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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Correction.

American Physical Society article on climate sensitivity This section contains a [sic] after the quote (ref 30) from the APS Forum "it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration [surface temperature] will rise not by the 3.26 °K [sic] suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K."

I assume the "sic" is meant to imply that the temperature unit "K" is in error. It is actually short for the Kelvin temperature scale, consistent with the rest of the calculations in the article, and in any case relative differences on the Kelvin scale are the same as those on the Celsius scale. The "[sic]" should therefore be removed.

Qichina (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On another topic, "Anon" is quite right to draw attention to the pejorative and subjective terminology listed in the 16 passages. These should be removed immediately. It's this sort of stuff that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Qichina (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The [sic] is probably there because "°K" is an error. There's no such thing as "degrees Kelvin". -- ChrisO (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the pejorative tone of the rest of the entry, it seems that the insertion of "[sic]" in the quotation from his APS article is another nit-picking way to denigrate Monckton.

The "degree absolute" symbol °K on the Kelvin scale was in common usage until a committee decided to rename it just "kelvin" in 1968. Similarly, Centigrade was renamed to Celsius in 1948, But everytime someone mentions " x degrees Centigrade", it does not justify a pedantic "[sic] after it. Neither are "errors".

Qichina (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Qichina. Please remove the [sic], it is pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlschlesinger (talk • contribs) 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's blog?

I've seen a couple of comments that suggest Monckton has a blog somewhere. Does anyone have a URL? If so we should probably add it as an external link. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he does not have one. People use the phrase to mean that he leaked a story or letter to some blog and it carries his imprimature. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The nearest thing that looks like one is the SPPI blog. Comments are disabled, but there's a contact e-mail form.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He does indeed write for that blog, under the handle "monckton". --Alibubba7 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo, again

I posted this further up before realizing the photo used to portray Christopher Monckton has been discussed several subsequent times. I understand a "vote" was taken to keep the current photo, but likewise I didn't see any specific criticism of it in reference to wikipedia policy. For conventience here it is again:

The current photo (accessed 1/09/2010) possibly violates the "Image choice and placement" guidelines under Wikipedia:Images policy for both clutter (he is off-center with blurry camera in foreground), as well as the Gloria Steinem example to display persons "alone, not with other individuals." It also possibly violates Wikipedia:Image use policy under "Content": "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)". IMO this image depicts the subject unflatteringly, as if he was just surprised or made unease. Investigating the context of the image on flickr.com reveals that it was taken by protestors who were engaging with Monckton, and he looks understandably uncomfortable. A more natural, composed picture which supports all above mentioned Wikipedia guidelines can be found at this flickr.com location.

If no information regarding Graver's Disease is to be included in Monckton's bio, then let's not have a picture which looks unflattering without explanation. The current picture is unacceptible in light of the above policy (and not just for the expression on Monckton's face). If no other action is taken, I will remove the current photo and replace it with the better one listed above once my user status allows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlschlesinger (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to do that. Wikipedia's copyright rules are strict, and do not allow you to lift copyrighted pictures and use them on Wikipedia. If you can get permission from the photographer, great, but you must not use the picture without his permission. I suggest asking him if he is willing to license it as a public domain image or release it under the Creative Commons Sharealike license. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the copyright rules and will ask the photo's owner at flickr.com for permission, once I gain access to editing this article, thanks. Jlschlesinger (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you do get permission to use the image - I'll add it for you if you do. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. Jlschlesinger (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that this photo was uploaded to Flickr by some random person, does this actually meet WP:RS guidelines? I don't think so. There is no editorial control or fact checking exercised over at Flickr that I am aware of. How can we be assured that this image actually IS a photo of Monckton? How do we know that this is not some imposter made up to look like Lord Monckton in a disparaging likeness? --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then neither picture (the current one or one I suggest) should be used. Anyone have any experience on this question (using flickr 3rd-party generated photo content for individual persons of note)? Jlschlesinger (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this also seems to fall under the prohibition on using WP:SPS on a WP:BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, GoRight. WP:BLPSPS does not apply to images and the series of photographs is clearly of Monckton. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's Credentials as Thatcher Adviser established

Additional citations for proof Moncton was a Thatcher advisor are here: [the UK Guardian] [Times Online] ...so the admins can release the moratorium on this and allow the citation to be added back that Monckton did, in fact, act as adviser to Thatcher, if this is still in doubt. I'd make the change myself but there is a semi-protect lock in place. Jlschlesinger (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not in doubt. The article already says that "he worked until 1986 as a special advisor on economic matters". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to hold a civil discussion on personal matters with another editor, please do so at usertalk. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppets ahoy? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) We do seem to have had a sudden influx of new or long-inactive editors. Where are they all coming from? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Indeed. It seems to be a feature of a number of pages associated with climate change.Neilj (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Kittybrewster, Namecalling like "Meatpuppets" is obviously inapprorpiate and in violation of Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Future posts like that will be removed, per the policy. ChrisO, this is not the first time you and others have engaged in irrelevant discussion about origins / motives of fellow editors (see the very first topic on this page, and your "right-wing" perjorative). This should go without saying to experienced editors, but personal attacks and discussing fellow editors is not collegiate or relevant. If you want to ask me if I'm new here (or long inactive), feel free to do so. Sorry if this response seems lengthy, but from what I've seen this already happens too much, plus I'm verbose by nature. ;) Thanks, in advance. Jlschlesinger (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) It's a straightforward question. This article is a relatively obscure one and pretty quiet for most of the time. We've recently had a very unusual burst of activity coming from a group of new/long-inactive accounts - in your case, for example, you'd only made two edits nine months ago before turning up at this article. What prompted you to take an interest and why now? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Why does it matter so much to you? Don't you think you're over-extending a bit? I am unaware of any policy or principle here at Wikipedia which would be a basis for your entire line of questioning. Besides, I don't like your insinuations or tone. You seem to be making much hay of my "newness" as an editor. I am not the topic here. Lord Monckton is. I have just as much a right to edit this site as you or anyone else, so long as I (and you) follow the guidelines. I suggest you, and a couple of your colleagues, take a deep breath and perhaps re-read the guidelines you should know so well, given your many years editing here. I think it was you yourself who was asking other editors to not questions your own motives on this very article. Stop questioning mine. Jlschlesinger (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I'm just curious. Why is there suddenly so much interest in this article? What prompted your own interest? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Again, not relevant...sorry but your curiousity doesn't trump wikipedia policy. Guess you'll just have to wonder about my personal opinions, like many do yours. Assuming you're still willing to assume good intentions of your fellow editors, let's get back to substantive discussion. You're right that it is now duly noted that Monckton was a special advisor to Thatcher - I posted this thread because earlier, this information was removed by you for being insufficiently sourced in your opinion, and I somehow missed the edits putting it back in. Thanks for pointing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlschlesinger (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't remove it - in fact, I was the one who added it in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what's going on now. People are coming here from the Watt's Up With That? blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 2/0. Jlschlesinger (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’. It seems he has gone so far as to report the matter to the proper authorities and would like to see them prosecuted:

"What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute."

Given the weight of the incident in question it seems it would be irresponsible of us not to mention this piece in Monckton's article. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's not relevant to this article and it's not usable to the main article on this topic, since it's a self-published statement by a fringe figure. Monckton is not involved in any way in the CRU issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no moratorium on publishing self-published statements. Likewise, there is no rationale for referring to Moncton as a "fringe" figure. He shows up all over the news grid. Can you explain your statements re: "fringe" with any other rationale than you don't like his viewpoints? After all, you felt he was important enough to warrant a photo?...Jlschlesinger (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, I would favor a small insertion simply indicating he has voiced an opinion on the "Climategate" scandal favoring prosecution if found applicable, nothing more. Also, if you can cite this anywhere other than from Monckton himself, that would be preferred. Jlschlesinger (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLPSPS Violations

These will be reported. As everyone here is aware violations of WP:BLP are to be removed IMMEDIATELY and without regard to WP:3RR. There is no way that an image uploaded Flickr by some random person can be construed to be a WP:RS under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS. As such there is no way to determine the veracity of this image. And yes, WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS applies to EVERYTHING. --GoRight (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree this matter should be reported. But perhaps not where you think William M. Connolley (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this as a "self-published source" violation; WP isn't expected to use (in fact, generally can't use) official press photos. However, as a content matter my WP:30 is that the photo in question is clearly not an unbiased portrait of Monckton and should definitely be removed. Rvcx (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd prefer no picture at all, even if this wasn't contested. There are other pictures of Monckton, but I personally am not particularly interested in doing the legwork to get permission / post them, because a) it has been suggested this is a "relatively minor" article and so to that point, I'm not sure a photo was ever warranted, and b) I doubt the subject himself would be interested in aiding Wikipedia by consenting directly to his photo via a source he's attached to, given his own posted (in this discussion) feelings on how he's been treated here. The article is much improved without a photo. Jlschlesinger (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly of the opinion that the photo should be used. It shows Monckton, I think, in a good light and illustrates his public role - he is engaging with people in the photo, which is what you would expect him to do. He has some form of exophthalmos (more specifically Graves Disease has been suggested, but I do not know). This makes his eyes appear bulbous. I think it would be unethical to either search out a photo which makes this less evident or to use no photo.

I am not particularly a fan of Mockton's views, but I find the idea that his face should be censored to be entirely wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It may actually be misleading to use an old picture. From what I understand of it, Graves' disease is a progressive degenerative condition, so an image of Monckton taken several years ago is inevitably going to differ from an up-to-date picture. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A National Post article from 2009 has an image depicting those eyes[1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of all the pics that have been posted and that I have searched for, the one that was inserted was imo the one that represents him in the worst light. I am also of the opinion that we do not need to add it if it portrays him in a poor light, we have a duty of care to represent him in a decent way. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not claiming any direct intent to do so, but this is clearly the worst I have seen in terms of accentuating the man's features. If this photo IS to be used than I believe that it is only fair that the caption reflect the circumstances under which it was taken, although even that seems to be in question given the discussion elsewhere on this page.

If Lord Monckton himself should make a photo available under appropriate license, or a less controversial image can be found, is there any reason to prefer this one? --GoRight (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always said that if a better picture can be found then it should be used. But note the word if there. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I honestly wasn't aware of that. --GoRight (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to have a picture and just because this poor representation is the only one we have got is not a good reason to insert it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, I don't see the lack of inclusion of a photo as censoring at all. For one, his image is readily available elsewhere (google images). The overwhelming impression the current photo gives is one of bias - many editors have said so. Now that it's removed, I don't see the support to put it back overcoming the aestetic as well as flickr 3rd-party self-published content issues. It would be best as GoRight suggests to leave it off unless Lord Monckton himself makes one available, or a consensus on a better photo is reached. I prefer no photo, but the one Enric Naval is less objectionable and doesn't fail 3rd party publishing stanards (but may have copyright problems). Jlschlesinger (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I need to mention re. FormerIP's point about the depiction of Lord Monckton engaging with people, the standards under WP:IMAGE, under Image Choice And Placement, give the Glorian Steinem example which explicity states that images of an individual should be alone, without other people around. Jlschlesinger (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't state that. It suggests that she looks better alone. I'm not sure what we are particularly supposed to infer, but I don't think it is that only pictures of people on their own are allowed. If there is a better usable picture of Monckton available, then fine. But the idea of including no picture of him on the grounds that, according to conventional standards, he is not good looking is, IMO, offensive to him and totally inappropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a guideline, none the less. We can reasonably differ on how strenuous the guideline is, but the point is there are multiple objections for this photo on many grounds - the guideline to use pictures of living persons without other people in the shot is only one of those (and I agree it's minor). However, you're mischaracterizing the argument when you say the objection is that he's ugly. No one is saying that. What's being said is the photo is unneccessarily unflattering and therefore biased. Again, other editors have argued in other threads on this discussion that this is a "minor" article - so there is no need for a photo to begin with. This isn't censorship - his likeless is readily available on the web. It'sa question of neutrality and adherence to guidelines, IMO. Jlschlesinger (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Invent or design?

Why do we say he invented the Eternity and Eternity 2 puzzles? Both polygon and edge matching puzzles were well known as genre, surely the proper description for his role was "designing" them --BozMo talk 11:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That has always bothered me too. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like hair-splitting - is there a special connotation regarding the word "invention" which implies he discovered the math behind it? Erik Rotheim invented the aerosol spray can...this doesn't mean we think he invented the one-way valve. Mary Anderson invented the windshield wiper; this doesn't mean she is understood to have invented the caterpillar motor or the concept of torque. Jlschlesinger (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit hair-splitty. The short answer is that numerous sources refer to Monckton as having "invented" the puzzle and I believe Monckton has referred to himself as its "inventor", as have many sources. See [2]. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ACHTUNG! I JUST MADE A BOLD EDIT

The original portion read: "The former U.S. Vice-President did not respond." The actual source citation read: "Gore wrote a response but declined a live debate." The source itself, therefore, notes the Vice-President did respond as the scientific consensus on vocabulary is that "response" is synonymous with "to respond." If you disagree with this edit I will, quite likely, leave a note on your user page identifying you as a person who rejects the scientific consensus on vocabulary. This would be permissable as Wikipedia insists we identify the fringe as such and the mainstream as such. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference you added was <ref>Gore wrote a response but declined a livedebate.</ref> - and that is not a reference. So, I undid the edit to replace the previous references which you deleted. Vsmith (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have restored the edit with the citation to the Chicago Tribune. You are welcome to embrace an interpretation of vocabulary outside the scientific consensus and mainstream view of the subject, however, please don't let your POV in that regard color this wikipedia entry. Please see WP:NPOV if you need help. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

1st January 2010 THIS IS STILL FAR FROM BEING A NEUTRAL ARTICLE. There is still far too much negative stuff and not nearly enough about the recent Climategate scandal. I understand that two professors, Phil Jones and Michael Mann, are being investigated and will probably lose their jobs because of their blatant tampering with data to increase the apparent seriousness of the global warming so-called crisis. The whole CCR is now a discredited institution.

• • • Many leading, reputable scientists assert that we have had nine years of global cooling, and that too should be included in this article.***

The picture of Monckton should definitely be OMITTED or REPLACED. It is a base tactic to ridicule somebody because of a medical condition. I agree with the commentator above you says that U-tube footage should be accepted as a source. It is absurd to dismiss them as unreliable, but to include all sorts of random insults from obscure sources. We really Don't need to hear the opinions of Andrew Fergusson or the St Petersburg Times (wherever that is)! A link should be provided to Monckton's latest major speech given at the Alternative Copenhagen Conference: http:kitmantv/blogspot.com/search/label/Great%20Global%20Warming%20Racket Finally, I was accused of taking part in an "edit war" - in my opinion an edit war is better than an edit monopoly, controlled by just one side of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I forgot to sign the above Saldezza (talk)Saldezza. And actually I would like to add two more points: i)There is no reason at all to include in this article any of Monckton's views on Aids. They are not what brought him to public prominence. ii) His degree was in classical archeology, and he has as much scientific qualification as Al Gore, or indeed Caroline Lucas who is the sole British Green MEP, and effective leader of the British Green movement. Her degree was in English Literature!!! I have tried to put this correction in several times and it has been wiped by those who think they have a right to control what the public can find out. Saldezza (talk)Saldezza. —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

I think this contributor makes a fair and valid point about the St. Petersburg Times. If this entry were about an American it might be a useful source but it is about a Briton with an international reputation. Using an editorial comment from an American newspaper that is not even among the Top 20 in the US for circulation looks like one is dredging the ocean to find criticism. If this were a top-circulating US paper or a British paper (as in the case of the already-included Guardian quote), or if the subject in question had some direct relevance and relationship to the sleepy little town - a very lovely town by the way, though hardly one at the center of global discussion - of St. Petersburg, Florida, that might be a different story.

As for the AIDS question, I've already made my view known that I think we should delete it since it references two very incidental comments; not a key definer in this person's life such as climate change or euroskepticism. So far it appears we have 3 people supporting deleting the AIDS section and 1 in opposition.

   My vote is to keep the AIDS question in - this tells me a lot about the man. This is his biography after all and I believe it is important to be especially vigilant in reporting what some may consider an inconvenient truth. 203.167.131.135 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)ossi            —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.131.135 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 

I also reiterate my request that, for stylistic reasons, the last two sentences of "SOCIAL POLICY" be moved to the end of the section titled "EUROSKEPTICISM" (but which should be renamed "EUROPEAN UNION").

Nothughthomas (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment isn't simply an editorial comment from the SP Times. It's sourced to PolitiFact.com, a joint project between the newspaper and Congressional Quarterly, a major political news publication (in fact, the largest on Capitol Hill). It won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.[3] The SP Times is a very highly regarded publication, not merely a "sleepy little town" outfit - it's won eight Pulitzers since 1964 and two in 2009. So as far as media sources go, PolitiFact.com is at the top of the tree. Remember that Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires us to look for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A fact-checking project that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its work on fact-checking and accuracy is about the most reliable media source you're likely to find. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It had editorial tone. Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "fact checker" that doesn't mean he is. Nothughthomas (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is one man's opinion unfiltered by any editorial process. That is a very different situation from PolitiFact.com, and he certainly doesn't have much recognition as a fact-checker. When was the last time Limbaugh won a Pulitzer for anything, let alone specifically for fact checking and accuracy, the very criteria that we are supposed to focus on in determining what is a reliable source? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is the formulary opinion of his show's contributors, just like the St. Petersburg Times' "politifact.com" is Paul Tash's formulary opinion of his newspaper's contributors/reporters. The point being, the name "fact checker" is not a statutorily protected name like "physician" or "attorney." The fact that something has self-labeled themselves as a "fact checker" should be absolutely and completely irrelevant to evaluating the competency of that thing. The fact that a local, suburban newspaper won one of 15 awards given out by the dean of the Columbia University communications department (AKA 'Pulitzer Prize') in 2008 does not make its editorial opinions automatically relevant to anything at all. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP comments

I'm posting here to draw attention to recent edits by an IP editor about this article. See here. Several posts to arbitrator talk pages and a particularly long post here. I note that the post is in some parts similar to that re-posted from two years ago further up this talk page. I'm posting here as an editor, not an arbitrator, because this is a content dispute, but want to make a few observations:

• Could the concerns raised by the IP be looked at rigorously, as this is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP)
• If there is any chance that the photo is causing distress to the subject of the article, could common sense be used please?

Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reference to edits in the archive by Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned for making legal threats? The IP appears to be pushing for ArbCom to "bar" 2 or 3 editors from editing this article. The IP signed his first post [email protected] [4] Could that be a reference to King's College Hospital? The IP geolocates to Nottingham. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP's comments are a copy-and-paste of some old complaints, as Mathsci says. They have already been looked at, several times. The main problem with them is that many of them rely on completely unsourced statements apparently based solely on personal knowledge (hence unusable original research). A number of them have already been tackled (for instance the Who's Who items). Some of them are essentially unactionable as POV. User:Bullwhip, who is apparently either this IP editor or someone working on behalf of the IP, made a number of edits based on these complaints back in December. They were very unsatisfactory overall in that they introduced a considerable amount of unsourced material, misrepresented existing sources and made a number of plain false statements (such as denigrating the St Petersburg Times as a "student newspaper" or describing Monckton as a member of the House of Lords, which he is not). See [5]. Since then I've been working with a number of editors to make substantial changes to the article to resolve some of the issues raised by the IP. See [6] for a before-and-after diff. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you double-check that the most recent complaints (the post on your talk page that I linked to above) have indeed been addressed, and the point about the photo considered? Carcharoth (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will. I'll post something later today concerning those complaints. One other point to consider is that there have been repeated problems with unsourced and overtly false statements being added to this article concerning other living persons. In 2007 an IP editor signing its posts as "Mofb" had added an unsourced claim that The Guardian had paid £50,000 damages for an article written by George Monbiot. I didn't remove it immediately, but I couldn't find any source whatsoever for this claim so I e-mailed Monbiot to fact-check it. He confirmed that it was untrue and the outcome was this series of e-mails between Monckton and Monbiot. This sort of thing is why I've been insistent that everything in the article must be sourced and must reflect the source accurately, and why I've been strict about taking out anything which isn't sourced. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(response to Mathsci after edit conflict) I don't know the history of this article, but if you look at the edit summary of the second contribution made by Mofb, you will see that Mofb claims to be the subject of this article. My view is that even if the subject of an article is making legal threats, we still have a duty to listen to what is being said, and not just ignoring it because legal language is being used, or was used in the past. This is especially so if any legal threats have ceased and are in the past (if such threats continue, that is a different matter). The key thing is that the biographies of living people policy is followed when the subject of an article objects to what the article is saying (remembering that often the subjects of articles ask people to post on their behalf, which is OK as long as that is made clear by the person doing the posting). This needs to be done regardless of any positive or negative opinions anyone may hold about the subject of the article. That all needs (as always) to be put to one side, and the balance of the content and the sources examined and discussed. Speculation about IPs and where people are posting from is unlikely to be helpful. Sometimes people who are the subject of an article won't discuss things and instead engage in disruptive behaviour, but sometimes they will engage in useful discussion if the discussion is handled carefully. See the bit of the policy here: dealing with edits by the subject of the article. One final point: two of the editors on this talk page appear to be edit warring over the BLP policy - which is not very immpressive - though I see discussion is taking place on the policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is no secret that the real-life Christopher Monckton has a reputation as a self-publicist. As you are probably aware he made untrue claims in the British media about the Eternity puzzle, for his own benefit. If he is the IP, he is also currently making claims that misrepresent his career in journalism and politics. In these circumstances, where there is an obvious WP:COI, the subject of a BLP can be highly unreliable as a source, particularly if they wish to use their own WP article as yet another means to promote themselves. As for the picture, it is the sort of thing that could be found in any British newspaper, even those of quality. It is not uncomplimentary and GoRight, the main editor who is disputing the image, is as usual being disruptive in a matter only tenuously concerned with climate change . Mathsci (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The is no "main editor who is disputing the image". There is only "multiple independent editors disputing the image". I hold no special status in this regards. Please try to be accurate. I am not sure what my good friend Mathsci means by "as usual being disruptive in a matter only tenuously concerned with climate change". What is the point being made here? Although I would request that my good friend review the current climate change probation and it's admonishment that editors should discuss the content and not their fellow editors. Thank you. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why GoRight thinks he should refer to me as "my good friend". It would not be surprising if he received another indefinite block in the near future. Mathsci (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that my good friend MathSci has not reviewed the probation provisions and is still commenting on the editor. But to answer his question during the most recent Arbcom elections one of the candidates made mention of the use of Parliamentary language as a means of addressing our current civility problems on the GW pages. Being from the US I have no parliament to serve as my guide so I have selected the closest body available to me, the US Senate. Within the US Senate, and I do not know if this is a formal rule or not, the members frequently refer to one another as being their "good friends" to emphasize that even though they may have diametrically opposed opinions at times that they must still get along and be congenial in their discourse. It seems that the environment here is rather the same and so as part of my attempt the be "more collaborative" I am adopting this same rule as it appears time tested and proven. --GoRight (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop calling me "my good friend" and please cease this inane wikilawyering. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not edit-warring; one revert does not make an edit war, and the edit in question merely stated the current consensus practice regarding user-generated images, as Animate [7] and others have stated. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Carcharoth's request that these concerns be looked at rigorously, I would suggest that we simply walk down the list one by one, review any previous discussion thereof, determine if any new information is available, and then render a conclusion for each. With that in mind, let us proceed to the first such concern.

Concern #1

"1. I corrected the entry to list the subject’s current occupation, business consultant, first. Yet you reverted to the inaccurate statement that he is, first and foremost, a “journalist”. Yet it is a matter of record that he has not been a journalist since 1992, when he left the Evening Standard. Source: Who’s Who. On studying the history of your revisions to this entry, you have repeatedly reverted to the inaccurate statement that the subject is a journalist, inferentially with the intention of implying that as a mere journalist, rather than an eminent business consultant, he ought not to have dared to express opinions contrary to the prejudices of Wikipedia on the subject of “global warming”. I note that the subject’s entry began to be tampered with when he first publicly stated his disagreement with Wikipedia’s prejudice on this subject – a prejudice which your own previous comments on his entry demonstrate you fervently support. It appears to me that it is this particular prejudice on your part, and on that of Dabelstein-Petersen, that has led to your repeated and generally malevolent tampering with this entry."

He has been a director of Christopher Monckton Ltd which appears to sell Eternity puzzles [8]. But he has apparently retired from that on grounds of ill health. He has said that the company (rather than he) provided business consultancy services. There is no source for "eminent". Besides which, what does the article now say? Most of this is attacks on wikipedia. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the puzzling things about this is that the article doesn't call him a journalist and as far as I can see from the edit history, it hasn't called him a journalist for a long time. I took out an unsourced statement that he was a journalist back in April 2009 [9] and I don't think it's been restored since. The IP editor (let's call him Notkcnom) seems to be working from an old list of complaints that doesn't relate to what's actually in the article now. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. Let's just assess what's been said and if it has already been addressed or has become moot for some reason then we can simply note that. The IP seems to be intent on including "retired" which has been repeatedly removed. Is there some reason to remove retired? --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source + Verifiable? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Both valid reasons. Let me dig a bit but I assume someone before me has already tried, or no? --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly and yes, people have already tried to source this without any success. We don't have any source to say that he's retired, and he seems to keep popping up with articles like his two Telegraph pieces. [10], [11] All we can say is that he worked for such-and-such a newspaper between so-and-so dates but without a source we can't say that he's retired. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, looks like I've found something - evidently published since the last time this came up. This National Post article calls him a "former journalist". Good enough for us? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I ran across that too but figured people would reject it as being too specific (i.e. just relative to the journalist aspect even though he is known to have other positions after that). I finally tried looking at his Facebook entry to argue that a SPS would be sufficient for this bit of trivia, but ironically it doesn't say he's retired either. I guess if the Facebook entry was ever updated to reflect this tidbit we could still make that argument. I ran across lots of things that state retired but they all track back to here.  :( --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the URL of his Facebook entry? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[12]. I found it by Googling him and Facebook. I am inclined to uphold your original stance and leave the retired off, actually, unless something he published can be found that at least mentions being retired. --GoRight (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely Monckton would know better than to self-describe as "Lord Christopher Monckton"? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is a "fan profile" that isn't by Monckton himself. I've never seen him self-describing as "Lord Christopher Monckton"; he calls himself "Monckton of Brenchley". The biographical profile is just a copy-and-paste from here and the low-resolution image of him is one that's on numerous blog posts around the Web. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns #2-4

"2. In respect of the subject’s father, I added the words “late Major-General”, which appear to have been dropped in error at some stage in previous editing. It is a matter of record that the Second Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was a Major-General, and that he has died: see his Wikipedia page. Here and time and again elsewhere, your habit of wholesale deletion of carefully-considered amendments to make this entry accurate and complete is unacceptable, and must not be permitted in future.

3. In respect of the subject’s parents, his education, and his marriage, I had added some harmless details of the sort that customarily appear in such entries, such as his father’s decorations, some brief background on his mother and his wife, and some details of his educational qualifications, all of which are easily verifiable in Who’s Who. Yet your wholesale reversal of my edit wiped all of this detail out, without the slightest reason.

4. In respect of the subject’s early career, I had added some details of his work that are easily verifiable in Who’s Who and in other published sources. These, too, were arbitrarily deleted by your wholesale reversal of my edits."

Let's tackle these as a group since they all relate to Who's Who'. Kitty, I think you resolved this by digging up the relevant Who's Who entry. User:Gerrard Winstanley added this info to the article in December 2009 and it's still there now. However, there is still a question (that you raised, Kitty) of whether Who's Who can be considered a reliable source given that the entries are submitted by the subjects. There have certainly been instances of Who's Who entries being a pack of self-serving lies - that of L. Ron Hubbard was a case in point. I think this would be worth raising at the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(added) Which I have now done at WP:RSN#Is Who's Who a reliable source?. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here have access to this resource? I'm not about to spend 295 pounds to simply see what is contained in the man's entry. For example, might this entry at least resolve some of the minutae about the man which are not really in dispute? The conversation at RS/N seems to suggest that is is perhaps sufficient for those. --GoRight (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kitty already posted the entry further up this page, so there's no need to fork out for it. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It says he is a Liveryman of the Broderers rather than a member. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same thing. See Liveryman. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely. Liveryman is more precise. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #5

"5. I had corrected the false statement that the subject “has referred to himself as a Peer of the House of Lords”. The subject has never referred to himself as a “Peer of the House of Lords”, for there is no such thing. He is, whether you like it or not, a Peer of the Realm, having successfully proved his title to succeed his late father to the satisfaction of the Privileges Committee of the House of Lords, which will verify this fact if you bother to check. He is, therefore, a member of the House of Lords, but (in terms of the House of Lords Act 1999) without the right to sit or vote. I had corrected this error, adding that on two occasions the subject had unsuccessfully stood for election to vacant seats in the House of Lords. Even if you have a reference that states that the subject “has referred to himself as ‘a Peer of the House of Lords’”, that reference is inaccurate."

It's flatly untrue that Monckton is a member of the House of Lords. The official list of members is here; Monckton is not listed. Notkcnom, our IP editor, is asking us to add false information to the article, which clearly we're not going to do. The reference to Monckton as "a peer of the House of Lords" is in this Chicago Tribune article of December 16, 2007. In this letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, he described himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature". Likewise in this piece he calls himself "a member of the House of Lords." The statement that Monckton had unsuccessfully stood for election to the House of Lords twice is unsourced; I've only found one Lords by-election in which he stood. (And if he stood unsuccessfully, how can he be a member of the House of Lords?). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be hairsplitting over being a Peer of the Realm (referred to in the article as hereditary peer, I presume), but not elected to the Lords (which changed in 1999 - see House of Lords Act 1999). Is it possible to put in the article when his right to the title was recognised? His father sat in the House of Lords, and died in 2006, so maybe it is possible to sort things out from that point on - when did his father stop sitting in the House of Lords (was he ones of those that left in 1999), and how was the succession of the title handled? As to what Monckton has said in newspaper articles or letters, what happens when a BLP subject contests the veracity of newspaper reports? Are they told to go ask the newspaper to print a retraction? Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just hairsplitting; here's the background. A peer of the realm is not the same thing as a hereditary peer, since there is another class of peer (the life peers). Monckton happens to be a hereditary peer; almost all of the hereditaries were expelled from the Lords in 1999 after the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, leaving the life peers and a rump of hereditaries in place. Monckton's father stood for one of the seats reserved for the remaining hereditaries but was unsuccessful. Monckton acceded to the title in 2006 and also stood unsuccessfully for a hereditary seat. The Act did not affect his accession to the peerage and there has never been any dispute about him being a peer. This article has always referred to him as such. The question, about which our IP editor is being (I think deliberately) rather confusing in his claim above, is whether he is a member of the House of Lords. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has ever been a member; he's not listed by Parliament as a member, nor is he in Dods, the Parliamentary guide. Note that the IP editor doesn't cite any source for his assertion. On the other hand, there have been several occasions, as I've noted, in which Monckton has publicly called himself "a member of the House of Lords" or words to the same effect. This disparity has already been noted by the press. The Chicago Tribune article I mentioned above says: "He refers to himself as a “peer of the House of Lords.” Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by the death of a member." [13] The IP's objection appears to centre on denying that he has called himself a "peer of the House of Lords" while skating over the undisputed fact that he has called himself a "member of the House of Lords" though not actually being listed as one. It's merely a semantic objection - note that the Tribune uses the correct term "member" in the very next sentence. If it had quoted him using the word "member" rather than "peer" his objection wouldn't have a leg to stand on. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #6

"6. On the subject’s views about “global warming”, I shall begin with the general comment that there is far too much detail, most of it apparently intended to cast the subject’s views in the least favourable possible light regardless of the truth. The sheer quantity of detail on this matter unbalances the entry, and reflects the prejudices chiefly of you and Dabelstein-Petersen, together with those of the now-disbarred Connolley. The first of my edits in this section corrected the inaccurate statement that an article by the subject in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 November 2006 had “disputed whether global warming is manmade”. In fact, the article stated plainly that, as a result of human activities, some warming was to be expected. Your wholesale reversal of my edits restored the inaccuracy, in a manner calculated unreasonably to reflect discredit upon the subject."

The second of Monckton's two Telegraph articles summarises the first with the following: "Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change." [14] -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #7

"7. I corrected the entry to state that the subject had acted as an expert witness in the London High Court case that found multiple serious errors in Al Gore’s movie. This is evident from the case papers, which include a substantial expert testimony from the subject. Your wholesale reversal of my edits deleted this correction, reverting to the previous formulation that he had merely “played a key role”. The subject drafted the 80-page scientific testimony that won the case."

The account in the article is sourced. This "correction" is not. We can't use it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #8

"8. I corrected an error in the entry to the effect that the subject had funded distribution of The Great Global Warming Swindle to schools in England. It is a matter of record that no such distribution was made, and that a journalist on The Independent had simply made this allegation up. Your wholesale reversal of my edits removed this necessary correction."

Same problem as with #7. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #9

"9. I corrected the entry to remove a point of view that runs counter to Wikipedia’s policy on points of view in what are supposed to be factual entries. The entry had said that the subject had recently undertaken a North American speaking tour to “campaign against” the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Several of the subject’s speeches on the tour are available online, and it is clear from those speeches that he was not “campaigning against” the conference: instead, as I correctly stated in one of my edits, he was explaining the shortcomings of the UN’s climate science."

This can probably be resolved. Let's have a look at how the reliable sources characterise his tour. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #10

"10. I removed several negative comments about the subject’s climate movie, and about his revelation that the draft Treaty of Copenhagen proposed to establish an unelected world “government” with control over the commanding heights of the world economy and over all markets worldwide. There were just as many positive comments – for instance, in Canada’s National Post, and a positive comment on Lord Monckton’s movie by Professor Larry Gould – but only the negative comments were included. At this point, either a balance of comments must be included, or no comments at all. For the sake of keeping the entry to a less disproportionate length, I had opted for the second course of action in respect of Lord Monckton’s speaking tour, and the first in respect of his movie. Your prejudiced reversal of all of my edits restored the manifestly unbalanced and unfair selection of critical comments only. On any view, this is unacceptable."

Removing all the reliably sourced reviews of Monckton's views clearly isn't on but I agree that we should try to find some more positive reviews, if there are any. Another editor was trying to do this before Xmas but seems to have lost interest. However, the Gould source isn't usable as it's a self-published source - WP:BLP disallows such sources for comments on living persons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #11

"11. I had corrected the entry to reflect the fact that the subject’s contribution to the learned newsletter Physics and Society was a substantial, reviewed paper, not a mere “article”. Your reversal of my edits inconsistently left the word “paper” in one place, “article” in others.

Physics and Society appears to call its content articles, not papers, as do the science journalists reporting on this particular affair: see [15]. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns #12-14

"12. I had corrected the entry to point out that the American Physical Society had been compelled to remove from above the online version of the paper the assertions – for which it had no evidence – that the Council of the APS disagreed with the paper, and that the world’s scientific community disagreed with it. It is a matter of record that the disclaimer was altered in this respect, after several Fellows of the APS had written to its President about the matter. Your reversals of my edits was calculated to have the effect of restoring these manifest inaccuracies, to the unreasonable detriment of the subject’s reputation."

"13. I had corrected the entry to point out that the paper had been reviewed in detail by Professor Alvin Saperstein of Wayne State University. Since the Professor’s review comments have been published, this fact is undeniable. Yet the entry, after your restoration of numerous inaccuracies, now again states that the paper had not been reviewed. This is unacceptable."

"14. I had removed a statement that one Smith, a paid employee of the American Physical Society, had identified “125 errors” in the subject’s paper. This statement contravenes the very policy that you dare to cite against me, that sources should be independent and verifiable. The list of “125 errors” appears on a campaigning website run by Smith himself: it was not reviewed: and it has not been independently verified. Indeed, several of Smith’s own supporters, on his website, have said that the vast majority of the “errors” are not errors at all. Here, you have allowed your malice and prejudice to cause you to overlook the rule that you have – albeit inappropriately – cited against me. This is unacceptable in a trusted editor of Wikipedia, and is one of the reasons why I am asking the arbiters to remove you from this role, particularly in respect of the subject’s entry."

Unsourced assertions again; we can't use unsourced claims. The entry says - quoting the APS itself - that the journal is not peer-reviewed. The journal's co-editor has confirmed this. [16] Arthur Smith's review got taken out at some point. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern #15

"15. On the subject’s published opinion – expressed during the early stages of the HIV epidemic – that the standard public-health measures against new, fatal, incurable infections should be followed, I had made several corrections. First, I had pointed out that the subject had expressed this view following a visit to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. What I could not say, for there is no published source, is that the chief HIV researcher at USAMRIID had begged the subject to publish, because they had been unable to persuade the Surgeon-General of the US to follow the standard protocol. I had also corrected the entry to reveal the UNAIDS figures on how many had died and how many had become infected since the subject’s article on the matter had been published. For the sake of balance, this material should have been left in, particularly since it was properly sourced. Yet your indiscriminate reversal of my edits deleted these changes, again in a manner calculated to do maximal but wholly unjustifiable damage to the subject’s reputation. This is unacceptable in a Wikipedia reviewer."

The material that Notkcnom wants to add here is essentially this edit. It's completely unsourced. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

IPs

I wanted to go through an review the diffs related to this. There are multiple different IPs editing the affected content. It is not clear if they are all the same person.

• Diff's from IP editors related to Monckton's occupation as a business consultant: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] Disclaimer: I did this as a quick manual scan, if I made any mistakes just go ahead and correct them.

The IPs are almost certainly Monckton himself. They all trace to the same British ISP (Energis) and, if memory serves me correctly, the IP editor occasionally signed things as "Mofb". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly indeed. Does it make a difference? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, assuming you are correct, we should take note of the following edits related to the image which also happen to be the last set of IP edits currently in the history: [27], [28] --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There is no reason to take particular notice of any of these edits, except to note that they may constitute edit-warring. --FormerIP (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those latter two IPs do not trace to Energis, unlike the others. There's no clear evidence that they have anything to do with Monckton. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Solution to Photo Debate?

This Photo is available via Vfact.TV and according to their site is available under CCA 3.0 US License. Can we used it instead of the currently debated photo? It might help to crop to just the bust, and there's a higher resolution photo if needed for that here. It appears to be recent by his looks and the date embedded in the URL, but isn't unflattering (he's obviously composed and posing for the shot, without blurry cameras and other elements cluttering the space.) BTW, another photo was offered earlier in this thread, here, but I don't know that it's availble for our use. Jlschlesinger (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the URL of the page where that photo is available and where's the CC 3.0 license? I've seen that image before, credited to a Scottish photographer. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

URL for page and license is here. Jlschlesinger (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's the same image as the now-deleted Lord-Monckton.png, uploaded before Xmas by User:Bullwhip. It's credited here to Mike Wilkinson. Bullwhip said on his talk page (User talk:Bullwhip#File permission problem with File:Lord-Monckton.png) that the image had come from Monckton himself with permission to use it, but he was unable to substantiate this and the image was deleted about a week ago. We know that it's definitely not a work by CFACT, so I suspect the copyright notice at the bottom of http://www.cfact.tv/2009/11/26/lord-christopher-monckton may only apply to the text of that page. It's a nice image, certainly better than what we have now, but given the uncertainty about its copyright status I don't think we can use it at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisO for the background info. But if it's on their site (and widely available elsewhere), doesn't it stand to reason that it's covered vis a vis the CC 3.0 and available for use? Or am I missing something about how CC works? In any event I've emailed the site admin there and asked - will post / summarize their response. If they themselves confirm it's covered under the license, it should be usable by us. For that matter, if you're right, then the implication is vfact.tv is using it illegally, which I find unlikely. It's still possible they are using by permission of the owner (Mike Wilkinson)? Jlschlesinger (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know for sure that they are. Since vfact.tv demonstrably isn't the originator of the image, we need to make sure that the image's author's copyright isn't being infringed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On that point, I reviewed your links from above, particuarly re: Mike Wilkinson. I don't see a link from the photo on worldmag to the source you mentioned - only his name below the photo (which is a fairly common name). Even if it's him, there is no information to indicate if or how this image is copywritten, as review of his portfolio did not turn up the Monckton photo. If there's more proof of a problem than this, please post here (perhaps more details from your prev. discussion). IMO the fact that the photo exists all over the web would seem, again, to suggests it's publically available for use. In any event, we're left with this: I've found a site which actually posts the photo, along with a CC 3.0 US license disclaimer directly below it. I'd like to hear from other editors / admins about whether that should be sufficient (and if possible cite similar image debates elsewhere in Wikipedia. I don't want to have to dig around for counter examples here where far less complex scrutiny was applied to a simple photo, but such is the process I guess. But please correct me if I missed something, and thanks. Jlschlesinger (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the onus is on us to show it is public domain rather than relying on assumptions that there is no problem. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, Kittybrewster. How does one do that? For instance, ChrisO claims he found this image in another URL, with (he presumes, sans any explicit link backing him up) the photographer's name under the image. This let him to "google" and find a home page for some photographer of the same name, but without any evidence of the image at that site. And all this somehow proves the image isn't available under CC 3.0 from my source. However, the image you and ChrisO keep pushing for is also available "all over the web". Based on your own standards then I don't see how the current image can be "proven" to be in the public domain. If a site has the CC 3.0 notice on the very same page as the image, that's proof enough, and flimsy searches like the above could cast doubt on the vast majority of Wikiipedia images. Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - we don't have to prove who the originator of an image is. We simpy have to demostrate licensing. Your rationale for proving anything related to origin is dubious at best, and aught not to be seriously considered as a policy. YOur finding a similar image in another URL on the web is not "proof" of anything (as I mentioned there isn't even a link from that image to the photographer you claim owns the image. Did the photographer contact you personally and insist the image was his? No. My proof is the CC 3.0 tags all over the source website I cited, which I will again point out is proof enough all over Wikipedia, and notwithstanding any flimsy claim that because the image exists in some other context the proof of that license is in doubt - in fact, it would seem to underscore the license (which in fact allows such use all over the web). Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility has come through. I wrote to a different user at Flickr.com asking for permission to use this photo, and received his response allowing it. Thoughts? Jlschlesinger (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the uploader not also need to change the licence? From your comments above, you seem to oppose the photo on the basis that it could be replaced. But what what if it can't? --FormerIP (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by replaced - please elaborate. Jlschlesinger (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Therefore it seems the fairest outcome would be to replace the picture" is what you said above. You also turned a 7-4 !vote in favour of keeping the picture into a 4-2 vote against by discounting all the "Keep or replace" votes. I don't think "keep or replace" is quite the same as "exclude and find a new picture". Not blaming you, I guess all's fair, but it isn't logical. Since including the picture is the status quo (it was there a month before anyone objected - which is hundreds of edits on this particular article) what is needed in order to exclude it is a clear consensus for "exclude", which we don't have. --FormerIP (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done for finding it. The photo isn't bad, but Former IP is right about the licence. Basically we need either a public domain licence or a valid Creative Commons licence. CC-BY (Attribution), CC-SA (Sharealike) and CC-BY-SA (Attribution, Sharealike) are all OK, but any licence that prohibits redistribution or derivative works aren't compatible with Wikipedia's copyright rules. Could you ask the contributor to release it under one of the first three licences and change the licensing status on the Flickr copy of the image so that the licence is verifiable? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try. Jlschlesinger (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think that the replacement picture would be a lot better. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one area where there is nearly unanimous consensus! But, still waiting for a response from the owner about the license change. Jlschlesinger (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Lord Monckton.jpg

Add this picture so that we can see what he looks like. Pstaveley (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, please. I've taken off the editprotected template for the moment. Can you please add evidence that the picture has been released for use, as your upload claims? If you're in touch with Monckton you'll need to ask him to send an e-mail of permission to [email protected]. There is a sample consent letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Without clear licensing I'm afraid it can't be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, I also think this photo (if licensed) is preferable to the Copenhagen one. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'll have better luck getting this image licensed for use that I'm having with the flickr one here two days and no further word from the owner. It may be that he is hesitant to release the image to the level of licensing WP requires. Fair Use and Non-Commercial aren't free enough here, correct? 96.227.165.149 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Fair Use is only really permissible where it's not feasible to acquire images any other way - e.g. for unique historical events or iconic images such as the man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, which clearly isn't the case here. Non-Commercial isn't compatible with Wikipedia's requirement for images to be freely reusable for any purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory photo removed as it is under discussion and disputed as derogatory representation of a living person.Qichina (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another SPA? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Single Purpose or Sock Puppet? Qichina (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose account. So far. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Licensing Witch-Hunt

I have replaced what nearly half the active editors in recent discussions here consider an offensive and disparaging (as well as poorly composed) photo of Christopher Monckton with an image much more commonly found and complient (both with the community's will and Wikipedia image policy)

The replacement image is available publically with a CLEARLY STATED Creative Commons 3.0 license on the very same URL the image appears on. Everyone, please view the source here.

I reject (and ask the community's consent to reject in agreement) any arguement (being made here by ChrisO and supported by the typical crowd pushing to reinstate the offending image) that presumes that finding similar images at other websites somehow refutes the veracity of well-documented an image license. Existence of an image in multiple places does not confer any proof of ownership. Imposing such a "standard of proof" would allow any user to delete any image content in any wikipedia article where duplicate versions of the image can be found online, including the image ChrisO and others are seemingly so keen to keep posted here (which is found in several places online - all of which cast Monckton in a negative light, thus reinforcing the feeling amonst many here that the image is disparaging).

The community here has already indicated overwhelmingly that, regardless of whether they feel the original image was offensive, they would prefer a better one. I have posted a better photo with the same CC 3.0 licensing as the previous one. Therefore, please as a community let the unobjectionable photo stand. Any removal of the replacement photo on grounds that it is not adequately licensed will lead to yet another Admin complaint and my request for arbitration. Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to using that image if the licensing is OK. The problem with this particular image is that it's not at all clear that it's covered by that license. We know that it's appeared in commercial publications credited to someone else [29], so we know that it's clearly not a work of cfact.tv. It appears uncredited on cfact.tv covered by a license which claims it to be a "work by CFACT", which we know is not true for the image. So it is very unclear that the image is properly licensed in the first place. The solution to this is very simple - we just have to find an image whose creator unambiguously allows us to use it. Where there's ambiguity, we can't simply make assumptions about ownership. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(added) I have listed this image and a derivative version at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 20. Please direct comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making an argument for the image being possibly unfree, and that's fine -- I don't think you're right, but if consensus at the WP:PUF discussion reaches that decision, it should be removed. In the meantime, though, we have an image from a website that represents the subject (offering his services as a speaker) which has explicitly released the image as CC-by-SA, so the presumption should be that the image is free and usable. Please make your argument, but please do not presume the outcome of the discussion by deleting the image from the article while the argument proceeds. (It would be different if fair use was being claimed, in which case the presumption would be that the image should not appear until the appropriateness of the image's fair use was established. That's not the situation here, though. The image has been released with a compatible license, and is usable until otherwise shown not to be.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:PUF discussion is here, in case nobody posted the link. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And the technical evidence posted there appears to be conclusive, so I withdraw my objection to deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the images have now been deleted, so I think that resolves the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected, in terms of the usability of the replacement image. The matter of it's use is resolved yes, but we are left with the original issue, which is the photo you solicited originally from a Flickr account and is currently, again, in use here, is complete unacceptible to about half the editors here, and overwhelmingly wanted changed, notwithstanding the lisencing issues. Your posting it back doesn't resolve any of that - there remains no consensus, other than a wish for a better photo by nearly all.

In any event, while the discussion has become civil and the objections to alternative images reasonable (insomuch as Wiki policy is concerned, which frankly holds imagery to a higher standard than it might need to), it amazes me that we are left with such a obviously objectionable (I would say biased) photo for this article. I image-googled Monckton, and found this current image is reproduced in several places, and overwhelmingly in a disparaging context towards Monckton: here he's called "no friend to freedom", here he's obviously mocked, and here referred to as "barking mad", and apparently, all used without attribution. It saddens me that otherwise very reasonable editors refuse to admit this is not neutral content and Wikipedia's use of the photo amounts to a strong endorsement of bias. I can't believe arguments being made that the image "is what he really looks like" are serious. Nonsense. The image is most likely a frame capture of video, chosen to exaggerate Monckton's large eyes and look of discomfort in a confrontational setting (although I have no proof of that). What we call should know, is that it was clearly taken by a person who was taking part in a protest where Monckton was blatantly and personally mocked, with stickers were affixed to Monckton's back, as seen here and here. There really can't be any serious doubt that using biased imagery connotes a bias to Wikipedia...in case the editors involved aren't already aware, Wikipedia doesn't need any additional help nurturing a perception of left-wing editorial bias any more than Monckton does a right-wing one.

Since this debate has dragged on and continues to be the source of frustration amonst many editors, who would no doubt like to move on to other business, and since a casual review of the history of the Monckton article unfortunately gives more than a little evidence that there may be some personal or political "bad blood" (residual as it may be) involved here, I have a final proposal which hopefully will resolve this. Clearly, ChrisO, you were instrumental in getting the image currently being used in place, so why don't you make a request of the owner, Mr. McDermott, for use of one of his own other images of Monckton? Either this one or this one, if properly cropped, would I believe satisfy the community. They are in fact decent pictures of Monckton, and we would simply need the owner to flip the licensing to CC 3.0 (attrib)... just as he did for you before, with your request for the current image. You've already indicated you favor a better photo, and as a result of your extraorginary diligence on this topic, you remain the only submitter of a photo with apparently the appropriate licensing. I would venture to say you have the best capacity to end the debate then, by taking this action. Would you be willing to do so? 71.185.144.132 (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to do so, but let's get some feedback from other editors on what they think of those images - I don't want to waste my time (and the photographer's) by trying to get permission for more images that will just get deleted from the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the two suggested images would be easy to crop well, but the second one would be the better of the two if the resolution of the image is large enough that the crop would be of a size to be of any use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with either image. Unhappy with no image. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Both images look good. Both are hi-res enough to be cropped and get an image of acceptable resolution (just zoom in the photo and you will see the face does not present ugly artifacts at high zoom. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the two other photos are inferior and it would be better not to have a profile shot, given the choice. However, that's all a bit subjective, so if other editors like them and the licencing can be organised, then fine. --FormerIP (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks FormerIP - I actually prefer no photo too, but find the two alternatives being discussed an improvement over the current one. I've made a few test-crops (but haven't uploaded them here yet for obvious reasons) and personally think they are serviceable; the first one in particular. I've seen far less resolution in imagery used in other wiki articles, including lo-res video capture frames. Perhaps we can give this a day or two more for discussion, but if the current rate of acceptance holds among editors, I think we might have a good compromise. Jlschlesinger (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I said "not to have a *profile* shot" - meaning a shot taken from the side, rather than a photo in the profile box. My fault for missing the ambiguity. I prefer the current photo partly because it is taken from the front. But it is fair enough to switch if that's what the majority thinks and the licence can be sorted. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your clarifying - you have a point in that these angles are at least semi-profile shots (if such a term exists). However all three images from this source IMO fail various style guidelines set out. Jlschlesinger (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Semi-profile" is "three-quarters".

If it resolves this impasse, I would go with the first, suitably cropped. I would prefer no image to the derogatory one presently being used. Qichina (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no impasse. We know you prefer no image to the one presently shown; consensus is against you. Maybe Notkcnom has a better photograph and can release it into the public domain? Consensus favours a change to a different licenced photograph. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My post was in the spirit of 71.185.144.132's post to ChrisO - about a need to move forward. Your post is evidence of the 'bad blood' that he/she referred to. When you say "concensus [sic] is against you", you evidently misunderstand the term consensus. If you mean a majority of views expressed so far, then say so. Consensus is a process of reaching agreement by the group as a whole, where individual objections are resolved. That's not the same as a majority view. ChrisO asked for feedback before he sought permissions (07:38, 21 January), so that's what I did, just as you did at 10.22. No need for the snotty response. Qichina (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to include the available image of Monckton?

OK, yesterday I raised a WP:BLPSPS objection to the image in question. The matter was quickly raised in several venues but the primary discussion was directed to WP:ANI. When it became evident that WP:BLPSPS as written was in conflict with other policies relating to images the two needed to be reconciled. My good friend ChrisO was kind enough to update WP:BLPSPS to reflect what is, apparently, considered to be widespread acceptable community practice. Given this update it appears the that WP:BLPSPS objection is now moot and that the administrators prefer to punt this issue back here as an editorial content decision.

So, if that is to be the case, we seem to have to render an editorial content decision between (a) using the only available image which some people feel presents the subject of the article in a disparaging light, or (b) leaving the article with no image at all. Many opinions and much discussion has been made on this issue in various sections above (find them yourself). Based on those deliberations, I would like to assess where people now stand on this issue to ascertain whether a consensus for inclusion exists. To that end, please provide a concise position statement below to weigh in on this important matter. --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Opinions on Including the Available Image

• Exclude This Particular Photo - There is nothing to say that we need to include any image in this BLP, and there are several (many?) editors who feel that the existing image can be considered unflattering at best and disparaging at worst depending on one's own perspective. Consistent with the principle that a BLP should do no harm, I believe that we should not use of this particular image. --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude This Particular Photo - Various editors including myself feel that this picture is a particularly poor representation of Monkton and portrays him negatively. We don't need a photo and this one shouldn't be included just because it is the only one available. The description at commons describes him as looking surprised, a picture of someone being surprised is hardly what you want in an infobox of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Include this photo without prejudice to replacing it with another recent photo which has an appropriate licence. I don't accept that his (or this) image is unflattering, innaccurate, disparaging or not him. Photo-needed=yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Include this pic, or a better one if you can find it. Drop all the unprofitable BLP talk, and admit that the claimed BLP exemption to 3RR was spurious William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not digress in this section, OK? Feel free to remove the collapse if you insist on continuing ...

It was not a spurious 3RR exemption claim of protection, his claim found a degree of support and its inclusion is clearly disputed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Nope, the claim was spurious and not upheld. Fortunately for him he didn't go to 4R to test it; but he would have lost if he had; you continued the edit warring for him instead William M. Connolley (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I made one edit to remove the picture when the disputed picture was again stuffed in, although there was clearly a dispute and after discussion at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I think he was having a go at me since I was the one making the claims. Regardless they are now moot and stale so I see no need to respond. --GoRight (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do think that the current changes are some improvement, including the removal of the picture, which I do think was chosen to be unflattering etc. Keep it out.Refs to Climategate are very necessary in this context and should be better sourced i.e. links to http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php and to Global Warming Policy Foundation http://www.thegwpf.org/ particularly to Includes “British Researchers Attack Sea-Level Rise 'Apocalypse’” http://www.thegwpf.org/copenhagen-diary/394-british-researchers-attack-sea-level-rise-apocalypse.html in which Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory."Saldezza (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.
• Exclude this photo from infobox. Yeah, he's no George Clooney, but poking through Google Images suggests that the picture is too unflattering for an infobox. It might be OK included in the article body with appropriate caption (eg "surprised at climate conference") - context matters, and in the infobox there is none, it's just "that's what he looks like". Rd232 ^talk 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not digress in this section, OK? Feel free to remove the collapse if you insist on continuing ...

Agreed context matters, if it was small and used to support some related text, where it can be explained then it is worth consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Google Images is misleading in this regard, as I've said on a number of occasions - old images are not necessarily representative. Compare this National Post image from October 2009. Up-to-date images should always be preferred. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) As I said to you yesterday that picture would be far preferable, I don't see that Google images is misleading, all that is is a selection of pictures of him, what I find excessive is your holding such a position against this person and your excessively editing it, this is reflected it your recent multiple edits of 15 points in some kind of effort to assert that your edits here fairly represent this living person. IMO it is better when we as editors hold such a strongly opposed opinion to the subject of a BLP that we don't bother editing it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Nonsense. I only got involved with this article because it was being dicked around so much by IP editors making legal threats, which came up on AN/I way back in August 2007. I was one of a number of editors who worked on the article to improve it after it was unprotected following the threats - see [30]. Your comments about "multiple edits of 15 points" are totally misinformed - those were posted to several user talk pages last night, which prompted User:Carcharoth to ask us to "look at them rigorously". I suggest that if you wish to comment on what people are doing you should make some effort to get your facts straight first. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, you are the person mentioned and you are the one making the 15 rebuttals in an effort to assert your edits are neutral. I am only saying, when you hold such a position against the subject of the BLP that perhaps it would be better if you didn't edit it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) It doesn't work like that. Since the IP editor is accusing me personally and since I know the sources, I'm entitled to respond. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd suggest that you make an effort to get acquainted with the facts and assume good faith before making accusations against other editors. I'd also like to remind you that this article is currently under article probation and that editors have been and will be cautioned to discuss article improvements without imputing motives to other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Include or replace as per Kitty. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Include or replace same as in the earlier discussion. Yes, the picture isn't optimal so any replacement would probably be better, but it is the picture we have, and a poor picture is better than no picture. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Include. I do not think the picture is unflattering, it is just what he looks like. Take a look at this video [31]. Furthermore, the picture is a good illustration of his public role (as someone who engages with the media and public), and IMO is shows him in a good, rather than a poor, light. As a matter of principle, I think it would be wrong to try to seek out a picture that makes his medical condition less apparent. Although I am not a fan of the subject, I say this in a spirit of supporting his right not to have his face censored, rather than of wanting him to look bad in a photo (which I don't agree that he does in this case). --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Include The picture is accurate. Not everyone is the most perfect picture of beauty.

So what anyway. Looks should not matter. Older photographs or those taken from a distance so you cannot see him so clearly may be more flattering, but less accurate. There is something distasteful about the notion of not showing a disabled person's face because it makes them look less than perfect.Neilj (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This misrepresents the argument of every editor opposed to the photo that I can find. See my take below. Jlschlesinger (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Include. Try to find a better freely licensed image, e.g. something like this one [32]. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude this Particular Photo, per violations of Wikipedia image policy already discussed at length and per the lack of consensus obvious here. As a new editor, I see a lot of "baggage" attached to this article, based on some history revealed in this thread specifically. While I have faith all editors are attempting to be neutral and impartial, I don't know we've as a body been successful. Leaving the current picture out is sensible, particularly given that most who want it included seem inclined to accept a better picture once one is found / vetted. Again, as a new editor (unrelated to any of the history involved with this topic), who only just saw this article last week, I have to tell you all - this photo looked terrible upon first glance and NOT because Monckton is "ugly" or "disabled" (?) - there are numerous, recent, normal looking pictures. This photo is from a 3rd party, which a casual review shows (link added 1/12/2010) appears biased against the subject. The photo captures the subject while engaging a protest against him, and he appears uncomfortable. It is not representative of how he looks currently, and is similar to the photo-scumming methods commonly used to make Bush or Obama look silly. The impression left (IMO) is that Monckton is defined by his unpopularity and is therefore a biased impression, which carries to Wikipedia if it's used here. Currently I see 4 opposed to the picture, 7 in favor of using a photo, and of those, only 2 insist on keeping this specific photo. Therefore it seems the fairest outcome would be to replace the picture - all that's left is whether to keep this photo removed until then. Given only 2 insist on the current photo, and 4 want it to remain off, I ask those who would favor a photo agree to leave this one off, and this community focus instead on finding a more acceptible photo (many have been suggested already). Jlschlesinger (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude this particular photo. Pictures convey meaning. Does anyone really doubt this? I could take a picture of any editor here which made them look like a buffoon if was allowed to do so in harsh light and while they were mid-speech. This photo carries an editorial meaning ("let's all laugh at the funny-looking upper-class twit!") which is not appropriate in a BLP. Thparkth (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• This photo is good He actually looks like that, so I don't see how it's supposed to be derogatory. I look at the photo again, and I still don't see why editors say that he looks bad. His face is like that, you are just not used to seeing it. I looked at the set of photos in Flickr, and this is the one that makes him look better, so I don't think that the licenser chose a bad image in purpose.

Mind you, the photo could be better, and Pstaveley has proposed a better image. If he manages to get a suitable licensing then we should use that one instead. Idem if any better photo with a free license appears. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude, or more specifically: second Rd232's suggestions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)