's wonderful claim to have invented the universal cure.
"Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves' Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI."
But what happened to the other diseases? When he joined UKIP in December, he claimed that
"Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves' disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV."
This highlights the ongoing revisionist Biography of Monckton whereby claims are made, only to be retracted or amended. That since Monbiot published his article Monckton has further amended his biography would serve to highlight why we require Monbiots citation for the previous claims of the man.
Similarly his biography over at the SPPI is of note[27] and it would be of equal note if a 3rd party was to directly reference it in the published media should he choose to remove in the future his claim to be a Nobel Laureate. Koncorde (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Koncorde. I guess I felt that the Monbiot reference was not necessary for what what there, but it does make the additional point that Monckton's claims for Resurrexi have changed. I think it's actually worth separating out Resurrexi as a new heading. I'm cautious about using an opinion piece in a BLP, so I've directly attributed the comment to Monbiot. Also, it seems that the current bio still includes reference to HIV, but not to a cure.
I think the article makes the point that you wanted to make (that claims for Resurrexi have changed). Does it work for you now? cheers Thepm (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Unfortunately since I cited many of the claims in the article individual lines of text have been amended by other editors for balance and so original intentions have been blurred or context removed (hence why it wasn't obvious to you the reason for the Monbiot link - it took me a few moments to re-read the article and locate the original reason for its inclusion (along with wikipedias general frowning upon self promotion, which the UKIP Bio obviously is).
Unfortunately most of Moncktons claims are being dealt with in a very limited sphere. He doesn't publish anything in peer review, and so he isn't crticized in peer review. Effectively it's just him and Delingpole vs Monbiot and Abraham.
With regards to his biography and Resurrexi the fact that his claim has gone from cure, to completely omitted, and now to a viral titre measurement is a valid critique. But unfortunately because it seems to be without any obvious scientific literature it's hard to nail down some vaporware. As for your original query regarding HSV VI - I'm like you, completely unawares of what it really constitutes (or why his wonderdrug doesn't effect all virus within the same family). Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
[28] - Kittybrewster 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

comment moved from the article

  • - Editing of this page by paid climate campaigners

Recent careful revisions to this page have been removed en bloc by certain paid climate campaigners whose mission is to try to destroy the reputations of Wikipedia biographees who have questioned the official "global warming" theory. These careful revisions, all of which were appropriately sourced, include correct spellings of the subject's name. We must ask that readers should disregard this page as unreliable, and that the Wikipedia authorities should carefully examine the edits made over the last 24 hours and discipline those who have undone the sensible, fair and proportionate revisions that had been made. (posted to the article by and moved to the talkpage by Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

It's an interesting conspiracy theory. The Ip address is making some valid edits, however it is also making some very clearly biased edits in favour of Mr Monckton to the extent of actually white washing the public record such as here. What "pending outcome" is actually pending I ask? Her claims (as per your talk page) of the thousands attempting to correct this article being offset by a few "paid" activists is interesting is obviously quite an interesting allegation. I hope that the edit history is in fact looked at by wikiepdias authorities so that they can see exactly what is happening is far from that being described.
He is not Mr Monckton. Kittybrewster 07:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP has patently set out her stall, both here, her edit summaries, and on your talk page, and made it evident that she has no interest in being fair or balanced or dealing with all of the details related to the subject. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that the IP is the subject, or an agent of the subject. If this is true (or even if there is a reasonable possibility that it is true), the matter needs to be handled sensitively. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
That has certainly happened in the past. Kittybrewster 07:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Yes, conspiracy is something I try to avoid, I agree some of the edits appear beneficial and perhaps a few are not, if they can perhaps be assessed individually rather than wholesale reverted that would be great. The editor appears to be attempting to improve the article, I have asked them to discuss and take their time, and also warned them of the possible consequences, personally I feel a little leeway is a good thing, we are not fixed in stone hopefully, but agree with your comments also - ec, and with Boris. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)]
I've just deleted wikilinks to who's who and debrett's. I assume in both cases the IP (how do we know it's a 'she'?) had intended them to be refs.
My view is that we encourage the IP to post here (ie the talk page) and that we should allow the changes to be made unless they are harmful to Monckton in some way. For the stuff that's supportive of Monckton (and not harmful to any LP), we make good faith efforts to substantiate the edits with refs before deleting.
Given the "notice" posted by the IP, should we post this to the BLP noticeboard? --Thepm (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Posting a "notice" to a "noticeboard" seems a logical thing to do. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
IP identifies itself (though refers to itself as an entity "we") in a contribution to Off2riorob talkpage here. Koncorde (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A notice has been posted to the BLP notice board. --Thepm (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Koncorde has reverted one of the edits made by the IP. I have deleted the following sentence that was reinstated as a result of the revert as the sentence is unreferenced.

The American Physical Society drew criticism for its inclusion of a disclaimer on Moncktons article regarding its lack of peer review status, and status as an unofficial newsletter rather than journal, and re-affirming their own stance adopted November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate".

--Thepm (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I had the references but didn't copy them over from my sandbox when messing around with the section (got distracted fixing a broken ref for Abrahams due to IP edits earlier). All inserted and hopefully fit for purpose. Koncorde (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep, works now. --Thepm (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit introduced an unsourced claim about the January 2011 ruling, with the summary Accuracy: High Court judge said Monckton was "substantially successful" in his action: previous version, suggesting total failure, was accordingly unfair. The court ruling does not yet appear here, so without another reliable source we can't check this claim. However, the news source was nuanced about the success or otherwise, reporting that "The judge refused the application on the basis that the agreement on which Lord Monckton relied lacked the clarity which he submitted it had. The "balance of justice" also favoured its refusal, he added." I've therefore removed the unsourced claim, but have summarised this nuanced report so the article no longer suggests "total failure". . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

large expansion of the Abrahams section

I recently reverted a large expansion of the section about Abrahams that was removed yesterday. Strange this section after coming up yesterday has been desired largely expansion by a new user User:ZangaroZen. I have reverted it as some of the cites looked primary and youtube and clearly after recent deletion of the section it should hardly be doubled in size without discussion. Seems to me like any expansion about Abrahams here is looking undue and if anyone wants to enlarge content that appears to be more about that person it belongs on that persons article John_Abraham_(professor) not here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This ...citation... that was in the desired addition reflects the general position of the addition <ref>{{title=Hate-speech promoter Lord Monckton tries to censor John Abraham}}</ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Title when citing journalism

Out of curiosity does anyone know if his full title should be used for his journalism pieces? I've been just putting in "Christopher Monckton" at the moment, but a few of his Telegraph pieces are tagged under Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. It wouldn't take long to fix them all, but not sure what the usual policy is. Koncorde (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I suppose "Lord Monckton" would be right, wouldn't it? Stifle (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deputy Lieutenant for Greater London

If this claim can be verified it should be added [29]. I have not found it in the London Gazette. Kittybrewster 10:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"No. 51269". The London Gazette. 14 March 1988. -- Barliner  talk  09:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Minnpost RS?

Just asking. The ref added here reads like a blog with the later "update" and the "I plan to write a follow-up post".

On a more general note, I think that this article has way too much guff and is about twice as long as it needs to be. I've taken a vow not to edit any articles even vaguely related to climate change, but someone here might want to consider whether we really need to include the fact that "Sherman asked Monckton to take the minutes at the CPS's study group meetings" for example. --Thepm (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why Pajamas should be excluded (other than the fact it may be unnecessary). An article undeniably by Monckton is a perfectly valid source for Monckton's views, or his opinion on others. What it is not a valid source for would be information about third parties - but we are not using it for that. If it is defamatory, that's largely irrelevant, since we are not citing it as a fact, only as evidence of Monckton's statements in an article about Monckton. If he defames people, that's between him and them.--Scott Mac 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


This article being somewhat contentious, it's probably best to explain all changes. I revised the sentence beginning with "Monckton questions the quantum of 'global warming'..." to read "Monckton questions the magnitude of global warming..." First, "quantum" seems an odd word choice, and "questions the quantum" falls oddly on the ear. Second, I see no reason for scare quotes around the common term global warming. I did not intend to make any change in meaning, but if anyone objects they're welcome to change it back. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazi controversy

I don't know if this is worth including, so I'm mentioning it here for discussion: recently, Lord Monckton provoked controversy by comparing the Australian government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, to a Nazi. He was criticised for his comments by Australian politicians such as Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. ([30]) Any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A recent Climate change profile Carlisle, Wendy (17 July 2011). "[Lord Monckton roadshow]". Background Briefing. ABC Radio National.  Check |episodelink= value (help)
House of Lords — David Beamish, Clerk of the Parliaments (15 July 2011). "A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments". Parliamentary business. 
RDBrown (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
For which he has publicly apologised on several occasions acknowledging it was crass and inappropriate. In light of media recommendations that climate deniers be tattooed and\or gassed it's not really so sensational. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

Nobel prize

Where is the information about his Nobel prize? And does anyone know what category it was awarded to him for? I've searched the list of Nobel prize winnders for "Monckton" and I've searched this page for "Nobel", but I can't find anything. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not a Nobel laureate. He wears a Nobel pin given to him by an actual scientist, and when called on it he brushes it off as a joke.[31]Matariel (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


This section should be deleted or shortened to make it clear that Monckton is making ridiculous claims that no-one with any scientific or medical knowledge could regard with anything other than derision. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new quack cures, it is not a snake-oil sales emporium. Gordoncph (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is an essential indicator of Monckton's character to know that his medical claims amount to quackery. This combined with his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, contrary to what the House of Lords has stated, will allow readers to form an opinion on whether he is to be trusted on other matters, for example global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone reading this article can only conclude that Monckton is as nutty as a fruitcake. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lords Membership Issue

There's a very lengthy quote from LCM in there - could the positions of the respective parties be summarised? Marty jar (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the quote because it didn't seem to add anything (and it's also constitutionally illiterate - it is the Writ of Summons which grants membership of the House, not the Letters Patent). Also there were two mentions of the recent cease and desist letter which is one two many. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
is that your way of counting? . . one, two, many :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sam counts with his fists :-) Manning (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that he is not a member of parliament and only the member of a political party, is it still right to refer to him in the introduction as a "British politician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
He is director of research for a political party; his previous posts include being a member of the Downing Street research staff, being Deputy Leader, and fighting several elections - so I'd say he is certainly a politician. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed for each. --Kittybrewster 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Section 3 - Political Views Neutrality tag

I have removed the neutrality tag from Section 3 as there does not seem to be any active debate on the matter. Should there still be outstanding issues, then feel free to reinstate the tag and then present your concerns here on the discussion page. Manning (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadfield videos, apparent BLP violation

I have deleted the reference to these. I am not saying they aren't good videos, but that their notability isn't really established. Also, is Hadfield best described as a Guardian journalist?-- (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I looking at putting the reference to Hadfield's debunking of Monckton's climate change views and statements as: (1) 'notability' in wikipedia guidelines, as far as I can see, is required in the article topic (ie Monckton himself) but not the content or criticism's of the article subject; (2) though wikipedia 'notability' guidelines refer to the article topic specifically I can understand that you wouldn't necessarily include every small thing with has little relevance and is only put in because of some direct link to Monckton (eg what type of sandwich Monckton had for lunch on June 30th 2001). However, Hadfield's criticism of Monckton's climate change arguments/stance is particularly extensive, knowledgeable, and above all - sourced. Arguably far more intensive research and comprehension of the scientific material has been demonstrated by Hadfield than by Monckton himself and frankly I would suggest that what makes Monckton at all notable is his high visibility in the climate change public debate arena as a climate change denier or 'sceptic'; and (3) the topic of climate change is such a broad and important one that where a notable person's stance on the topic (such as Monckton) is shown (as Hadfield has done) to be filled with error, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, it is important that such (extensively researched and sourced) criticism be presented so as to provide a balanced and neutral perspective of the article topic to the passing reader. Otherwise a passing reader could presume that no (or limited) informed criticism of Monckton's viewpoints. Without Hadfield's videos, or at least the equivalent of their content being included in wikipedia, the reader is considerably less informed.

Note that it's not only Hadfield, but there are others who have extensively criticised Monckton, one particular exhaustive one was done by a scientist whom I can't remember the name of at the moment, but as soon as I can recollect the name I'll include the scientist exhaustive debunking of Monckton as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtamtyrant (talkcontribs) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Professor John Abrahams. Kittybrewster 21:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The Hadfield videos appear to be self-published and hence aren't permitted by WP:BLPSPS. Unless they can be shown to conform to WP:BLP policy, this material must be removed. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sacha Baron Cohen revelation/hoax

I've tried to add a link to the claim, widely re-reported, that Lord Monckton is a fictional creation of Sacha Baron Cohen. It's hard to tell who's had whom in the ensuing ball of coverage — prima facia, it appears to be a prank by "The Hamster Wheel" — but since it did generate media attention, it seemed noteworthy. However, two different editors have summarily removed the edit. Their explanations, "not a notable part of CM's life" and "hell, no, don't be foolish," seem insufficient by way of explanation. I'm taking this to the talk page in the hopes that we can figure out what the criteria are for a something being a "notable part" of a person's life. !melquiades (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't even think about adding such a link. Pure hoax. --Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoax, yes, seems to be — but can't a hoax be notable? That's the question. !melquiades (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes it could be. But it would be written up under Craig Reucassel and referenced -- not linked to a blog or you tube. Kittybrewster 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, it makes sense that this primarily belongs in the Reucassel article. Still, it does seem that this article should do something to address the issue — perhaps linking to the Reucassel? or…? This is making the rounds on the net, and people are coming to the Monckton article to figure out whether this can possibly actually be true (as I did). If there is a citable suitable source confirming that it is indeed a hoax, then certainly it makes sense for the article to clear the air and get the facts straight. Don't you think? !melquiades (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No I don't. That is not how encyclopedias work.. Kittybrewster 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
They don't take into account what readers want to know, or attempt to redress common misconceptions? Really? Sorry, I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I just feel like I've hit a weird invisible wall here not reflected (as far I can see) in Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems to me that, by refusing to address this, Wikipedia is complicit in the hoax. But I'll not press the point; the editing mob is clearly against me. I suppose this one may be one better suited to Snopes. !melquiades (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Not saying you are obnoxious. Think about it from Monckton's perspective. WP:BLP Then find a WP:RS. Kittybrewster 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did skim both of those pages, and that's what confused me: blogs published by news sources appear to be admissible sources. WP:NEWSBLOG If I were Monckton, I'd want the thing nipped in the bud. But again, sounds like Snopes is the better venue for that — especially since I can't find a good source that clearly says "this is a hoax" in black and white, and the article would thus have to take the NPOV structure of my attempted edit. !melquiades (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That blog relates to a prank by Craig and says that Monckton is not SBC. Therefore it is inadmissible under CM. It is not a part of his life. You might get away with including it in Craig's works but I doubt it. Kittybrewster 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a prank and that's all it is. It seems to have got a bit of coverage but I think it's probably better to set it in context: Monckton's tour of Australia a couple of years ago got a bit of traction there--good for him. His most recent tour didn't do so well. We can write about that. I do think we should write about the facts as we can discern them. --TS 07:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree it is definitely a hoax (that's the joke) there is scope for a cultural impact section here I think, I think the main argument for the cultural impact section though is his impact on climate change denialist culture. There are also other examples of parody including RAP NEWS 3: Lord Monckton rap-battles Al Gore on Climate Change [11] it has over 160,000 views so is definitely noteable. There are many people who are not entertainers etc with cultural impact section that reference works of fiction e.g Markus Wolf Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Cultural impact zero. Kittybrewster 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Why? Commenters above explained their reasoning and evidence. You should do the same. Otherwise it comes out like the "Counterpoint" author on this page:,11534/ !melquiades (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Patent Applications - "Therapeutic Treatments"

The Anon-IP user who has been editing this article recently has been attempting to include a reference to the UK Patent Office indicating that Lord Monckton has filed patents for "Therapeutic Treatments". Lord Monckton appears to apply for patents under this heading serially. The application is applied and terminated after a calendar year (presumable expired without follow-up to the initial application). Then re-applied and terminated again 1 year later. This appears to have been going on since 2008. With the latest patents applied for in September 2011 upon the expiry of the ones applied for in 2010. See JAC Esquire (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Patent applications are often filed in annual series because research to prove the claims in the applications before final publication can take longer than a single year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on patents is required only after a patent has been granted. Until then, is this section necessary?

Resurrexi Pharmaceutical

The statements appear somewhat Messianic: should they not be supported by medical evidence? A political party is hardly a reliable source for medical claims, credible or not. I suggest this section should be removed unless evidence - medical rather than political - is produced of any cures. Historikeren (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On an archive talk page, I have argued that the claims relating to this so-called pharmaceutical company should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting quack medicine.Gordoncph (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree - if I had claimed to be able to cure HIV infections, is it all right for me to include that on my web page provided there is a reference to the web pages of a fringe political party? (provided of course that I have no objection to being portrayed as a lunatic :)). It looks like a misuse of Wikipedia for personal advertisement.
Lack of medical evidence in support of this section clearly violates WP:RSMED. Are there any objections to its removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talkcontribs) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think WP:RSMED really applies in this case. We're not providing health information; we're reporting what Monckton has claimed about his own personal medical research. As such, as long as it's appropriately attributed then we're OK. I've taken the liberty of rewording it to ensure that is the case. It's significant in the context of the article because it seems to be the only (semi-)scientific activity that Monckton has actually engaged in. Prioryman (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

House of Lords letter re membership of the House

(Moved to end of page shellac (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

The history shows repeated and apparently prejudiced removal of a sourced reference to the existence of a legal opinion by Hugh O'Donoghue, listed as a barrister at Carmelite Chambers, London, stating that Lord Monckton is indeed a member of the House. The Opinion concludes that Lord Monckton "is fully entitled to say so". Why has this reference been deleted and the page then locked down? Lord Monckton would have good grounds for suing Wikipedia for libel if its "editors" insist on only giving one side of this story. We suggest to whoever has locked the page down that this repeated bias against the subject should be corrected either by inserting a reference to the Opinion or by removing the reference to the letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which seems partisan and - in the light of the Opinion - more than a little foolish. One must give both sides or neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What side is the article missing? That a barrister happens to agree with Lord Monckton doesn't seem notable in itself. Has this opinion been scrutinised or tested? And you might want to drop the legal threats. shellac (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also being discussed on the dispute resolution noticeboard. shellac (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth Mr Hugh O'Donoghue's specialism is listed on the chambers' site as follows: " International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals." - This does not make him 'a leading constitutional lawyer' as described on Watt's Up with That. Why his opinion on this matter should warrant any interest is beyond me on the other hand the law on this matter is quite clear. JAC Esquire (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP, which has been used both here and at the dispute resolution noticeboard to make threats about libel suits by Monckton. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the House of Lords knows who the members are, and they say Monckton isn't a member :) . . . why bother to flog a dead horse? arguing over facts is immature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talkcontribs) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

M.A. award

The M.A. award at Cambridge is available without further study to anyone who holds a B.A. six years after graduation. It is not an earned degree with a course of study. Perhaps this point should be made clearer, or perhaps there should be a link to the university policy? Eli Rabett (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bit about Monckton and the Australian media

I was replying to something on Talk:Gina Rinehart and I camer across this [ Lord Monckton and the Future of Australian Media] which I thought was quite interesting. Also I've seen quite enough reliable secondary sources around to say Monckton has been called a climate change denier but the word isn't mentioned except in the citations titles which is peculiar. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the issue is whether we have reliable sources meeting WP:BLP policy: not sure if that source could qualify under WP:NEWSBLOG to meet WP:BLPSPS. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That one was one of the magazines own correspondents and an expert as he is a professor in politics not a general blogger. It could be considered an opinion piece but what written by such an expert would not be? Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyway I thought that bit was more for interest for the politics part of the article. For the denial bit even if it says it in the title that there are better sources in books like The Inquisition of Climate Science by James Lawrence Powell page 91 or Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming by James Hoggan, Richard D. Littlemore page 85 and there's other books and lots of newspapers as well, it's not as though he's hidden his insights about climate change. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation does not support authors were contacted

[32] Abraham investigated the origins of many of the claims by contacting the authors of those papers Monckton had cited How does a list of Abraham's publications support this? Removed pending clarification here, perhaps I am missing something. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the cite was originally for the two links at the top of the page with his posted rebuttals. Sentence meaning may have been changed at some point and the references not moved accordingly. Probably should be at the end of the preceding sentence. Koncorde (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Have a look through the slide show and you will see emails from the authors contacted. Also please put in a new section into talk pages by clicking 'new section' tab at the top rather than 'edit' and appending to other discussions without a heading thanks when starting up something new. Or just put == ... == around a new heading to put one in. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought a link to what is essentially a self published rebuttal would be in violation of WP:BLP? Or is Abraham an expert on climate science and as such passes WP:SPS? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The self published sources aren't by Monckton for Monckton, and aren't being used as a source of material about the person so I do not believe it's a BLP issue. An earlier citation provides links to Moncktons stated beliefs, which are self published and would be subject to BLP, but they are reported on also by other primary and secondary sources. The Abraham data directly references the subject matter (Moncktons claims) and the responses are discussed by other primary sources (including Monckton himself in his subsequent demands and responses). It's a complete narrative.
The self Publish rule rule would be more of an issue if it was the sole basis for Abrahams wiki article, or if it was (say) a written critique of a person published on a blog by themselves or a third party (such as relying on Moncktons own opinion for claims such as his Peer status). Koncorde (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's birth status

Placing this RS here for reference. 'You're smoking crack', peer who doubted Obama's birth status is toldThePowerofX 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


Suggest reorganisation for the career section to be more logical. Either by category, chronology or a combination of the two.

Category (sorted by Chronology)

  • Journalism (from 1974)
    • Journalist (from 1974)
    • Editor (from 1979)
  • Politics (from 1979)
    • Advisor (1980s)
    • Candidate (from 2009)
  • Entrepreneurship (from 1995)
    • Shirt Shop Owner (from 1995)
    • Eternity Puzzle Inventor (from 1999)
  • Public Speaking (from 2008?)

Let me know your thoughts. Lukekfreeman (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it Lukefreeman it does look a bit out of order. It looks like you have a good handle on this, why don't you try writing something and lets see what it looks like first. Maybe we can help with the changes. I'd really like to see the lede cleaned up a lot though. Sgerbic (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Political views / Resurrexi Pharmaceutical

I'm not sure that the "Resurrexi Pharmaceutical" section belongs under "Political views". Thoughts? Lukekfreeman (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede needs cleanup

Looking over this lede today, there seems to be some problems with it. Firstly is there evidence that he is a politician? His climate change opinions seem quite mute here in the lede, considering that he is lecturing these days, and not about a puzzle we should think about improving this lede to better reflect the person. I'm putting my thinking cap on, welcome suggestions. Sgerbic (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd have though his activities within UKIP made him a politician. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure he currently qualifies as a politician since he seems to have drifted away from UKIP and no longer has any official role there. It's not at all clear what his relationship with UKIP is now. He has certainly been a politician in the past when he was the UKIP Deputy Leader. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hum, still while reading again through this article it sounds like he tried to be a politician but never made it. Looks like he held the role of deputy leader for only 5 months. This line in the lede probably should go as it is in the article, "under Lord Pearson of Rannoch and subsequently as the Head of the Policy Unit under Nigel Farage." Is there a way to sum up some of his more controversial views (AIDS and so on) in a sentence or two that will go into the lede. Just seems top heavy with his birth and his almost non-existent political career, and not enough on the man that lectures, gets banned from the UN and all other kinds of things he is more famous for.Sgerbic (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sgerbic makes some good points. If you do a quick search for the guy you notice two things, (1) It is all about his controversial views that he seems to make a living out of sharing at speaking events and (2) There are a lot of news articles also referring to his self-appointed title of Lord (which the House of Lords put out an official statement about). The most notable things about the man, including what he spends most of his time doing aren't really appreciated in the lede. Lukekfreeman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Under further investigation it appears that his primary role is currently as a public speaker and his notability was established as a puzzle inventor and journalist. Maybe kick off with current (public speaker), then former (puzzle inventor & journalist), then other notabilities (e.g. title, politics and climate scepticism)? Move some of the more detailed parts into relevant sections after a brief mention (e.g. UKIP vs Conservative party into political career)? Lukekfreeman (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the above suggestion. I feel that the current lede isn't clear about his political career--it's not very clear whether he does or does not currently hold a political office. His career these days seems to center on his work as a public speaker, so I'd favor kicking off with that in the lede.Dustinlull (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Under career: maybe move "Downing Street political advisor" under "Political Career" and then follow with a section on his public speaking career? This may break the chronology though. The headings under career are not consistently categorical/chronological and the entrepreneurship section is a stub. Is the shirt shop relevant? Any suggestions for reorganisation here? Lukekfreeman (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede/Lead rewrite suggestion

I'm having a go at this to keep in line with the Wikipedia:Lead Section guidelines and reflect the comments above.

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker, journalist and hereditary peer. He is known for his work as a newspaper editor, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity.
Early on in his public speaking career topics centred on his mathematical puzzle and conservative politics. In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention because of his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change.
  • "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
    • I feel this is more concise and establishes context and notability better, also seeing as controversies should be in lead I've left in the climate change stuff.
  • "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
    • We will need to make the article more up to date by adding a public speaking section to "career". I have found some more information about that including the major engagements and funding sources.
  • "it should contain no more than four paragraphs"
    • If there were short descriptions for each of the sections it would push it over the 4 paragraphs therefore the rest of the current lead section could probably be moved to fit under their appropriate headings.

The missing controversy is his title of "Lord" and this may need to be in the lead, especially if people are redirected from "Lord Monckton" and might find it confusion if that isn't mentioned. Lukekfreeman (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What about mentioning his other lecture topics, AIDS denial and so on? What is the opinion on including this, can we back it up?Sgerbic (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I think your suggested lead looks fantastic, LukekfreemanDustinlull (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just one sentence that sums it all up as they are discussed under political views? "In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention because of his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change and controversial views on AIDS, the European Union and social policy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekfreeman (talkcontribs) 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I like what you have written as the lede other than the bit on climate change. Despite saying that you have "left the climate change stuff", what you have actually done in your proposal is changed "sceptical views of . . ." to "rejection of the scientific consensus . . ." which is a whole lot stronger and borders on POV. Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a hard one to pin down "scepticism" isn't really an appropriate descriptor for his position, "denial" could be inflamatory and too much POV. Probably best to just put them all under controversial views as the position is debated in the political views section. How about, "In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention because of his controversial views on climate change, AIDS, the European Union and social policy." Lukekfreeman (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"Journalist" rather than "newspaper editor". I appreciate the current version says the later but, AFAICT, he has never been the editor of a newspaper. Having "editor" as part of your job title is not the same thing.
@LukeFreeman: His use of the title "Lord" is not itself controversial and I don't think the controversy over him supposedly claiming to be a member of the House of Lords needs mentioning in the lead. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently it says he was managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph magazine in 1981 but I cannot find the reference as it is not online and I cannot get a copy to verify. If so, would that count or should we just drop it from the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekfreeman (talkcontribs) 23:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't disbelieve that he was a managing editor and also an assistant editor, so the sourcing is not the issue (although, obviously, we should try to find sourcing). If you look at this page, you will see that there are 18 people listed who work for the Evening Standard with the word "editor" in their titles, but only one of them is the editor of the newspaper. So, saying that Monckton was a "newspaper editor" is misleading, although he was a journalist, and held managerial positions. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Must say that the lede looks much better now. Thank you LukeFreeman. Sgerbic (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of the template just added?

A template was added to the top of the page, claiming that a 'media organization' mentioned this article. The mention is on a personal blog - not a media organization, and it was more than six years ago. It is normally used to tag the article, not the talk page. What's the rationale here? Anastrophe (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: The above question refers to | your edit. I too would like to know the answer. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are right. I guess that when I was adding the link, I was unaware of the distinction highlighted above by Anastrophe. Therefore, I will remove the press box ASAP. Jinkinson talk to me 14:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article has eight large paragraphs devoted to discussing the discredited, fringe climate denialist views of the subject. At most, it only requires one paragraph. I suspect that climate denialists are using this biography to promote their fringe POV. Per our policies and guidelines, these fringe views should be trimmed and briefly discussed. This article should not, however be used as a platform for promoting these views, as it is currently. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and the paragraphs are specific to the subject of the BLP. The paragraphs are definitely not promoting his beliefs - did you actually read them? Much of the content of them is not flattering to the Monckton. WP doesn't censor content that's specific to the subject of the BLP, so long as that content doesn't harm the subject. His views, regardless of your or my opinion, are relevant to an article about him. You'll need to provide specific evidence of "promotion" rather than a blanket, unspecific claim. Anastrophe (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no known BLP on Wikipedia that devotes 769 words on a topic by a non-expert. Monckton is not a recognized expert on climate science. He has not made any lasting, significant, historical, or notable contribution to the field. I suspect you will not find anything approaching 769 words on the same topic by an actual expert, so this is a clear case of unambiguous undue weight. It doesn't matter that it is "not flattering", and there is clearly a false balance at work, which violates NPOV as it is. No, this is quite clearly an under the radar attempt to promote Monckton as an expert on the subject when he is anything but, regardless of the criticism. We need only one paragraph on this subject. Anything more than that is approaching a soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
None of your claims rise to an indictment that policy is being violated. "769 words" is meaningless, unless you can provide a link to a policy that this number somehow exceeds some policy benchmark. It does not matter in the slightest whether Monckton is a recognized expert in climate science; the subject of this article is Monckton, not climate science. As such, matters that pertain specifically to or about him are fully within bounds for a BLP - no showing of expertise is required. Monctkton is notable for his stance on climate change; thus, this article recounts a number of things pertaining to that notability. Your opinions of Monckton are utterly immaterial; what is material is what reliable sources say, in balance with how much they have said it. On that basis, this BLP is in no way violating any policies at all. Your assessment that "we only need one paragraph on this subject" is noted, but immaterial as well. You'll need to provide specific details on any violations, rather than a jeremiad, for such claims to hold water. Anastrophe (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You have the burden of keeping the material reversed. I've already shown that this article violates WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT, and is not duly representative of the subject. Again, 769 words is not meaningless; we have no other article on Wikipedia that devotes this much undue weight to the subject of a topic where the author is not an expert. In fact, we don't even devote this much discussion in articles where the subject is an expert! Monckton is not a climate science expert, he is not recognized as a climate science expert, and he is not discussed in reliable sources about climate science or in any reliable sources as a climate science expert. Therefore, his views on the matter are not just fringe, they are not notable. To devote 769 words in this biographical article about Monckton's views on climate change violates the most basic policies and guidelines on how we write articles. They have no business being here. Wikipedia is not a repository for Monckton's fringe views on climate science. And, Wikipedia is not in the business of giving Monckton a soapbox to promote those views. This is a non-notable, insignificant subject and is being used as a coatrack to fluff up Monckton's views on the subject—views that have not received any traction in any reliable, reputable climate science literature. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting climate denial. Please do it somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
None of your claims rise to the level of violations, I'm sorry. It is immaterial whether he is a climate science expert. This article is not about climate science expertise, it is about Christopher Monckton. You have not "shown" any violations at all - only registered your opinions regarding Monckton's not being a climate science expert. You claim "we have no other article on Wikipedia that devotes this much undue weight to the subject of a topic where the author is not an expert.". Setting aside that his expertise or lack thereof is immaterial to this BLP, please prove it. Please show me that there are no other articles on wikipedia with more than 769 words about someone who is not an expert. This is a completely pointless claim, because you cannot back it up in any way. Furthermore, you claim that all 769 words are 'devote[d]' to his views; patent nonsense, and unsupportable, because not even a majority of the words therein are claiming that he is right, correct, true, factual, or an expert, or that the positions statements, words, etc are right, correct, true, factual or from an expert. If there were an article entitled "Monckton's view on climate science", you'd have an argument - but that is not what this article is. It is a BLP; Monckton is widely noted for his position and claims regarding climate science - no claim is made that he is a climate scientist, nor that he is an expert, nor that he is right, correct, accurate, etc.. There is zero "promotion" of Monckton's view, there is instead a recitation of instances/events that are notable to Monckton and his statements, views, perceptions, commentary, etc - fully in line with what a BLP is to consist of. Who are you addressing with the statement "Please do it somewhere else"? Again, *Monckton* is indeed notable for his positions, statements, claims, lectures, opinions, etc published pertaining to climate science and other things. These are notable, and the information is properly cited to reliable sources. I see a determined effort to scrub the article of information one editor doesn't like - but not liking something is not grounds for eliminating reliably sourced information, that is appropriately weighted to his notability on the subject. Again, notability does not confer expertise, nor is there any policy that says that if someone is notable for a particular position, that position has to be accepted by others. Have a look at Jenny McCarthy - there is considerable text devoted to her activism regarding autism and anti-vaccination. The article doesn't "promote" anti-vaccination, it recites her stance, her claim, and claims contrary in response. Thuse we have the same here. I'm not going to bother counting the exact number of words, but gosh - it looks like more than 769 of them. Anastrophe (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice wall of text. Too bad it misses the mark on every point. Monckton is not known for his climate science denial nor has it had a significant impact on climate science or people who work on that subject. On the other hand, Jenny McCarthy is known for her autism and anti-vaccination activism, and her "work" has had a significant impact on people in those communities. She is also recognized by the scientific community as someone who has contributed to large numbers of people who have refused to get vaccinated. I'm afraid you're wrong on every point and you simply don't understand what undue weight means. Monckton has had zero impact on climate science, and he is not recognized by the climate science community for doing or saying anything significant or for contributing anything to the subject. Your revert of my edits shows that you don't even understand what "blanking" means. I didn't blank anything, I simply removed the coatrack and undue weight you added. You'll have to use this talk page to show how the material you added back is relevant now. You've simply cherry picked meaningless material that has no encyclopedic value other than to puff up Monckton and make it seem like he's a climate scientist (he's not) who has something to offer on this subject (he hasn't). Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a webhost for Monckton's non-notable fringe theories. We briefly report on them and we leave it at that. Hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nice wall of text". This is not civil. I have not 'missed the mark' at all, you are warping claims of policy violation apparently purely due to parti pris. Monckton is notable for his claims about climate science - this is all sourced in the article. I certainly understand policy, and policy prohibits one editor removing a significant amount of well-sourced material without adequate justification. Again, it is *irrelevant* whether Monckton has had impact on climate science, it is *irrelevant* that he is not a climate scientist - those are not the subject of this article, Christopher Monckton is. You removed a large amount of properly sourced material by fiat, with no finding of actual violation. I do not have the burden here - you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument. "You've simply cherry picked meaningless material that has no encyclopedic value other than to puff up Monckton" - again, you appear to be addressing me - I did not add any of this material to this article - please don't attack me. And gosh, forgive me for improperly using the term 'blanking'. You removed an entire section of properly sourced material, without any specifics offered in support, only blanket claims. Anastrophe (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You added the material back into the article. It doesn't matter if you didn't write it, by adding back, you've taken ownership and responsibility for the veracity, authenticity, relevancy, and currency of the content. You're not being attacked at all, so stop making false claims of non-existent attacks. I removed undue material. If you believe it is properly sourced and relevant, then you'll have to explain your rationale for why you added it back. I already explained to you that it was insignificant coatrackery, fluffery, and undue. Your response is, "I didn't write it and I won't take responsibility for it, but I'll keep adding it back into the article for no reason". Are you fricking serious? Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"Your response is, "I didn't write it and I won't take responsibility for it, but I'll keep adding it back into the article for no reason". Are you fricking serious?". You've just put words in my mouth, then attacked me for them. Not the height of civil rhetoric. Please dial it down. You said that I "cherry picked" meaningless material - now you've transmorphed it into an entirely different argument. Please retract your claim that I "cherry picked" anything - unless you're suggesting that I only restored a few parts of what you removed! The onus is on the editor who wishes to remove reliably sourced material. Removing such material requires specifics, not general claims. Anastrophe (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, you added the material back into the article. Why? If you can't defend the material, you have no business adding it. The page history shows you added it twice, so stop saying you didn't add it, because you did. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat for the record here: you have not, by any means, "shown" that the article violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. You have merely made the claim that this is the case, without providing specific evidence beyond registering your dislike of the material. You have not shown that the material is not relevant to Monckton, nor that it is undue relevant to Monckton, nor that it is a coatrack. Please provide specific evidence to back up your claims, rather than generic statements, before blanking a large portion of reliably-sourced information from the article, again. Thank you.Anastrophe (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have most certainly shown that this article violates NPOV, UNDUE, and COAT, you just refuse to recognize it. You also refuse to recognize that you have the burden to show how the material you wish to keep or add back is relevant and significant to an encyclopedia. Until you do, the fringe coatrack will be removed again. Wikipedia isn't a webhost for non-notable fringe theories. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
you have provided ZERO specifics, only general claims. I'm going to revert your blanking again - then take this to the appropriate venue. Your behavior here is unacceptable - fiat removal of properly sourced material that you have not actually SHOWN by a presentation of fact, to be a violation. Please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are the one violating the policies. You've added an enormous amount of undue, unencyclpedic material back into this article without explanation. I do not have to explain your actions, you do. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please allow other editors to discuss this matter before you remove this material by fiat again. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please let others participate. Anastrophe (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, good sir, I have been discussing this matter with a brick wall that does not respond to the listed concerns. You have not collaborated nor answered any of my questions, nor have you met the burden of proof needed to add the material back into the article. Instead, you have edit warred. How is that collaborative and how have you participated? Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"nor answered any of my questions,". That's a peculiar claim, since you have not asked a single question here. There is no brick wall, I have responded with specific counters to your concerns. No edit warring at all - are you familiar with the definition of edit warring? I want discussion, you insist on removing material you don't like, by fiat. You need to allow other editors to weigh in on this matter. Removing reliably sourced material requires strong justification, all of your justifications have been that Monckton isn't an expert - which is completely immaterial to the notability of the material to Christopher Monckton. Considering that the majority of the content you remove is in fact the opposite of promotional, but instead critical, of Monckton, your claims again require specific justification. Anastrophe (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The burden of proof falls on the editor adding material. You added an enormous amount of undue, unencyclopedic coatrackery into this article after it was explained to you why the material was unacceptable. You will now have to explain and justify why you added it back in. I don't have to justify your content additions for you, you do. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't warp the record. You removed a large amount of well-sourced material that had been in the article for quite some time, based upon your claims of policy violation, after one editor provided his rationale for the material's relevancy and why it should remain. I restored the material you removed by fiat. You have provided not a single specific in your arguments - only generalized arguments. You're going to have to provide specific justifications for removal of any of this material. We can certainly go through it sentence by sentence. Emphasis on 'we' - we must allow other editors an opportunity to review these claims, counter-claims, and edits, as we are not the only two editors here. Considering that large portions of the material are the antithesis of 'promotional', and since all of the material is directly pertaining to Monckton, the proximate subject of this article, we shall see where this goes. I have not violated a single policy here - you claim I have. Please state the polic(ies) I have violated. Anastrophe (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Having read the edits, both Viriditas and the current formulation, I could go either way. They say "brevity is the soul of wit", so I think there is real value in Viriditas' focused editing. He has a real point. Upon reflection though, I feel that this bio subject is primarily known for his views on climate change. Therefore I think that a longer section is actually more helpful and more encyclopedic and not undue. It could stand some additional editing, however. I don't see it as "coatrackery", but it is somewhat over-long. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be trimmed, ideally to something under half its current size. Essential facts to remain should include the fact that he misrepresents the science, and has no scientific qualifications ( It should not be trimmed as far as Viriditas proposes only because his international profile, such as it is, is dominated by his climate denialism, so it is not undue to give significant space to that. He is a somewhat notable climate change crank who is otherwise little known even in his native country (and I am English). Guy (Help!) 08:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And yet, my version shows him impersonating the representative of Burma at the conference and getting ejected for crashing the event. If that doesn't show him as a crank in as few words as possible, then pray tell, what would? I think painting a picture in fewer words is far more successful than dropping a 769 word text bomb on the reader. Which do you think will engage the interest of the reader? And in any case, if anyone wants to write more about this subject, they can create Climate change denial and Christopher Mockton and have at it. But 769 words to describe the opinion of a non-scientist who hasn't published a single reliable source on the subject or contributed any major, significant work? That's unprecedented. There is no other article on Wikipedia that does this, and for good reason. It's undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Undue Weight It's WAY too long. Monckton's views on Climate Change are well known because he is well known. Not the other way around. There are many persons with contrarian views that don't have a platform to speak from because they lack notability. The climate section should not be longer than the other sections that establish why a non-scientist has a platform to discuss science. Viriditas' version is preferred to prevent a coatrack of warring views on climate change. --DHeyward (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If his climate denialism has received a lot of coverage it is not undue weight to cover it at length here. Whether or not he is an "expert" does NOT matter in this context, as long as he has received coverage in reliable sources for it. I am sure that you can find coverage in another BLP of something that the person is not an "expert" in being heavily covered. Of course coverage should be manageable and proportionate. But why not try to increase coverage of other topics rather than removing coverage of his climate crank profile which could be useful to someone trying to follow up on his work? Peregrine981 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we should fairly describe his views. The extensive "other stuff" which gets added, adds nothing to what readers expect from an encyclopedia article, and it is not our task to "show how evil he is" in any BLP. If we stick with what he says, we have a nice concise section, and if we start adding "balancing" material, we readily hit UNDUE with a sledgehammer. I suggest we leave it at his own words, and let the rest alone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant we should add more information about his other activities and views, and career and so forth. IMO this article suffers more from recentism, and a focus on the eccentricities of his later career than anything. Not saying we should cut this stuff out, but surely there is more information about his more "legitimate" career in government and journalism in the 70s and 80s? However, I emphatically do think it is fair to add in balancing material about him and his views in a BLP. Frankly this is exactly what should be in a BLP, not just a transcript of what he has said over the years, or else my understanding of what wikipedia is trying to be is totally off. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
What part or parts of the section are imbalanced about his views, such that balancing material needs to be added? I strongly recommend that other editors read the section in Jenny McCarthy regarding her Autism activism. It presents that McCarthy tried "spoons rubbed on his body" to treat her son's autism (which, after years of blathering on about how it was vaccines that caused her son's autism, it turned out wasn't even the disorder she'd been blathering about). McCarthy has no credentials, she is considered a crank on this subject, she mislead many people with her views, and the section notes that her views are not accepted by the scientific community. Monckton? Check, check, check and check. We don't scrub the bizarre claims and actions McCarthy engaged in from her article, because the truth or accuracy of her words/deeds is not the subject of her BLP - she is the subject, and she is notable for her views, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Monckton? Check. Anastrophe (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I see the section has been scrubbed again. How is this reasonable collaborative editing? Let me be succinct: the edit summary says that 'we can live with' this redacted version. I disagree. Monckton's views are notable to Monckton's BLP. I don't disagree that it can use some tightening up, but this is a near wholesale removal of material that is well sourced to reliable sources. We present information to the degree that it is notable in reliable sources to the subject of the article. If this article were the climate change article - well, there should be no mention of Monckton at all, and there is not. But this isn't the climate change article - it's the Christopher Monckton article. This all still appears to be an effort to censor views that are disagreeable to some editors, rather than an effort to improve the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that this is not the first discussion of this section that has taken place. Please review the archives. This is supposed to be a collaborative editing project, not a fiat editing project. Much previous discussion has occurred, please see the archives. The current section was arrived at by collaboration, however contentious. I'll note that I've never been a part of that discussion before this, so contrary to editor Viriditas's claims that I have cherry picked information, blah blah blah - other editors arrived at the current iteration of the section after collaboration. One editor has come along, and plastered as many labels on it as possible hoping one will stick - and in less than 24 hours, the section has been gutted, without any actual showing of policy violations - only claims of policy violations, presented without specifics to the actual content of the section. Anastrophe (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing feedback on this page from multiple editors, none of which you will accept or even recognize. This discussion has shown that the section in question is too long, violates NPOV with undue weight, and there are open questions about the weak "rationale" offered to keep the material. Will there come a time when you recognize an actual problem or will an RfC need to be filed? From where I sit, you will not accept any changes to this article nor will you support your reasons for adding it back. For example, you have claimed that the subject is primarily known for his climate criticism. Please support that statement with a reliable source. I've looked through this discussion and I can't find a single supporting citation for this claim. And, please stop telling people to visit older discussions in the archive or to wait for future editors to respond. Please address these issues here with actual supporting sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with the attacks. "none of which you will accept or even recognize." - "From where I sit, you will not accept any changes to this article" - It really is not your place to say what I will or will not do, nor to misrepresent what I have already written (but you refuse to acknowledge). If you actually read what I've written, I've acknowledged that it could use some editing, and I have not rejected or failed to recognize what other editors have said. So, really - please stop characterizing what my behavior will or will not be. "This discussion has shown that this section [...] violates NPOV with undue weight" - no, it has not. You've stated your opinion that it fails NPOV and is undue, but haven't shown any evidence to prove that. You've claimed that because he is not a climate scientist or expert, his statements must be removed from the BLP - but that's a non-sequitur. Jenny McCarthy is not a microbiologist or expert on vaccination, but her views are presented in her BLP, at great length - along with contrary statements found in reliable sources - which is the benchmark for what is or is not in the article (and contrary to the absurd and meaningless "unprecedented" 769 words, the section in McCarthy's BLP has in excess of 950 - so much for "unprecedented"). The material cited is from reliable third party sources. Removing well-sourced material because you don't like it is not an acceptable rationale. I've stated that I believe the material is NPOV and given the appropriate weight for its notability to the subject of this article. I believe that the fact that the material is from reliable sources establishes the notability inherently. Certainly, if you scrub all the material and citations - well then, you can claim that since the article shows nothing regarding it, it's therefore not notable - but that's not how it works. "'ve looked through this discussion and I can't find a single supporting citation for this claim." - I don't need to provide new reliable sources - I refer you to the sources that existed before you removed them - they are supportive of the claim - but you've chosen to remove them then claim there's no sources. It's absurd revisionism to elide all the sources then say there are no sources. Anastrophe (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting question - I don't think I've seen it written, but my suspicion is that most mentions of him are about his views on climate change. I would suspect it is worth more than one small para. Need to structure this debate properly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the original version of the article upon creation in May 2006. The climate change material was first added later in December 2006. It looks this new interest was sparked when Monckton began writing essays about climate change and politics in the previous month in the Sunday Telegraph. User:RonCram noted this change in interest by adding "Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his skepticism of global warming."[33] So based on the edit history alone, Monckton was not known for climate denial/skepticism when the article was created. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well maybe, but c'mon, the only time Monckton's name is mentioned seems to be in the context of climate change - it has been a huge topic over the past several years and his name is very frequently used/invoked/discussed when climate change skeptics are mentioned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The article was created based on his 54 year career as a journalist, editor, political advisor, party spokesperson, and entrepreneur. Six months after the Wikipedia article was created, he began writing climate change denial pieces for several newspapers. An effort has been made to make it look like this has been his sole career path, but the sources do not support those claims. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Errr, he was only born in you're saying he's been in a career since he was 5? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Master Monckton was a most precocious child! :) Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In mitigation, this article is known to have been visited and edited by Monckton himself, and also people on his behalf. So how his article looked, and how it was edited to look after the fact does not in any way reflect his actual notability in the public sphere. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)