Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New questionable claim

A new editor, Nyilasr (talk · contribs), has added a questionable claim to the article (which I've removed for now):

Lord Monckton calculated climate sensitivity based on the fundamental equations of radiative heat transfer. His estimates on climate sensitivity have been experimentally confirmed by Prof Richard Lindzen by his Earth Radiation Budget Satellite Experiment in 2009. [1]

I looked at the cited source but I couldn't see any mention of Monckton or any citation of anything by him. Can anyone shed light on this? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's 100% false. I would guess that Nyilasr (talk · contribs) is Monckton's sock. --TimLambert (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing image until a better one is found

I've removed the image, as I don't think it's adequately respectful of our obligations for a BLP. Just because someone snaps a picture of someone doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in front of their biography. Whatever rumors there are for why he looks so startled aren't of help; this looks like it is just a terrible picture of him, and for that reason shouldn't be used. Another picture would be nice, but presumably isn't necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concur. It's interesting to me that those who want to use the photo cite the RFC, where nothing even resembling consensus developed to use it. It's a horrible photo, and has no place as the lead photo in a BLP. UnitAnode 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• ConcurI have e-mailed Lord Monckton and have asked him to supply us with a picture he prefers. --mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. In spite of what has been said above, I think the consensus that has already been established was to "keep or replace". I don't think there is anything wrong with the picture. He has a condition which affects his appearance, which is not a rumour. --FormerIP (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per consensus. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  There was no consensus. To state otherwise is just untruthful. As of now, adding my opinion to the milieu, just the raw count is 8 for 6 against. When it's regarding a photo of a living person, that is not consensus in any way. Please stop claiming you have it. UnitAnode 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the options as i see them are keep or replace. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why people are voting, and I do not think the page should be protected on this picture. The picture is of extremely poor quality, and is about in keeping with the pictures you see on the covers of those books thrashing Hillary Clinton. It is a BLP violation, it's like putting up a picture of a political figure yawning in their car. Or maybe a tabloid picture of a celebrity in some compromising positiong? There is clearly no consensus for keeping the picture; anyone suggesting such is misrepresenting the talk page. Please be serious, the picture is clearly inappropriate and should be removed immediately. Mackan79 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on a point of procedure, the picture is the status quo and so a consensus would be required in order to remove it, rather than to keep it, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not buy the BLP argument, it assumes that we have alternatives to the picture, and are using it to disparage, that is not the case - We have the picture because no other picture is available, consensus is to change it the moment we do. So a better approach would be to search for one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree strongly, there is no consensus required to remove something that violates BLP. Let's say one of us snapped this picture of Hillary Clinton, and there were no others available. Should we put it up on her biography? WP:BLP explicitly states, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This is about as clear as they come. The picture violates policy, and material that violates policy should be removed immediately, not wait until something else can be put up in its place. Mackan79 (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is not out of context or disparaging. This issue was previously taken to both the BLP and ANI noticeboards and closed with "no action required". --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for saying this? Having looked at your comments above, you've said that you support the picture because it displays a medical condition that you say re he has, and that we should not censor. Yet the article says nothing about any condition, which means to any observer it just looks like he is in the midst of being startled. I don't think it can be said he just looks fine, when numerous people are remarking on the fact that he looks uncomfortable and unsettled in this picture, and that putting up such a picture of someone at the top of their biography is disparaging to any extent a picture of someone's expression can be. Please link any other discussion if you think it is relevant and I will review it. Mackan79 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not required thank you. I have already reviewed the arguments. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussions are in the recent ANI and BLP archives. I think the title is "Edit-warring over BLP image" or something similar. My point isn't that there's anything in those discussions that will add to what's here though, just that the discussions were closed as needing no action, which tells against your claim of an obvious BLP violation.

BTW, I see no reason why the article shouldn't mention his medical condition, if that helps. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have searched the archives of both noticeboards, and do not find any such discussion. If they exist, please do highlight them, or if there was no discussion then let's have that be known. In looking I particularly have not seen any discussion of the provision in WP:BLP which states that "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the respective burdens of proof, please see also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content.

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.
If the material is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article."

Based on this it seems quite clear that the image should be removed pending consensus on how to move forward. Mackan79 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's if there were an outstanding BLP issue to be addressed. As stated, this has been to BLPN and ANI already and the result was no action required. Look through the last few archives on ANI and you will find the relevant discussion (that's the one where the main discussion took place). This might take a little work, but it is there. --FormerIP (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that I found, and there wasn't any consensus to include it. Yet, those who want this disparaging picture included claim they have "consensus" to do so. Why? UnitAnode 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I discussion is here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and majority view seems to be that this picture is not a violation of BLP and should remain until we have a better picture with a licence. But when we have another picture with a licence we should replace this one. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, Kittybrester, I see only that you are misrepresenting the discussions that have occurred. You are saying there is consensus that the image should stay, when the absense of such consensus is readily apparent. To say there was consensus that there is no BLP violation is equally problematic, considering the discussion focused on whether it was wrong to include a self published source. The problem is not simply that it is self-published, but that it violates WP:MUG. One editor that I can see pointed out the issue and suggested that it should be resolved here. To say that a pre-existing consensus is controlling here is simply incorrect, besides being irrelevant on a WP:BLP. Mackan79 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for linking, Kim. So, it appears there was a discussion at AN/I which unsurprisingly suggested that the issue should be resolved here. Looking at it here it seems quite clear that there is no consensus for including the image. This is a WP:BLP, and there is a specific provision that is of concern, which is that this image presents the subject out of context in a disparaging light (who is he reacting to in this way and why does he look so uncomfortable? the claim that it is just an undocumented medical condition is hardly supported). WP:BLP states in different places, as it does in the lead, that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." My view remains that the image should be removed immediately pending consensus that it is acceptable or another image can be found. Mackan79 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement that this is disparaging. Nor do I think he was unaware that there were numerous photographers around. IE He was not taken unawares. IMHO he was politely and courageously (which I believe he always is) telling the opposition why they were out of order in what they had said to him. The film does him some credit which I do not think of the fellow in orange. He has said he has had surgery for his Graves disease (Guardian from memory). Kittybrewster ☎ 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are saying there is no consensus that it is disparaging as if the burden of proof is on editors to establish a consensus that something violates WP:BLP. If that were required then that policy would be useless, but it isn't, as the policy explicitly states; the burden is on editors who want to include any piece of material. I will raise it at the BLP noticeboard if you insist, as contrary to the statements above it does not seem to have been used here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Kitty. Monckton is not seen in "disparaging light", he is explaining things to a person, and using his arms to illustrate. The "startled look" is simply how he looks, Monckton has Graves disease (see earlier threads), and thus the bulging eyes. We all agree that a better picture can be found - but stating that the way he looks is a BLP problem is rather astonishing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The medical condition isn't undocumented. Monckton refers to it himself here: [2]. A minority of editors here feel the image should be excluded as a BLP violation. I don't think it would be a reasonable interpretation of policy to say that an image should be excluded as long as there is a minority that want to exclude it. Policy would exclude this image if it were clearly disparaging or dishonest. There is no requirement that editors must be unanimous about this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"This week Monbiot decided to have yet another go at me, and – like the Fascist he is – he decided that he would have some fun at the expense of my own disability, Graves’ Disease, which causes the eyes to protrude markedly. He took pleasure in repeating another hack’s description of me as “swivel-eyed”. Heil Hitler, George."

• My problem is IT'S A TERRIBLE PICTURE!!!! My other problem is that there's no consensus to include it, so it should be out. Period. UnitAnode 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the best we have. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But this point is irrelevant to it's inclusion. Articles don't require pictures. Just because we have one doesn't mean it should be included. "The best we have" is currently "no picture." The latter is an option.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Sorry, but since status quo is that the image is on the article, there should be consensus to remove it. Unless it actually is a BLP problem that Monckton looks like he does, which makes it rather problematic to present images of people with physical disabilities. My son has Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and a distinct macroglossia, thus every picture with him will display this, and quite frankly attempts at hiding it (we've had kindergarden photographers do that) makes pictures not look like him. This is political correctness gone too far. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not political correctness. There is no discussion in the article of him having a disability. It is also not the case that because someone has a disability no picture can present them in an inappropriate light. I have watched one of the online videos, and seen other pictures of him that do not present him looking unerved and uncomfortable. We do not need a picture of him this badly, and if you look at Google Images you will see we are the only ones who present him in such a position. He looks uncomfortable and pictures of someone looking uncomfortable on the "cover" of their biography are disparaging. The picture is also profoundly out of context when we are saying the whole justification is that it displays a disability he has but we do not mention in the article because it is not discussed by reliable sources, nor do I agree in the least that the appearance of a disability is the primary problem with the photo. The statements that there needs to be consensus to remove it remain plainly incorrect, per the introduction of WP:BLP, which states exactly the opposite. The idea that there is any sort of significant status quo supporting the picture is also incorrect, as I am seeing from looking over the history. I would have considered it obvious that the balance should go to not presenting someone in what many people have said they consider a disaparaging light? No? Thought I'd ask. Mackan79 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm now looking at the original image that seems to have been taken from Flicker, and says it is his response to youth activists who came to disrupt an event he was holding.[3] I have seen others discussing the context as if they are more familiar with it, though I am not sure I follow where any further information may come from. Is this his reponse to youth protesters disrupting his event, and we are placing it as the primary photo for his bio? Mackan79 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is taken during the COP15 after the disruption, where Monckton sought out the disruptors and discussed with them. You can find the discussion on YouTube (which unfortunately doesn't work for me on this machine), search for "Monckton Hitler youth", or check the archives for it here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad if you can't see it. Looking at the video I find it very hard to appreciate the view that this is just how he looks. The video I'm watching features him looking quite normal, other than with spliced in images in sharp color with statements like "Don't worry we won't listen to you Monck!" Mackan79 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another one from the same event in which he does not look strained. Mackan79 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be pragmatic...

The article is locked at present, and it looks likely that this will remain the case as long as we argue without moving forward. Debating whether there is or isn't a BLP issue is unlikely to do this. I think the clearest way ahead is for editors to search out new images and/or email flickr users etc asking for revised licensing.

I worry that the issue here is whether it is acceptable to show someone with a medical condition that affects the way they look in a candid situation. I'm very uncomfortable with the thought that a photo of a "regular" looking person in a similar situation would raise no eyebrows (excuse the unfortunate turn of phrase). In fact, I think the picture is a good representation of Monckton carrying out his public role. Quite the opposite of a BLP violation - it shows that he is not, as might be supposed, a cloistered figure happy to pontificate between grouse-shoots within the confines of his estate (I know nothing about his personal life, but that would be the stereotype). I think some of the (unusable) images presented, whilst they make him look very slightly more handsome, actually reinforce this more negative perception. I'd ask editors to think about that.

It has also, rightly, been pointed out that the article contains no mention of the fact that he suffers from Graves Disease. Might an appropriate textual reference help to make the available image more acceptable? --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible to find equally terrible photos of other notable figures. They would be equally unacceptable for use in their articles. If this is the only photograph available, then none should be used. There is no requirement that a photograph be used, if the only photograph is terrible. UnitAnode 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't think that is going to get the page unlocked. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The image should be removed if the page is not unlocked. I'm simply deciding whether to raise it with 2/0, to raise it on the BLP noticeboard, or to see if discussion moves anywhere here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't, as frankly I dispute entirely the idea that this image is only objectionable in that it suggests a medical condition, or that besides the condition he looks like he is in a comfortable state. It is not the condition that makes the photo unusable; it's that he looks strained and uncomfortable. It is only the rejoinder that I find extremely problematic, to say, no, that's just because of his medical condition. It is not at all; the image of him here, for instance, does not show him in such a state. No other image I can find on Google Images shows him in such a poor light. Then there is the fact that this is posted apparently by students who were putting stickers on his back and trying to make him look absurd. The picture is inappropriate on many levels, none of them being that it fails to whitewash his appearance in any way. Mackan79 (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, I have raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Should we add about his Graves disease or would that be undue WEIGHT? Is the sourcce good enough? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Graves's Disease issue has been discussed here before. My position is that although I believe Monckton has mentioned it, it's not a significant element of his public profile (contrast with Terry Pratchett, who has campaigned on Alzheimer's, from which he's suffering). Including it would therefore be undue weight and an unnecessary intrusion into a private medical matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gotten a reply from lord monckton. I shall be uploading a new image when i return from work tonight. --mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well my delivery is running late so i`m gonna be late to work :) so here is the image [4] It`ll look fine once resized in the article i think. mark nutley (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I favour switching to this very low res image. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to switch to this.

Do you have an email from Joanne Nova confirming the licence? If so, it looks like this should be forwarded to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. If not, I'd suggest trying to get one. The image appears to be taken from her website, where it seems to be covered by an "all rights reserved" statement [5] [6]. Farbeit for me to doubt the word of a peer of the realm, but I think we really need to get the licence from the source.

I'd be fine with the image being used on an interim basis at first, on the understanding that this will be sorted out. --FormerIP (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord Monckton asked me to mail jo to get that image, she mailed it to me and i have forwarded that mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. All is in order, do not panic :) --mark nutley (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is kinda fuzzy. Can she send you a better/higher resolution?? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the artefacts won't be so noticable once the image is resized.

Okay, so it looks like we have a solution. Thank you for going to the trouble, Mark. --FormerIP (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Once resized it looks ok, i can ask her later for a higher res image and them just overwrite the existing one. mark nutley (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Well done. Thank you. Sorted. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Many kudos to Marknutley for getting this. I have unlocked the article on the presumption that the edit warring will not resume. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos indeed, and my thanks as well to Marknutley for working this out so well for the article. Mackan79 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good job, Mark. Finally, that terrible picture isn't up. UnitAnode 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done for finding a usable alternative, Mark. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are we using such a silly image of him?

It's been a while since I looked at this page, but I'm sure it didn't used to have such a bad picture. The current one makes Viscount Monckton look ridiculous - OK, in my view he is ridiculous, but for his views, not his looks. I disagree with the man on just about everything, but I still don't think we should be using such an obviously bad picture - it makes Wikipedia look bad by extension. If we can't find a better picture, we shouldn't have one at all. Robofish (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Monckton isn't Brad Pitt but the current image is horrible so we should remove it. Kudos to Mark Nutley for sourcing one that, we can but hope, will look better and comply with all free content requirements. --TS 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've switched it to the one Marknutley was able to provide. It seemed like most arguing for keeping the image were also open to the idea of changing it if a new image became available. Hopefully, this won't set off a new edit war. I have no intentions of switching it again if someone takes issue with it though. --Onorem♠Dil 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Great picture, exceptionally broad licensing, no problems. --TS 20:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is this image from? -Atmoz (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See the image file. --TS 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Marknutley the same person as Joanne Nova? Everything on Joanne Nova's website is all rights reserved. Don't we need some verification that JN did in fact release this under CC-BY-SA? Also, the permissions says to "Please provide a link back to this page if at all possible." Where's the link? From what page was this taken? -Atmoz (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all mixed in above in the mass of text. Marknutley emailed Monckton, who pointed him to Joanne. Joanne mailed it to Mark, who then forwarded it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. --Onorem♠Dil 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please would somebody who knows how to do it squidge the text relating to the old picture? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I would like to say here that I am frankly disgusted that Wikipedia administrators have (1) in the first instance found this picture clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton; (2) that other Wikipedia admins have then lacked the guts to do anything about it. I first discovered this picture when I was discussing an incident where Lord Monckton was pushed to the ground by a Danish policeman at Copenhagen with a friend on IM who is not a Wikipedian, and who is also not a climate change skeptic. He looked up Lord Monckton on Google and was directed immediately to this image. He then said to me, it looks like Wikipedia is taking the piss out of Lord Monckton, and he was quite amused. I asked why? and he then posted me this link. Climate change probation my foot. The Admins involved should be immediately put on warning. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your view, but I don't see how admins can be faulted in this case. I don't recall it ever being found that the picture clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton - this has consistently been a minority view in dicussions as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton, but you're quite right; there is no way of proving that statement. But let's defer to William M. Connolley's view here, at his blog, where he writes, If you like these kind of disputes, this one is quite amusing. The problem, of course, is that the picture makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko (see endless debate on the talk page). It's very funny, isn't it, the abuse of Wikipedia to take the piss out of people you don't like. A lot of William's readers have also written in to admire this abuse of Wikipedia. Indeed, scroll to the very bottom, and you'll find that one his most mature readers has made the hilarious observation that the picture makes Lord Monckton look like an elephant. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet elephant. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweeter Donkey, Kittybrewster. It was never a "minority" opinion. The opinion was split roughly 50/50, but the editors who troll this article most are the ones most fervently dedicated to keeping other images away. I did my best (speaking for myself) to find alternative images, but each was found to be in violation of image policy, and legitimately, even if said policy is about as restrictive as any I've ever seen. Alex, don't castigate all editors. Particularly when some have the "seniority" to ban others. If you take the time to carefully review this article, you can see many, many individual attempts were made to correct this. The entrenched wiki establishment is few but powerful. Jlschlesinger (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on article

The intro/lead says he is a "British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer." Is it redundant to say politician and hereditary peer? Is a politician apart from being a hereditary peer? Also, why isn't his peership/ political work mention in the infobox? And finally, would it be better to use "writer" in the infobox instead of journalist as a broader and more inclusive word? I'm not sure if journalist is quite right and it seems to exclude columnist and writing books (does he do that?) etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A politician is noting like an hereditary peer. Even before labour changed around the upper house they were not politicians. Because of their hereditary position it was assumed they would look closely at all proposed legislation as they would do what was best for the country and not for a political party. Even though Lord Monckton does not sit in the House Of Lords he is still a hereditary peer, it is title which gives him that distinction, not weather he sits in the house of lords. He has written one book i know of (some soduko thingy) and done intro`s on a few. His political work was being science advisor to Lady Thatcher which is mentioned in the article i believe. Hope this helps mark nutley (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He was an economics advisor according to the Daily Telegraph, not a science advisor, although I suspect that in practice (as usually happens in such cases) he had a fairly broad portfolio. Interestingly enough, Thatcher - who is a former chemist - was one of the first world leaders to raise the alarm about global warming, way back in 1990. I wonder if he regards her as part of the communist world government conspiracy that he now claims? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An advisor isn't the same as being a politician either though is it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. He is certainly a "political activist" and a "former political advisor" though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that what the reliable sources call him? UnitAnode 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect sources will confirm those descriptions, yes, although I have none to offer. It seems pretty clear that they are accurate. "Politician" is probably going to be hard to find a source for. He doesn't ever appear to have stood in a General or local election or held a House of Lords seat, which would mean he is not one, within the UK, at least. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If sources do confirm it, then the descriptors should stay. Otherwise, it's simply original research, and needs to be removed, until confirmed. UnitAnode 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Partly agree, but it seems so clear that he has never been a politician that any source that describes him as such must surely be poorly fact-checked and therefore unusable. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point. I don't know where the "politician" description came from, but Monckton has certainly never held any elected office. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

problems with the article

I've read through the article carefully and I have the following objections to various parts of the text:

1) Lead, A scion of a famous Tory family, his sister is Rosa Monckton, who was a friend of Diana, Princess of Wales. -- why do we care that his sister was a mere friend of Princess Diana? More interesting would be, what is the famous Tory family he is descended from? And finally, isn't his own actual blood relationship to the Royal family for more relevant to his biography than his sister's friendship with Princess Diana?

2) Personal life, "Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords.[3]" This appears POV, and perhaps an excuse to link in an article about global warming. I can't see any reason to be filling up words in his biography about things that he is not. For instance, he's not the prime minister, he is not the King, so why do we care that he is not a member of the House of Lords? A more neutral way of writing this would be to discuss somewhere else in the article his unsucessful attempt at election to the House of Lords. From this brief description of the process, it does sound like a bizarre system, 47 electors, 43 candidates, so I'm not likewise not convinced that receiving no votes has any relevance either. Looking further at the sourcing, it appears to be someone's original analysis of primary source material, and shouldn't be included.

3) Subheadings -- the distinction between "Personal life" and "Career" seems to make no sense at all. His failed attempt at gaining a seat in the House of Lords is surely a part of his career.

4) Political views, section "Climate change". Thus begins the usual climate change WP:COATRACK. As with all climate change skeptics, a long section refuting Monckton's irresponsible views on climate change appears, and this is presumably intended to convince the reader that Monckton is a crank and must be ignored. Unfortunately, due to the blatant bias of the article, the neutral reader comes away simply convinced that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Monckton's views on climate change, and then goes off to read Monckton himself in the original. And let's face it guys, if it comes to a war fought on prose, Monckton's very persuasive, aristocratic grasp of rhetoric simply wipes the floor with anything the volunteers can put up in Wikipedia. So why do we do this?

-- so why do we care about what Richard Littlemore has said?

-- why the controversy about whether he was Thatcher's science advisers? If some sources have got this wrong, why are we repeating wrong information in the Wikipedia and then refuting it? If he was the economics adviser, just say he was the economics adviser, end of story.

-- why do we then care about what Wikipedia's other patron saint George Monbiot said?

5) View on AIDS, this appears to be given hugely undue weight given that the article apparently has him at the end changing his mind. Again, it seems to be saying far more about what Wikipedians care about than what the reader is likely to care about. I am doubtful that this section is accurate, or fair, and the sentence This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult") is not sourced to anything. (Is it original research? I don't know.)

I'm sure I'd see more problems if I knew more about Monckton but this is a start. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy way is to change what you don`t think should be in here, try for reliable sources to back stuff up. E-mail Lord Monckton and ask him just what job did he have from Lady Thatcher (or i will if you want) I dunno why monbiot is in there, he seems to be in every sceptic article as a reliable source on how stupid and crazy AGW sceptics are. Look at what you would like changed, writ it up here first to help prevent argument and then insert the new material (or remove if that is the case) mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you both go chasing around please read #Recent IP comments above. These issues have all been dealt with before. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok he was a spa with lady thatcher`s government, with a focus on the sciences, i know this is original research as it is an e-mail to me but i will try to find some references online to back it up. mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, afraid I'm not familiar with your dialect; what does "spa" mean here? ;-) Also, would it be possible to write to a third party, say the British government itself, in order to find out and obtain reliable sources for exactly what he did? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Spa = special advisor. his focus was on the sciences. He told me this himself btw so nope not a WP:RS :) I`m unsure whom to ask in the uk government about this, i suppose i could e-mail dave cameron again, ghcq would have those records i think. --mark nutley (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That too would be original unpublished research. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few sources which say he was Lady Thatchers science advisor.

• [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=113219 World Net Daily] A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
• Thai Indian News Ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor
• The Gaurdian He was a special adviser to Margaret Thatcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

For the nth time, please stop quoting WND as a source. It's unusable, as you've been told many times before.

Now, as for the capacity in which Monckton was employed by Thatcher, the best place to look is in contemporary book sources, particularly those relating to the history of the Thatcher government. You can see some relevant sources here: [7] The bottom line is that Monckton was a member of the Downing Street Policy Unit and is invariably described as a policy adviser. His biography on the Science and Public Policy Institute website calls him "Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986" and says that he "gave policy advice on technical issues". You will note that the only reference to Monckton as a science advisor is from a book which debunks that claim.[8] So in summary, we have a number of contemporary or near-contemporary sources which describe him as a policy advisor, and WorldNutDaily describing him as a science advisor. I think reputable contemporary sources are likely to be much more reliable than a notorious modern crank outlet. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There were six members in the advisory group chris, Lord Monckton`s portfolio was the science`s. However you want a more reliable source.

• CBS News Radio 7 he was Science adviser to Britain's former prime minister Margaret Thatcher

Mark, well done. Despite what these people are saying, a response from the British government giving documentary proof of Lord Monckton's role in the Thatcher government would likely lead to a resolution to this particular point based on irrefutably reliable sourcing. It would certainly trump anything appearing in the news media. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get your claim that there were "six members" from? That's false, as far as I know. The Civil Service Yearbook lists three members of the Downing Street Policy Unit - its head, Monckton and one other person. Contemporary sources all refer to him as a "policy advisor"; he only seems to have called himself a "science advisor" in the last couple of years. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok to finaly put at end to this speculation i have done an FOI to the office of the prime minister, we gotta wait about 20 days before a reply probably :) Hopfully it`ll be a bit quicker. mark nutley (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me? That's the second time Wikipedia has made me laugh within a week (see Lawrence Solomon's talk page). ;-) That's hilarious. "Wikipedia requests the exact role of Lord Christopher Monckton from the British prime minister per FOI Act." I wonder if Anthony Watts will do a post on this. (Are you a British citizen or can anyone do this?) :-D

I`m irish but live in england, any uk resident can make foi requests, I used my name not wikipedia :) mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish, I should have guessed; I had you picked as another Australian! How ironic, an Australian & Irishman defending the right of an eccentric British peer to a fair Wikipedia biography. Anyhow, your FOI request to the prime minister has made my day; thank you. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, weird hey :) I have had a response from the PM`s office btw Dear M Nutley,

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received on 01/02/2010 and is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Thats all so far :) mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad news I`m afraid, the pm`s office does not hold any information on his position in Lady Thatchers government [9] I`ll try the house of parliment next mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis?

"He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar."

This implies that Mr Moncktons views and Ms Thatcher's views on Climate Change were similar. This was not the case at all. Some note should be made to show that this was not the case. 4wy1327 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No it does not. Advisers only give advice. You don't have to agree with them.130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely synthesis, but as mentioned, there really shouldn't be Wikipedia generated controversies in the first place. He was either science adviser, or he was economics adviser. Presently, the article presents an argument between two groups of Wikipedians, which is unfortunately all too typical of our BLPs. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This just looks like an error in the source. It's clear from other sources that he was an economics advisor (EDIT - didn't see the above discussion - yes he is one or the other, or possibly a researcher, but he is not a weird amalgam of these things settled on as a compromise). Whilst "world-renowned scholar" is a bit subjective, he did his first degree in classics but does not appear to have written significantly on classics since. His Masters is in journalism. He may be very well-read on any number of subjects, but this doesn't really make him a "world-renowned scholar". --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA conspiracy

Christopher Monckton recently implied that NASA sabotaged a Taurus rocket in order to prevent the Orbiting Carbon Observatory from reaching space: "Not greatly to my surprise—indeed I predicted it—the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data".^[10] Might we consider adding this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikispan (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsure really, I don`t think the age is a wp:rs especially when it come`s to lord monckton, they are very pro agw and will misquote him at any given chance. Are there any other sources for this story? mark nutley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not included, I'm also surprised his wacky views on DDT, 'new world order'/one government and other things aren't included in the article. It makes it seem more of a puff piece.118.208.155.129 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of sources. [11] - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kitty, but in those two pages from google not one is a wp:rs for a blp mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Age meets criteria. Wikispan (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know that Wikispan, but as they appear to be the only wp:rs reporting this then it falls under wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so, it's also in the Sydney Morning Herald [12]. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, SMH and The Age are sister papers in Australia -- The Age is the Melbourne equivalent and much of the content is identical. This is one such example. StuartH (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would video and his personal blogs etc be evidince of some of the wacky things he believes in/has said? He seems to think he's invented a drug that's the best yet for AIDS, Cancer etc, he thinks there's a secret organisation that's going to create a one world government/NWO looney type thing and a wholeeee lot more crazy ideas. 118.208.51.118 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's notability that's the issue here, not verifiability. It's certainly verifiable that Monckton has said these things. The question is how notable it is. People say crazy things all the time (admittedly Monckton seems to have a higher than average batting rate in that regard) but notability derives from how widely something is reported. If it's only been reported in one newspaper (thanks StuartH for that clarification) then it may not be particularly notable. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Publicity Stunt?

I click through to the source and read, "Monckton, the son of a viscount, denies conning the public. He says selling his home is not a PR stunt to boost sales of Eternity. He also denies his claims about the game are a clever ploy to promote the sale of Crimonmogate, expected to fetch between #2.5 to #5m." This seems rather clear. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, you clicked through to the first source and found that? The source titled "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." How many times are you going to misrepresent sources, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you've already been warned regarding civility in your interactions with me. Would you please strike your personal attack? The text I quoted is directly from one of the sources already in the article, where he specifically denies the allegation. I didn't read the other initially, but now that I did, I still don't see "publicity stunt".. and even the world "stunt" itself is only in the title...and (as KDP, who reverted my changes has often pointed out) an article headline is dicey material for trying to source a claim.

Still, I won't quibble about the language, but I'm honestly confused by the contradiction in the sources. One says he admits something, one says he denies it utterly. Which one is correct? If there's a contradiction and verifiability issue, we need to capture that in a BLP. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, perhaps the timeline would make things more clear to you? One story was from when he was lying about what he was doing to make money, the other was from after he came clean. That you are embarassed you have yet again either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented sources is not a personal attack, no matter how bad it makes you feel. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like synthesis. I don't see your interpretation in the source. Could you quote the relevant passage explaining the dichotomy? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You can't understand why a story from 24 January 2007 says that something was a PR stunt when a story from 1999 seems to take the stunt seriously? You know what - no. I won't explain it to you. Misrepresent another source and I won't go to toothless GSCC, I'll just arbcom it. Misrepresenting sources due to either malice or carelessness is worse than vandalism, and you've done it twice in two days. If you lack the intellectual capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned to protect the encyclopedia. If you're just playing, stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

HC, I remind you that one source specifically refutes what is in the text, and the other source says it was a "story cooked up by PR people", not "a publicity stunt". Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, you're unwilling to every admit error. Everyone gets it, now. You can walk away with the last word below, unless, of course, the fact that I added this episode to your GSCC report means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

We seem to be mentioning that he's a Catholic all the time. We might need it once, but repeatedly makes it look like it's being used as a slur. Secretlondon (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Press Complaints Commission

This PCC ruling relates to an article about Monckton written by George Monbiot on his Guardian blog. The Guardian admitted fault on some points and offered corrections. After taking into account the Guardian's offer, the Commission rejected the remainder of the complaint.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjQwMg Of some general interest is the statement of the Commission that it expects the same editorial standards of such blogs as it does of articles appearing in print editions. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya i saw that slimvirgin had posted that on the bishop hill talk page, we can now put to rest the constant arguements over delingpole being a reliable source :) mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Delingpole's column is a reliable source for his opinion alone. Mere publication in a newspaper or on a newspaper blog does not make a statement a verifiable fact, otherwise we'd be writing articles containing all manner of nonsense dressed up as fact. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications

(Moved from above) With relation to "However, his credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned by some commentators" - How does this differentiate him from Al Gore, who has no qualifications in the field and yet his article relating to "Inconvenient Truth" stands as testament to expertise. Al Gore, famously, failed to realise Mr Fuji was a volcano.

That sounds to me unlikely. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue: I've removed the assertion that he was a science adviser to Thatcher, because this is contradicted by the more categorical and detailed statements under "Career". I've also removed the countervailing statement a bit later saying he was an economic adviser, because without the former the latter is not necessary. Hope it's OK to just do that rather than asking here? I'm still a relative newbie here. Jondoig (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Be bold; revert; discuss. I am unsure what the original reliable source for this was. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The original source for "science adviser" was the Winnipeg Sun Jondoig (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, Jondoig. The Winnipeg Sun is clearly wrong; Monckton was an economic adviser. It wouldn't surprise me if he's claimed to have been a science adviser but that's not what the Downing Street Policy Unit did (the clue is in the word "Policy"). The PM's adviser on scientific matters is the Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

salon.com

An op-ed in salon.com is being used to make a statement of fact, this is not good enough as op-eds are only good for the writers opinon and certainly not good enough for a blp mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Salon article is quoting a statement made by Monckton. Is there any dispute that he made this statement? You can read a transcript of his speech and watch the speech itself here. You apparently haven't bothered to make the slightest attempt to find an alternative source. Kindly grow up. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to believe the column in question is an op-ed exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your right, it`s not an op-ed it`s a blog. [13] Did you revert a blog back into a BLP hipocrite? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, and were is the proof that this blog is under full editorial control? mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is where you drop the stick and back away, or I do file the enforcement request I just reconsidered. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep this on here instead of back and forth between my talk, i am quite simply following what i have read here were several users have said that proof needs to be supplied that this blog is under full editorial control, do you have this proof? mark nutley (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your final chance to back away before I file that enforcement request. Yes, or no? Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I`m sorry you are threatening me with enforcement unless i ignore the use of a blog in a blp? Very nice. Either provide proof that salon has full editorial control over this blog or it comes out. Now you can go file your request and say that because i took a blog out of a blp you want me sanctioned mark nutley (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a better source for this? Although it is an op-ed it is in the Washington Times [14] almosr certainly better than a blog in salon, i`ll see what else i can find mark nutley (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are very few sources for this, i suspect it is a bit undue to have this in the article given how little coverage it seems to have gotten mark nutley (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Member of the House of Lords

• Although he has asserted that as an hereditary peer he is "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote", the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."{{verify credibility}}<ref name="Fahys">{{cite news|last=Fahys|first=Julie|url=http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14856887|title=Debate on climate heats up online|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|date=2010-04-10|accessdate=2010-04-10}}</ref> He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election.

It is surely true that he has falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords. So what is for discussion? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The cited article is a report from The Salt Lake Tribune, a major US newspaper, so there's no doubt that it's a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more credible source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/20/monckton-mp-general-election —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevlin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All references to Christopher Monckton being a hereditary peer and to him being part of the peerage of the UK should be removed from the article as these are false claims made on his part. Or, rather, if there are any references to his hereditary peerage and his position in the House of Lords, they should reflect that these are false claims. Unlike his peerage, the sources for this can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevlin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article quotes Monckton's claim that he is a member of the House of Lords and quotes a denial by the House of Lords that he is a member, which leaves the possibly libelous impression that he has simply made a false claim and has been exposed. It is only fair that the article should point out that Monckton claims that the 1999 act by the House of Lords did not legally remove his claim to the title of member of the House of Lords, to spite the Lords claim otherwise. At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ Monckton explains

“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.” Mindbuilder (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikispan, why did you revert my edit explaining that Monckton disputes the House of Lords claim that he is not a member of the House of Lords? Your edit summary says "How is that relevant and poor sourcing" When Wikipedia gives a possibly libelous accusation or impression about someone, that person's response to the accusation is obviously relevant. As far as the sourcing, my citation links to a statement made by Monckton himself, giving his defense. Do you seriously doubt that those are Monckton's words? If a short reference to the defense of the accused can't be allowed, then Wikipedia can't make the possibly libelous accusation without very well established support, if at all. If Monckton's defense isn't allowed then the entire section must be removed as the references don't even come close to settling the question of whether he has made a false claim. The Lords claim he's not a member, but he claims they're wrong. What evidence is there to settle it? If Wikipedia can't cite extremely strong evidence that the House of Lords is correct, then Wikipedia either can't make the accusation, or must at least allow a short mention of Monckton's defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - Please address my above comments about your change to the section on Monckton's Lord claim. As you left it, the article has a libelous tone and the unproven accusation that he made a false statement should either be removed or Monckton's defense of himself let back in. If Monckton's defense is not sufficiently well sourced then the unproven accusation should be removed until such sources are found so that the accusation can be presented in a balanced manner. It would make Wikipedia look indecent if it didn't even allow a single sentence for a person's defense of himself. I'm going to revert that part when the article is unprotected if you don't address the issue. Lets see if we can get to consensus before then. Mindbuilder (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert - it will be a BLP violation. I've addressed this at #Removal of an actual BLP violation below. I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN#Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP to get some outside views. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you below again before I saw your above reply. I included some other links to Monckton's statement. Who do you mean by "reader" in "Use of a reader's blog post as a source"? Mindbuilder (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's allegations that hes is "a member of the Upper House," are directly refuted by reliable sources. If you go into any level of depth into his legal theorems, you're going to run headlong into providing undue weight to a minority PoV (that he's a "member of the house of lords, but without the right to sit or vote.") There's no reason to go into great depth on this - and I don't see how it benefits anyone to do so. We could write "Monckton states he is a member of the house of lords, but without the right to sit or vote, asserting that the House of Lords Act 1999, which provides that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage", did not remove membership from the house of lords from debarred peers. The house itself denies this, stating that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords." Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The only source we've seen that disputes Monckton's claim is the House of Lords. But the House of Lords is a party to this political dispute, and there is no particularly good reason to trust them to be honest about it. Wikipedia can't trust a party to a political dispute as a reliable source for a libelous implication. At least not without at least one sentence in the person's own defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't think the house of lords is a reliable source for the composition of the house of lords? What source would you find reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the House of Lords isn't a reliable source in this dispute. There really isn't any reliable source on an issue like this. It's a matter of legal opinion. It's a controversy. It hasn't been settled. Wikipedia should reflect that. At the very least such an accusation should be backed by something like a Supreme Court opinion. But even then it would again just be a political opinion. It's just basic decency to give one sentence to somebody's self-defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have confused "reliable" and "correct." Please review the following proposed text:

• Monckton states he is a member of the house of lords, but without the right to sit or vote, asserting that the House of Lords Act 1999 did not remove membership from the house of lords from debarred peers.(sepp ref) The house of lords denies this, stating that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords."(Strib ref)

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but ChrisO might pull it out again. Mindbuilder (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to add some more to it, so people know what the HOLA99 was - How is "Monckton states he is a member of the house of lords, but without the right to sit or vote, asserting that the House of Lords Act 1999, which was "An Act to restrict membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage," did not remove membership from the house of lords from debarred peers.(sipp ref) The house of lords denies this, stating that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords."(Strib ref) Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with that. When implying dishonesty it's not enough to just state that the accused denies the charges, which is all your proposed wording does. The denial should include at least a hint of whether there is a genuine dispute and what that dispute is. That is why my previous version included mention of general and specific laws. The reader may not know what that means, but it signals that the dispute is more than just a liar saying "I didn't do it!" If the reader really cares, then they can dig deeper. I actually think that Monckton may well be technically right. Though it appears to be just a mere technicality, and strangely even he doesn't seem to claim the privilege to vote. He appears to want to retain the title of member, though he has given up on the substance. Mindbuilder (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My previous version included the sentence "Monckton claims that the House of Lords Act 1999 did not legally nullify his claim to be a member of the House of Lords because it was a general law instead of a specific law." Mindbuilder (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither general law nor specific law have wikipedia articles. Please explain how we can present this to our reader. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder: You say "When implying dishonesy...", but I can't see where dishonesty is implied. That said, we should probably give a stronger indication that there is an ongoing disagreement, rather than just a fact asserted by M and denied by HoL. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to go into the fine detail of Monckton's claims, which are both confusing and specious; it should be sufficient to use a form of Hipocrite's suggested wording. I suggest: "Monckton asserts he is a member of the House of Lords, but without the right to sit or vote, and says that the House of Lords Act 1999 did not exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords. (SPPI source) However, the House of Lords has denied this, stating that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member. (SLT source) Monckton is not listed as a member of the House of Lords. [15]." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that, don't get me wrong. In fact, if we can do it in fewer words than that, all the better. The danger I was pointing to is giving the impression that M went around saying that he was a UK legislator (untruthful) and then got found out. Even though this is a plausible interpretation of events, it is also possible (indeed it is what he seems to have said) that Monckton holds a principled view based on constitutional law that he is indeed a member of the HoL. (I would say the latter interpretation is not very consistent with the fact that he submitted himself as a candidate in the General Election, but that just BTW). --FormerIP (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Debunking by John Abraham

[16] Another one bites the dust. Please work this into the article. TickleMeister (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to have a run at it. The responses have already started to appear [17]Santamoly (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The response to that response (plus a posting by Monckton) - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html 87.194.131.188 (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The latest from Abraham. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of winning a Nobel prize

I couldn't find any reference to his supposedly winning a Nobel prize in the article. Is it true that he was awarded the prize, as he claims in this letter to John McCain. [18]Hectorguinness (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally bogus. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Telegragh blog

Google "Viscount Monckton is an embarrassment to global warming sceptics everywhere" points to a blog entry on the Telegraph by Tom Chivers which has now been deleted. One can't but wonder whether a threat of a libel suit is behind this. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot in the Guardian today has an article on this and he thinks as much. However Chivers' article was already reproduced on the web elsewhere so is still out there. Curious that Monckton's standard response to criticism is to threaten libel. 92.9.24.255 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article is archived at http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-outside-its-alternate.html and Chivers twitter provides some additional details. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Monckton debunked , but still an unduly positive wikipedia profile

This page is being protected to prevent vandalism. That's fair enough but means a contribution from anyone (and wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit) is going to be moderated. The latest and most comprehensive debunking of Monckton has now been worked in to the article but not fairly. You give him just one sentence to summarize an 80 minute presentation. Dr John Abraham has comprehensively debunked Monckton's presentation it deserves a section on its own in my opinion. But thats just my opinion, you might disagree.

It is followed by the statement "However, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, defended Monckton's views, commenting: "I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill 'is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world'",[33] and nationally syndicated U.S. radio commentator Michael Savage praised Monckton's tour, saying: "it is very rare we get someone as succinct, and as literate, and as passionate ... as Lord Christopher Monckton."[34]

The first word in your script "however" falsely suggests that they are responding to Abraham. Klaus 's contribution first appears on the net November 5th 2009, whilst Dr Savages interview is posted November 26th 2009 . Dr Abraham's work is published June 2010. Klaus and Savage cannot possibly be responding to Abraham 8 month's before Abraham has published. The chronology of your references is disingenuous.

I have to put it the editors of Wikipedia this is biased reporting. Monckton has been comprehensively debunked on Global Warming and you are choosing to bury that in the detail of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.39.149 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a couple more points. Fourth Paragraph of Personal Life, the one that begins with "Although he has asserted that as an hereditary peer he is "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote". Falsely claiming to be a member of a legislature , repeatedly and to do so to real members of another legislature of another country is pretty outrageous behaviour. Being found out ought to impinge on one's reputation and credibility somewhat. Monckton's false claims in this matter were deliberate, we all have our personal doubts but everybody ought to know whether or not they are a member of the house of Lords. This wikipedia profile glosses over it.

Additionally The last line in Published Works. This could be rephrased to make it clear that these are not peer reviewed scientific papers. Because Monckton has never published a peer reviewed scientific paper. Why not call them articles. He is also Policy Director for the SPPI, I dont know if thats in the piece somewhere or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.39.149 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Monckton curing AIDS

Monckton is reported by the political party of which he is deputy leader as being "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases... Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI." In one patient, the cure is also said to have "reduced [HIV viral titre] by 38% in five days, with no side-effects."[neutrality is disputed] Two patent applications in the field of medicine are on file at the UK Intellectual Property Office."

This is cited the UKIP website, which, for obvious reasons, I don't think should be considered a neutral biographical resource. Think it should probably be removed unless it can, in all details, be verified from other sources. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's patently self-serving as well as unverified. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1) Is UKIP related to the Workers' Party of Korea?

2) Wouldn't it be sort of lovely if curing global warming turned out to be another of Monckton's Jesus-like powers? --FormerIP (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Erm, no. UKIP is on the near side of the far right. The KWP is about as far left as you can go.

2) If you don't accept the problem exists why cure it? :) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Not sure if I need to post this clarification but, for clarification, the Workers' Party of Korea have a reputation for propaganising that their leading lights are word-class geniuses in various fields. So UKIP claiming Monckton can cure more diseases, it seems like, than anyone else since Jesus is sort of like that.

2) Why are you asking questions of the Great Leader? --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I see what you're getting at. But I'm pretty sure Monckton doesn't routinely sink holes-in-one, or we'd have heard about it by now.

2) That's Great Joint Deputy Leader to you! -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP Guy

This looks to me to be ok as a rebuttal of Abraham`s well publicised rant against monckton, what do you guys think? mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton gave Abraham a month to reply privately to a letter pointing out that the Professor had misrepresented Lord Monckton's talk, had passed the misrepresentations to scientists said to have been cited by Monckton, and had then included their adverse comments in his rebuttal of Monckton's talk. Abraham said he stood by his position, so Monckton published his letter to Abraham, described by James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph as "classic, funny, lacerating, forensic, magisterial".[19]

Nope. You know Delingpole is a junk source. The IP editor is clearly Monckton or someone associated with him, and the apparent reason for this flurry of edits is Monckton's publication of said "rebuttal". If it gets coverage from mainstream sources then by all means mention it, but Delingpole is a dreadful source. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Under british law he is reliable as the rest of the telegraph, you know that, but if we can`t have his rebuttal then the Abraham piece should go as undue i reckon mark nutley (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It probably should, actually - did it get much media attention? I only read about it on blogs, I don't recall seeing wider coverage of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly a blog thing i believe, but then again what is`nt these days :) mark nutley (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Too true. :) OK, let's remove Abraham and Monckton's AIDS cure. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove the abraham stuff, can`t see the aids cure rubbish did you already get it? mark nutley (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I took it out of the lead and the main body of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the IP address geolocates to the Glasgow area, which is of course not far from Monckton's estate.[20] I do wish the owner of the IP would own up to his identity. Hiding behind an IP isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Be best to get it blocked for a week, to much uncited info going into a blp mark nutley (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's grossly self-serving, and not the first time this has happened. I've raised it on AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to say we have a resolution. The IP has been blocked for 31 hours and the article semi-protected for two weeks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific credentials

Is Christopher Monckton a scientist? There are several references that say he is not. But the man himself repeatedly gives the opposite impression. Quote: "As we scientists put it: shit happens." [21] (5:54) Monckton clearly identifies himself in this video as a "scientist". What gives? Wikispan (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

His qualifications are in the classics and journalism, as the article states. I know of no reliable source to corroborate his claim to be a scientist. He's certainly never been published in any peer-reviewed outlets. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

JA?

MN reverted [22] but, characteristically, didn't trouble to justify himself on talk. I've looked; i can't see the consensus he claims is here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't necessary. It's sourced to the personal web page of a university professor (?), no indication it was published. It's not appropriate for a BLP. ATren (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistant Professor[23], and from what i can determine a published expert on the topic that he is speaking about. Heat transfer and radiative forcing. So it is not as clear-cut as you describe it, since it is not being used for BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Look above to section IP Guy, not to hard to find. I will revert it out again if inserted as undue mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a slim consensus for removal of the Monckton repartee, but not much about Abraham. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It all stays out as undue, as was decided mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

KDP, this is harshly critical of Monckton; how can this not be BLP material? ATren (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is harshly critical of Monckton's arguments, not Monckton himself. There is a difference. Its professional criticism. Debunking an argument, is not an attack on the person. BLP material is about the person, and this isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, it is a hideous attack on Lord Monckton, it is undue to use it. It is a BLP breach to use it, why are you even arguing this? mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Mark. It isn't. Its a walk-through of Monckton's arguments by a professional - its not an attack on the person. And that is not what BLP is about. And strangely enough i'm not arguing about inclusion - but pointing out that certain arguments for removal are invalid. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, this splitting of hairs is not at all in the spirit of BLP policy. You've made this argument before to justify inclusion of RealClimate to call someone dishonest -- and it's just as invalid now as it was then. ATren (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it is not splitting hairs, and it is entirely within the spirit of BLP. BLP was never intended to remove criticism. BLP policy is about libel and personal attacks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then cite the policy clause in WP:BLP which supports it. ATren (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please cite the policy clause that rejects it. (fallacy of the negative proof). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." so it's out per policy. Nsaa (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this would be excluded under WP:UNDUE (possibly it would), but to cite BLP grounds against it is a bit absurd IMO. Obviously, WP:BLP (same goes for WP:SPS) is not intended to be used to remove material indicating that the opinions of a living person might not be universally accepted. That is not what is meant by "about living persons". --FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is about the person - and not about viewpoints. BLP material isn't different whether it occurs in a regular article or in a biography - if material is acceptable (with some caveats) in regular articles, then it is acceptable in biographies. BLP is here to protect the person, not to give an umbrella for minority of fringe viewpoints to be discussed without criticism. And BLP is being used as such - it even has a name on WP: coatracking - likewise biographies are not there just to debunk a person (to give the other extreme). We can discuss a persons views - but a persons views (unless they are tightly coupled to the person as an entity) is regular material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, all from WP:BLP:

• "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- all emphasis in original.
• "must be written conservatively"
• "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself."
• "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, as long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
• "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
• "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability."
• "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Note: this refers specifically to contentious material, whatever that may be. Criticism of his views clearly falls under that umbrella. Furthermore, what is it about this language that evokes a spirit of inclusion of contentious material? Do you really claim that all this verbiage directly from WP:BLP is to be ignored based on your reading of the spirit? ATren (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All very nice - but it doesn't really address my points does it? You are once more confusing what BLP material is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Atren: That was a bit WP:TLDR, but I think Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise is the place to look. It basically says criticism is allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No. From that section: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis mine). This is not even close to that standard. ATren (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But per WP:V this is a reliable source. Its only if you try to invoke the "BLP hammer" argument that it stops being so. And that is the culprit of all of the problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ATren, why isn't it "even close to that standard"? It appears to be allowed under the SPS guidelines, particularly given that it is only being sourced to say that someone disagreed with Monckton on a particular occasion. Whether that disagreement is noteable enough to include is a different matter, but it has nothing to do with BLP. Mark's claim below that Monckton is suing over it may actually make it noteable when it might not otherwise have been. --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost to the point my view - including the undue argument... i don't know if this is notable. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok please read WP:V and the paragraph WP:SPS: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. What is the problem understanding this statement? Nsaa (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And once more this isn't about a living person. But about arguments. Science. Claims. If it had been an ad-hominem towards Monckton, then i'd vehemently agree with you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so this article is not about a living person? Please reread WP:BLP that among other things states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[...]Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Can you explain me why this is not an Biography a of living person article? Nsaa (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP despite its name, is a general policy. It applies to all content everywhere that concerns a person. Within regular articles there are sections that contain BLP material, and within biographies there are sections that aren't biographical. The content in question is not biographical - and thus it is subject to regular requirements for sourcing, just as it would have if the same proposed paragraph was included in a regular article. BLP is about context - not location. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're partly wrong here. BLP is defined as "Biographies of living persons (BLPs)" (WP:BLP) so the full article about an living person is covered by this policy. Off course it's dependent on context as you say. If a living person is mentioned in other articles this is still under WP:BLP as stated in that policy. When that is said, the removed paragraph mentions the person twice and claims that he is wrong " rebutting all of Monckton's claims."[24] so it's even of your understanding inside WP:BLP here. Nsaa (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i assume that i am full right ;-) BLP is inaptly named - it may once have been a policy/guideline specifically directed at biographies - but it has grown out of that. From my read, this is entirely within both the spirit and the letter of the policy. (with the caveat: albeit not as you point out from a literal reading of the name). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why are we at all discussing this? ATren and Marknutley has outlined why this has nothing to do in this article by references it to our policy. Please move on or bring it to WP:BLPN or try to rewrite WP:BLP. Nsaa (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lord Monctkton has threatened that university with a libal suit

Kim you do know that Lord Monctkton has threatened that university with a libal suit? And that Abraham`s had to retract ten minutes of video due to all the errors in it? And that it is in fact still full of errors? And that Monckton is still threatening legal action? mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you stating this from a reliable source - or are you just repeating what you found in various blogs? Abrahams is still hosting the stuff - so even if correct we can await a libel suit. (not the first time that Monckton has threatened with such when he couldn't accept critique). [here btw. is Lucia's blog about it[25]] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, are you seriously making the claim that this isn't contentious? [26] ATren (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of blogs in your google search. Are you focusing on some of them in specific? [there is hardly anything that isn't contentious on blogs] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Do you have any evidence that it might be contentious? The statement that was inserted is that Arbrhams presented a slide-show at a symposium. Has any reliable source suggested that this didn't happen? The contents of the presentation may have been contentious (I wasn't there myself) but that's another matter. --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bring on toWP:BLPN ... Nsaa (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

I've raised this issue on the arb case talk pages: [27]

If you are going to do so - then i'd prefer if you'd actually presented what happens correctly. fight to include this.. is not correct. You are writing what you think you are reading - instead of what is actually written. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [your coment that i'm arguing for inclusion is nonsense as well, do please read through my comments, and note that i state that i do not quite a few times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)]

Then what is this debate about? Why didn't you just say you agree with non-inclusion? And, for the record, I found no place in this thread where you say you don't support inclusion. ATren (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not arguing for inclusion per se. I'm just raising that the claim of BLP appears to me to be wrong. BLP is not intended to exclude information that POVs different from that of the subject exist (that would be twisting the guidance to permit censorship), and the material is not even contentious in the first place (no-one appears to dispute that the material added is true and verifiable). If there are genuine policy reasons for exclusion, bring them, otherwise allow the material. --FormerIP (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As to your "for the record" - you apparently didn't look very thoroughly[28][29] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw both of those, you are misrepresenting. Both cases express that you don't know, not that you are against inclusion. And balanced against the extent to which you are arguing on this thread, you seem to be leaning towards inclusion. I stand by my initial assessment. ATren (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And your claim to ArbCom is that i am arguing for inclusion (in fact you state that i "fight to include this") - which is incorrect. I am arguing against a wrong argument for exclusion. Things are not binary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FormerIP: Why isn't "rebutting all of Monckton's claims."covered by WP:BLP and WP:SPS? This statement requires a solid secondary source as outlined in WP:SECONDARY. Nsaa (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source for it, that according to both regular WP:V and WP:BLP is allowable (since it is a British news-blog) [30]. Whether it is weighty enough is quite another thing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [btw. this is one of the items where i do disagree with V and BLP. Monbiot's coverage here seems inappropriate to me - since he goes for the person . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)]

George Monbiot: "• Abraham pointed out that Monckton "has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic";"[31](archived ) talks for itself.

Christopher Monckton: "Abraham falsely stated that “Remember, Chris Monckton’s never published a paper in anything” (37), when he knew or negligently and recklessly failed to check that – to take two examples – Lord Monckton had published papers on the determination of climate sensitivity in the UK’s Quarterly Economic Bulletin and in the American Physical Society’s reviewed newsletter, Physics and Society, and that inter alia His Lordship has given faculty-level physics seminars on determination of climate sensitivity as well as public university lectures on the climate, and has led international scientific discussions on climate sensitivity, and has published academic papers on subjects such as the theory of currencies, and has addressed delegates at several UNFCCC climate conferences, and will be presenting a paper on reform of the IPCC at the annual Planetary Emergencies session of the World Federation of Scientists later in 2010." page iix (archived ) as answered by Monckton, but not read by the blogger at the Guardian even through he reference it? (this George Monbiot blogpost doesn't look remotely wp:rs after this ...) Nsaa (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are aware that the paper in APS wasn't peer-reviewed. No matter how many times Monckton states this - it is incorrect, the APS specifically notes this with a disclaimer (see the section in the article about this). The one in QEB is rather hard to claim as a science paper - since QEB is not a science journal. Unconditionally accepting Monckton's claims is not a good idea, especially not when it is verifiably wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unconditionally accepting Monckton's claims is not a good idea -- and yet, you unconditionally accept Abraham's. Why is that? ATren (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Once I have some time today, I'll be filing an enforcement request on this about Kim and WMC's actions. This is an unacceptable violation of WP:BLP. Both editors should know better. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What "action" have i made, Cla68? I'd be rather interested - since i haven't edited this article since April 15. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"and yet, you unconditionally accept Abraham's." - No, i do not. Perhaps you may want to refactor? You seem to be on a run of making incorrect statements about what i think/do/or don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ATren, you are talking as if someone wants to insert into the article a claim that Mockton eats babies. The only proposal that has been made is to include reference to the fact that some guy made a presentation in some place or other. No-one has even suggested going into the details of the presentation. The reason for "unconditionally accepting" this would seem to me to be that there is no opposing viewpoint on the matter. Abraham did indeed make the presentation referred to. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. We do not treat the articles on living people this way. The policy is clear and is designed to prevent this very thing, to keep BLPs from being attacked by unsubstantiated information that might be harmful to the subject. There should be no tolerance for this type of behavior. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if a reliable secondary source reports on the Professor Abraham's criticism of Monkton's speech, then we can discuss that for inclusion in the article. This is how BLP is supposed to work. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already been posted by someone else, but here it is again: [32] --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is “Casey Selix (2010-07-19). "St. Thomas Prof. John Abraham in royal smackdown with global-warming denier Christopher Monckton". The Next Degree. MinnPost.com. Retrieved 22 July 2010. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)” another adequate secondary source? RDBrown (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rv again

ChrisO added a nicely sourced version and MN reverted (yet again, without troubling himself with the talk page... can you see the pattern yet?) with some specious claim that there was consensus not to include it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Revereted mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your "BLP exemption" is credible; nor have you even tried to justify it anywhere on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, you need to state your case against inclusion before "revereting". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No i do not, i do know however your word is worthless as you had agreed above this was undue, yet inserted contentious text anyway. Given this actually went to an RFE i am shocked that you chris inserted this, and another editor actually reverted in back in mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There was general agreement among the admins on the enforcement page that the previous version was not a BLP violation, but that the wording needed to be improved. Given that, I added a reworded paragraph with additional reliable sources. There is still no BLP issue here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your word is worthless, this is grossly undue, and should you insert it again i will revert it. mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've never said it was grossly undue or any words to that effect. BozMo and NW were good enough to identify reliable sources and as I agreed with the view of other editors that the previous sourcing was poor and the wording was POV, I changed both to fix these problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

Many sections of this article are in need of an overhaul. Some sections are nothing but coatracks. Other portions are non-notable. There are sources that are not reliable or verifiable. I am going to go through and make several proposals here on the talk page and I intend to make the corresponding edits on the article. I will not get into an indefinite negotiation about minutiae. This is a BLP of a skeptic, and it is clear that the majority-view POV is attempting to denigrate the man or trivialize his notability. It may also be the case that some skeptics have a distorted view of what's notable and what's not. The battleground environment here is keeping this article from being written well. Knock it off.

The conflict with the associate professor can be included as a notable event for this BLP, but it will be sourced properly and reported neutrally with all sides considered given the proper weight vis a vis the entire article. I have zero interest in portraying the guy as any better than he is or diminishing what he is notable for. I have no interest in undermining or promoting his credibility -- and those of you who do have such an interest, I suggest you stop editing this article. That would apply to nearly everyone on this talk page.

I will be back with proposed edits. In the mean time please stop edit warring. Minor4th 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article's been protected, so nobody's going to be editing it - but in the meantime please make suggestions here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that, but I will go ahead and make the proposed edits, as that will not be wasted effort. See immediately below: Minor4th 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Proposed Lede Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British politician, consultant, writer, columnist, andhereditary peer. Since June 2010 he has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party.[1] In the 1980's, Monckton served as a scientific and domestic policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He is the inventor of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which Monckfort offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve the puzzle within four years. In 2006, Monckton wrote two articles for the Sunday Telegraph on the topic of global warming which gained him attention for his skeptical position on the impact and scope of anthropogenic global warming.

He was not a "scientific and domestic policy advisor" - a claim which I note is unsourced in your proposal. Contemporary sources state that he was a member of the Downing Street Policy Unit as a special advisor on economic matters. See para 2 of the existing Career section. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nailed it down. The Times of Tuesday, Nov 06, 1984, page 4, "Policy unit at full strength", lists M's responsibilities as "housing, parliamentary affairs". That fits perfectly with his rise to prominence as a theorist on the subject of council housing. According to The Times of Monday, Dec 06, 1982, page 1, "Tory project to phase out council houses", M. was recruited "as a domestic specialist" who was the author of the plan mentioned in that story's headline. The Times of Thursday, Nov 25, 1982, "Two more advisers at No 10 ", describes Monckton as one of three people (the others being Ferdinand Mount and Peter Shipley) "who are in a policy unit specializing in home affairs". I propose to add these references when the article is unlocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. That particular issue has been discussed a lot here, with no one being able to find a ref to support M's claim, or to refute it (i think Mark tried to ask #10 via email at some point?). Good to finally have it nailed down. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a further very useful source - someone who was actually in the Policy Unit at the same time as Monckton. From ABC Lateline [33]:

TICKY FULLERTON: Lord Monckton, who told Lateline that he'd been a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, including and especially on science, claims there are examples of bent science throughout the IPCC document. But Greg Bourne at WWF has his doubts.

GREG BOURNE: I've met Lord Monckton first in 1988 when I was working at the policy unit in Downing Street. Monckton was not advisor to the Prime Minster. It was Sir Crispin Tickell and a colleague of mine called George Guys [sic, should be Guise]. He's absolutely eccentric then, he's eccentric now. And he's talking out of his hat. But he talks very well.

This would be useful as a meta-source on Monckton's claims about being a science advisor. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There was actually a source for the scientific policy but I'm not sure it was a good one -- it was from a conglomeration of biographical info and that particular point I dont think was well sourced, maybe self published, so no problem taking that out unless a better source turns up. I believe the eccentric bit too, but I think that is not really appropriate BLP material. Minor4th 02:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the eccentric bit - it's rather in the eye of the beholder in any case. Let's stick to statements of biographical fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make more proposals, but given the state of the ArbCom case, I think I"ll just wait a bit in the spirit of harmony Minor4th 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Page full protected...

Just in case someone missed the section I posted over at the arbcom case, I've full protected the article, because apparently people can't stop themselves from edit warring, even during an Arbitration case. I am doing this despite my recusal in this case because this does not touch specifically upon the grounds upon which I recused. I did not check the article, I do not have a preferred version, so that should settle that. Hopefully by the time the protection expires people will have it in their heads that edit-warring during an ArbCom case for editwarring is spectacularly dumb. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of an actual BLP violation

With all the fuss above about a supposed BLP violation which seems to have been nothing of the sort, I'm surprised that nobody seems to have noticed an actual BLP violation. I just removed a statement that someone recently added which is sourced to a blog post, which is in turn sourced to a reader's post on that blog, made in Monckton's name. There is no corroboration that the source is Monckton himself and we are in any case absolutely prohibited from using readers' comments as sources (per WP:NEWSBLOG). Since Monckton seems to have many detractors these days, it's quite possible that it's someone impersonating him to make him look ignorant - as I'm sure a constitutional scholar like him is aware, the right of peers to sit in Parliament is created by the writ of summons, not letters patent. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some comments above in the Member of the House of Lords section above before I noticed your comment here. This quote of Monckton can also be found here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html and here http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6012 Wattsupwiththat is the most heavily trafficed global warming website in the world. As it is a prominent skeptical site and Monckton is a prominent skeptic, it is likely that the operator is on decent terms with Monckton and it is likely Monckton would be aware of and have read this article about himself. But if the citation to his own defense isn't strong enough, then the only reasonable option left is to delete reference to the potentially libelous and insufficiently supported accusation that he made a false statement about his membership in the House of Lords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbuilder (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

These people will never allow sourcing to that blog. It's a skeptic blog, that's why, and accordingly some editors would say it's unreliable for that very reason. Since there is not enough reliable press coverage on this issue, it is not notable enough to include in his biography and should be deleted according to BLP policy. The page is still protected though. Minor4th 04:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all because it's a "sceptic" blog. It's because the source doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BLPSPS and using readers' comments as a source is absolutely prohibited per WP:NEWSBLOG, as I pointed out above. That would be the case whether it was a "sceptic" or pro-science blog - the problem is the nature of the source, not its viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of the blog post is understandable but what about the scienceandpublicpolicy page I've linked to above as a source? Mindbuilder (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that - I think it's fine as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris -- the two sources are identical and if one meets the criteria for BLPSPS then so does the other one. If you disagree, please justify your rationale for saying the realclimate site does not meet BLPSPS but the scienceandpolicy site does. It's the exact same material, it's self published by Monckton. It is not absolutely prohibited by NEWSBLOG -- have you even read the policies you're citing? Read: [34]. It's the blog you don't want cited, that is the only distinction between the two sources. The better practice would be to leave out this material rather than trying to spin it so that Monckton appears deceptive. What is your reason for wanting to include this when it was not notable enough to be widely covered in secondary sources? Minor4th 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is not in what the sources say but where they come from. Monckton works for the SPPI, which has evidently published his statement on his behalf. The comment left at the blog came from a reader, which was then promoted into the main body of the post by the blog owner. The issue is not one of who owns the blog or what the blog is about - it's that Wikipedia's policy explicitly prohibits citing blogs in general in such circumstances. To quote: "Never use self-published sources — including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets — as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." WP:BLPSPS The blog post in question was not written or published by the subject. Further: "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." WP:NEWSBLOG. It's great that we managed to find an alternative source that we can say is definitely attributable to Monckton. But without the SPPI source, those rules would have prevented us from citing the blog you mention, or for that matter any blog on which his statement had appeared. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris please read the portion you quoted a little more carefully. The answer is within your own post. Leave the material out, it's not notable enough for inclusion in this biography. Minor4th 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the material", which material do you mean, specifically? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything related to the controversy about whether Monckton is or isn't a member of the House of Lords and speculation that he misrepresented his position. Minor4th 23:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't include speculation. However, NPOV means that we can't get away from the controversy. As Jimbo said, we need to note his status as a non-member of the House of Lords. This is an essential issue for any hereditary peer's BLP article, given that some are members and some aren't. But if we do that, as we must, it has to be sourced to the statement by the House of Lords that he is not and never has been a member. And if we cite that, as we must, NPOV requires that we mention the other side of the story - that Monckton says he is a member. We have to document Monckton's status - that's non-negotiable - but we can't give one side and not the other. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we do need to say that Monckton is not a member of the HoL. My question would be whether we need to include his claim that he was. If we do, then of course we need to avoid speculation and innuendo. I'm not sure about the balance argument, though. There's a chicken and egg thing in my mind. If M's legal arguments are honest and sincere then the balance argument holds and we have to include the material - but this runs the risk of making him look insincere and dishonest if not carefully done. If his legal arguments are less than fully sincere then there's an argument for excluding them, because the reality would be that there is no balancing to be done - but this scenario is based on the premise that Monckton may have misled, which we ought not to brush under the carpet if we believe it to be the case.

So, actually, whichever way you look at it, we should include. --FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell for certain from reliable secondary sources what the status is and whether Monckton was deliberately misleading or whether this is a terminology issue of fine legal distinction? This is not widely reported, hence not a notable aspect of this man's life. You cannot discern the information without doing original research. As Jimbo also said, there is intense dislike out there and motivation to make him appear deceptive when he's not. Include information that he is a hereditary peer and whatever conclusions can or cannot be drawn from that remains the purview of the reader. Do not consider this BLP issue settled, and there is clearly no consensus for the inclusion of this poorly sourced negative information. Minor4th 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to get Monckton's defense of himself into the article, so I'm not anti-Monckton. But even I think these accusations against him should be included. We have his own statement claiming to be a member, and we have basically his admission that the Lords have denied his membership. We also have his defense of his claim. Those are all the important facts we need on this issue. This accusation against him is so prominent that when he made the referenced post to wattsupwiththat, the very top of the climate change science post was sidetracked into the discussion about his Lord claim. This is one of the most notable issues in his public life at this time. It's much more important information about his life than many of the insignificant things in the article. It won't do him any good for us to ignore it. So lets put in that he has claimed to be a member and that the HoL has denied it and lets make a brief mention of his defense and give a link to his defense and move on to some other valuable Wiki editing. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a non-event in the biography of this BLP. It is a deliberate parsing of words and meaning to make it appear Monckton was being deceptive when he wasn't. Note that it is only people with an opposing view from Monckton who are so obesessive about including this material in the article. This was taken to BLP noticeboard and the comments from uninvolved editors was that this is not suitable for the article because they only coverage that could conceivably be considered a reliable source was heavily slanted and very clearly biased, almost to the point of being a smear piece. I don't believe there was a single uninvolved editor who was in support of including this in the article. Do not insert the material against consensus. Minor4th 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How can you seriously say that this issue is a non-event in Monckton's life? It is a widely and repeatedly and persistently repeated accusation against him. I strongly support including the accusations and his defense to spite being on his side of the climate debate. My first edit in this article was to include Monckton's defense. This debate started when ChrisO removed the defense of Monckton that I put in the article. We wouldn't be doing him any good by leaving out the accusation unless we don't allow a defense. I only noticed one other editor besides you to object to including the accusation against Monckton. Did I miss some? Which posts by who objected to including the accusations? The fact that Monckton claims to be a member and the fact that the HoL rejects his membership are confirmed by Monckton's own published source. If anything the overwhelming consensus appears to be that the accusation should be included. Until you left this comment, I thought the only thing still being seriously debated was whether we should include his defense and how to word it. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am an uninvolved editor who commented at BLP noticeboard, and I did not oppose putting this stuff in the article; I did not explicitly say that I support it (which I should have), because I was commenting on how to report it. Minor4th's assertion that "comments from uninvolved editors was that this is not suitable for the article" does not match what I saw at the BLP noticeboard.

Also, I strongly disagree with the assertion that this is "a non-event". Monckton made a factual assertion to members of one legislature that he is a member of another legislature; the fact that this appears to be either wholly untrue or, at best, highly misleading, is a point worthy of a brief mention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Laureate

Remark: the bit about the Nobel Monckton tries to brush off as a joke. This is easier to do if the sentence "His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA. " is omitted (it follows "the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats... earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate." on the SPPI website). Rd232 ^talk 11:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} The name of Monckton's father seems to have got deleted somehow. Under Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Personal life, please amend "the eldest son of the late Major-General 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" (which makes no sense) to "the eldest son of the late Major-General Gilbert Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton-Abraham

We still need to determine how to tackle Monckton's spat with John Abraham. It's received further coverage this weekend - "Climate discussion heats up on the Web" (Minneapolis Star Tribune) and "UK climate change skeptic accuses US prof of libel", an Associated Press story that has run in a number of newspapers. This is in addition to the earlier coverage in the Guardian.

I suggest using something like the following wording for this article. Note that I've taken out the links to both Abraham's presentation and Monckton's response:

Monckton's 2009 appearance at a symposium sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute prompted a controversy over the veracity of his views on climate science. University of St. Thomas professor of thermal engineering John Abraham prepared a 73-minute slide show titled A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton, analysing the claims made by Monckton at the symposium. He asserted that Monckton had misrepresented and misunderstood scientific findings. His presentation was praised by many online as an intellectual "smackdown" on climate change. Monckton issued a 99-page response, accusing Abraham of misrepresentation and libel and demanding a retraction. The University of St Thomas supported Abraham, threatening legal action if Monckton continued making "disparaging or defamatory comments" about Abraham, the university and other individuals associated with it.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"praised by many online" is a bit weaselly. That could probably be tightened or clarified somehow. NW (Talk) 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That wording is directly from the article: "She said the school has no plans to exploit what many online are referring to as an intellectual "smackdown" on climate change." [35]

Think that online praise may be non-notable, and it would be better to refer to responses (if there are any) in sources that would be considered RS for Wikipedia purposes (I appreciate that the source used is RS, just making a suggestion as to what standard of notability we should be looking for in terms of commentators). Think there may be too much detail in your proposal, Chris (eg do we need to say how long the slide-show was or how long Monckton's response was?)--FormerIP (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair points. How about this proposal:

In response to a 2009 talk by Monckton, University of St. Thomas professor of thermal engineering John Abraham published an online rebuttal of Monckton's views on climate change. His presentation, in which he asserted that Monckton had misrepresented and misunderstood scientific findings, received praise as a "long-needed factual voice on climate change." Monckton's response accused Abraham of misrepresentation and libel and demanded a retraction. The University of St Thomas supported Abraham, threatening legal action if Monckton continued making "disparaging or defamatory comments".

That's shorter, gives less extraneous detail and represents the three parties involved - Abraham, Monckton and the university. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a more-or-less uninvolved editor who just came across this discussion, and the above paragraph looks good to me. This does seem to be a significant enough event in his life to be worth including, and as written above it wouldn't be a violation of BLP. Robofish (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Abraham's piece is an attack piece and not suitable for a BLP. If you cannot accept this, take it to BLP noticeboard. Those of you who are so insistent that this information be included in the biography think about what the purpose of the Abraham piece was and what your purpose is in inserting the material. Both are for the purpose of undermining the credibility of this BLP based on a differing POV. The information is not reliable, it is unquestionably negative and controversial, it is self published, and it is very clearly a violation of the BLP policy. Minor4th

I would say that if more context was provided for the dispute, such as a paragraph on why Monckton spoke at the university in the first place and what he spoke about, then followed by the paragraph above, then the university's reaction to it would fit into the article better. Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is about the controversy, not about Abraham's presentation, which it only mentions (and doesn't link to) to give the necessary background. I've been trying to keep it short by omitting extraneous detail. I've revised the above paragraph to add a bit more detail about why Monckton gave his speech (it was at an event sponsored by an anti-climate science free market outfit) and a bit more about Monckton's response. I've avoided going into the detailed arguments about what Monckton claimed versus what Abraham said. Be aware that if we start quoting Monckton's arguments we're going to have to quote Abraham's rebuttals. I don't particularly want to go into that level of detail, which I think would approach undue weight - this is a one-paragraph issue. Try this revised paragraph:

In October 2009, Monckton gave a talk on climate science at an event held at Bethel University, Minnesota, sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. In response, University of St. Thomas professor of thermal engineering John Abraham published an online rebuttal of the claims made by Monckton in his talk. His presentation, in which he asserted that Monckton had misrepresented and misunderstood scientific findings, received praise as a "long-needed factual voice on climate change." Monckton's response accused Abraham of misrepresentation and libel, criticised the university and its head, and demanded a retraction, apology, disciplinary action against Abraham and a compensatory payment. The University of St Thomas supported Abraham, threatening legal action if Monckton continued making "disparaging or defamatory comments".

Let me know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. One of your sources is a blog post written by the associate profession who's in the dispute with and clearly trying to smear Monckton. Entirely inappropriate in a BLP. Then you misrepresented the tenor and content of the Trib piece. Here is the quote in full which conveys an entirely different meaning that what you are trying to spin: "Prof. John Abraham has been alternately praised as a long-needed factual voice on climate change and vilified for attacking Lord Christopher Monckton, a journalist, classics scholar, politician and hereditary peer also known as 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley." You mention nothing substantive about Monckton's 99 page response to Abraham's slideshow, and your UK source adds nothing other than some inflammatory language. By the way, one of your sources says Abraham is an associate professor of mechanical engineering, not thermal engineering. Chris, I think you need to stop trying to edit this BLP, as you clearly have an agenda to denigrate this BLP and you have shown you cannot evaluate and present this information in a manner that is anywhere close to neutral. There is an ongoing discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Perhaps you should leave the BLP and let the community decide what is appropriate and what is in violation of the BLP policy. Minor4th 10:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No per what M4TH said, also the compensation was to be given to a charity, not to Lord Monckton, why is that not in there mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor 4th: I can't see where a blog post is cited in Chris's proposal. Do you mean that it is cited in one of the newspaper articles? That would be a different matter, and I can't see why it would be a problem. "nothing substantive about Monckton's 99 page response to Abraham's slideshow" - do you mean there is no overview of the contents? There is also no overview of the presentation given by Abraham. Since both of these a primary sources and per WP:WEIGHT, I think that is as it should be. I don't think your suggestion that Chris should stop editing is fair. There's a consensus that this episode should be referred to and eveyone recognises that it may take a bit of work to arrive at the best wording. Chris is just making a good faith attempt to do that.

On a point of fact: the proposal says that Abraham's presentation was posted online, which is true, but was it also not given live after Monckton had spoken (which would be the more notable fact)? (perhaps I am wrong about this).--FormerIP (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he means the first source; which is written by Abrahams and a bit of an attack piece. The easiest solution is to simply use this AP news story which covers all the finer points of the story as a third party souce and, best of all, is neutral and contains no attacks on either side. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, the first source is from the British newspaper The Guardian - not a blog, but a commentary section of the newspaper under its full editorial control. Abraham does indeed specialise in thermal engineering, as you can see from his publication list.

Tmorton, note that the AP story that you cited contains virulent personal attacks by Monckton against Abraham (see para 5 of the AP story). In any case, the notion of something being an "attack piece" is not part of Wikipedia's policy. People get criticised in print all the time. Such criticism is routinely reported on Wikipedia, where it's notable; it isn't excluded under an imaginary rubric of something being an "attack piece".

FormerIP, yes, you're wrong I'm afraid. :-) Abraham's presentation has never been given live as far as I know - it's only been delivered online. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. --FormerIP (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO; I realise it contains personal attacks :) I meant the piece tries to be fair/balanced. In any case, the notion of something being an "attack piece" is not part of Wikipedia's policy. - yes, but, it shouldn't really be used as sourcing for discussion of that controversy if written by one of the parties - per WP:PRIMARY and BLP policy. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind what it's being used for above: to source two straightforward facts, i.e. (1) that Monckton gave a talk on climate science at an event held at Bethel University, Minnesota, sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute and (2) that Abraham published an online rebuttal of Monckton's claims. These are wholly uncontroversial. Having said that, I see they're both covered by the Minneapolis Star Tribune article cited further on in the paragraph, so I wouldn't object to using that as a substitute source for those two facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Chris et al-- The first source is a blog -- note the word blog in the URL http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial Minor4th 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is called a blog but it's under the full editorial control of the newspaper. It's basically an expanded op-ed section. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris -- it's a blog and it's written by the guy who is in a major battle with Monckton. He is not a reliable source on Monckton any more than Lawrence Solomon is a reliable source for William Connolley. Same type of source, same antagonistic posture vis a vis the BLP in question. Find another source or lost the material you're using it to support (and I submit that there is not a proper reliable source because this is not particularly noteworthy in the mainstream). Minor4th 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is fine, the facts it's being cited to support are uncontroversial and there is nothing in policy to prevent its use. However, since the facts in question are also given in the Minneapolis Star Tribune article also cited, I don't mind using that one instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed final wording

Following the discussion above, the following is the final version of the text that I propose to add the article:

In October 2009, Monckton gave a talk on climate science at an event held at Bethel University, Minnesota, sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. In response, University of St. Thomas professor of thermal engineering John Abraham published an online rebuttal of the claims made by Monckton in his talk. Abraham's presentation, in which he asserted that Monckton had misrepresented and misunderstood scientific findings, received praise as a "long-needed factual voice on climate change." Monckton's response accused Abraham of misrepresentation and libel, criticised the university and its head, and demanded a retraction, apology, disciplinary action against Abraham and a compensatory payment. The University of St Thomas supported Abraham, threatening legal action if Monckton continued making "disparaging or defamatory comments".

I'll add this when protection is lifted shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton and Parliament

Following on from the BLPN discussion on this issue, I'd like to propose a solution to the issue of documenting Monckton's involvement with Parliament.

There are two issues here. First, as Jimbo rightly said, Monckton's status is not at clear in the lead. I propose to replace the second sentence ("Since June 2010 he has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party") with the following:

Formerly a Conservative peer, though never a member of the House of Lords, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010.

I think there's now enough material to justify creating a separate "Political career" section as a sub-heading of the existing Career section. This can accommodate a number of items that are currently split between different sections, plus some additional updated information that's come to light about Monckton's attempts to stand for Parliamentary seats. I propose the following:

Monckton's father lost his seat in the House of Lords following the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 which provides that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage". Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote", but the House of Lords has stated "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

He stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats in the House of Lords created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the House following the 1999 reforms. He stood for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion." Having subsequently left the Conservative Party, he stood as a crossbencher in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008, July 2009 and June 2010. On each occasion, he received no votes.

Monckton briefly stood as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2010 United Kingdom General Election. As a non-member of the House of Lords, he was eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. He registered as a candidate in the Scottish constituency of Perth and North Perthshire but subsequently withdrew his candidacy so as not to oppose a candidate for the Eurosceptic Restore Trust in Parliament party. This was due to UKIP's policy of not opposing Eurosceptic parliamentary candidates. In June 2010, following the election, UKIP announced that Monckton had been appointed as its deputy leader, to serve alongside David Campbell Bannerman.

Any comments? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I think that's great: a good summary in the lead, and a useful detailed explanation lower down. Just one suggestion: in view of the controversy over his claims, would it not be better to say: "though never a member of the House of Lords" (i.e. not → never)

I suggest that the word "never" is necessary to avoid any possible confusion as to whether he was one of the hereditaries who had lost his seat under the HOLA1999. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. His father was a member and lost his seat; let's not get the two confused. I've amended that line accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with this change. Like the proposal overall. Any possibility of making it shorter without losing crucial information can only be an improvement, although I can't immediately suggest how that might be done. --FormerIP (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened it a bit:

Monckton's father lost his seat in the House of Lords following the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 which provides that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage". Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote", but the House of Lords has stated "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

He stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats in the House of Lords created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the House following the 1999 reforms. He stood for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion." He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008, July 2009 and June 2010. On each occasion, he received no votes.

Monckton briefly stood as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2010 United Kingdom General Election. As a non-member of the House of Lords, he was eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. He registered as a candidate in the Scottish constituency of Perth and North Perthshire but subsequently withdrew in accordance with UKIP's policy of not opposing other Eurosceptic parliamentary candidates standing for election. In June 2010, following the election, UKIP announced that Monckton had been appointed as its deputy leader, to serve alongside David Campbell Bannerman.

I don't think I can reduce it much further without losing info that's essential for understanding the issues, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with that. You have great patience. Maybe we should have a fresh category Politicians who have never been elected to anything which would include Catherine Ashton. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just as well we don't have a category Politicians who have never achieved anything, otherwise we'd be very busy indeed populating it... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the length as a problem; it's quite common for a politician to have a few paragraphs on their electoral efforts.

However, I do spot one further tweak: it's slightly misleading to say that "briefly stood as a candidate", because he did not actually stand: he wasn't on the ballot. So how about re-wording it to:

As a non-member of the House of Lords, Monckton was eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. At the 2010 general election he was nominated as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) candidate in the Scottish constituency of Perth and North Perthshire, but ..."

Is that clearer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks very much. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great BHG.

I can think of a number of existing categories where it would be appropriate to put this article, but let's not go there. --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers, so he could go in the heavily-populated maintenance category Category:Relatively minor figures whose biographies have engaged a disproportionate amount of the time and energy of Wikipedia editors <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am liking a lot of these proposed categories and have suggestions to fill up many of them! Active Banana (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This all seems fine to me. My primary question, as a non-expert, was whether a hereditary peer not elected could plausibly call himself a "member of the House of Lords", albeit without the right to sit or vote. That seems to be pretty conclusively answered: no. The 1999 reform of the Lords could, in theory, have said something like "No member of the House of Lords by virtue of a herditary peerage shall have the right to vote or sit in the House" (or similar). It did not, and it was quite clear: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage." Unless and until Lord Monckton is elected to the Lords by the other hereditaries, he is not a member. I'm also generally persuaded by Kittybrewster's argument that his claim to be a member of the legislature of the UK is notable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other points to note, which I hope I've brought out without excessive emphasis in the proposed text, are that Monckton put himself forward for election to the House of Commons, which you can't do if you're a member of the House of Lords; and that he stood four times for membership of the House of Lords, which would be singularly pointless if you were already a member. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you've pretty much got it there Jimbo. But Monckton's argument seems to be that the 1999 Act is unconstitutional, so (per him) however clear its wording it does not apply. This seems like quite a thin argument AFAICT, though. Plus the thing that Chris mentions about standing for the Commons - that doesn't seem consistent with someone believing themselves to be a member of the HoL (since it is very well known (at least to UK "legislators" it ought to be) that members of the HoL can't do that, for obvious constitutional reasons). --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Without a binding judgment to uphold them, (un)constitutionality claims are just that: claims, rather than statements of fact. So no matter how persuasive anyone finds Monckton's arguments about the constitutionality of HOLA, they are just wishes unless and until the law is overturned. Monckton did not write that he should be a Member of the House of Lords; he wrote that he is a member, asserting a fact rather than a claim. Whether he should be a Member of the House of Lords is perhaps arguable; but the fact that he is not a member seems clearcut. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not pointless to put yourself up to be a voting-member if you are a non-voting-member. And a lord can run for the House of Commons if he resigns his HoL membership. But there is no reason to resign HoL membership before the last second. I don't think he got that far.

Claims aren't just claims. Some claims are true claims and some claims are false. Just because it's a claim doesn't mean it's not true. And sometimes wishes have already come true even before the wish is made. He asserted that he "is" a member, but to state that more verbosely, he asserts that he in fact has the legal right to call himself a member. The (supposed)fact that he "is not" a member or does not have the legal right to call himself a member, is the claim(just the claim, or wish) of the UK government, but Wikipedia should not presume to have the legal expertise to interpret UK law and decide that claim with a high level of confidence. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, you are still proceeding on the basis that there is such a thing as a "non-voting-member" of the House of Lords, but you have offered no ref to any reliable source in support of that view. Unless such a category exists, then there is nothing for him to resign.

And I'm sorry, but a claim is just a claim until it is upheld or enforced, no matter how well-founded the claimant believes their claim to be. No evidence has been offered here that anybody except Monckton regards him as a "a non-voting-member of the House of Lords". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this version looks pretty good. I think Monckton's claim of being a member of the HoL relies on a pretty obscure and technical legal point and he has a good faith belief for making that statement. I am not sure if there is an adequate source, but I will look for one. If there is a source that adequately describes his reasoning, I would add something like: "Based on his assessment of Law ____, Monckton has referred to himself as ....." It still reads as though he was being deceptive and I don't think that is necessarily the case. Minor4th 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following sentence be added to the above proposal right after the sentence "There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member.": "But Monckton claims that the House of Lords Act 1999 was a general law and that only a specific law can nullify the effect of Letters Patent to grant membership in the House of Lords."

I agree with the Wikipedia policy to exclude fringe theories from articles generally. But a situation like this should be an exception. The main legitimate reasons to reject fringe theories are because Wikpedia could never accommodate them all and even if it could, there is value in brevity. But we're not talking about filling the article with a million lame theories from every nut with an ax to grind. We're only talking about one short defensive theory from the accused person himself. Rightfully he should be allowed an entire paragraph or two, let alone one sentence. Even Bill O'Reilly sometimes lets his guests get in the last word at the end of the show. It would be a shame if Wikipedia can't even get close to such a modest standard of fairness. And why not? I think readers like to hear both sides, even if one of the sides is frivolous but short.

But if fairness cannot prevail on allowing Monckton's defense, then I don't think Wikipedia should include the accusation at all. Therefore if one sentence of Monckton's defense is not included, then I will officially challenge the assertion that Monckton is not a member. There are two parties in this dispute of legal interpretation. The government of the UK, which surely is not always accurate or even honest in its interpretation of UK law, and Monckton. As per official Wikipedia BLP policy, assertions about persons must be backed by a cite to a reliable secondary source. If no secondary source can be found that asserts that Monckton's legal claim is invalid, then the judgment of Wikipedia editors about UK law must be set aside and the UK government's claim about Monckton's status under the law should be removed. Mindbuilder (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that I would have no problem with including a short or even extensive rebuttal to Monckton's defense. In fact I think it would be a good idea. Mindbuilder (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton refers to the letters patent when he tries to defend his position that he is a non-voting non-sitting member of the House of Lords, and he states that the letters patent can only be revoked by a specific law (i.e. a law referring to a specific peerage, which the 199 Act does not). This is the basis of his argument. However although the right to membership of the House of Lords was formerly automatic, a peer was is only called to the House on receipt of a writ of summons. Membership of the House is determined by those holding a valid writ of summons, not on those with the relevant letters patent. Before the 1999 Act a newly acceded peer could not just waltz in and claim membership without first presenting his writ of summons. The 1999 Act is very clear on who should and should not receive a writ of summons. It says:

5. The main provision of the Act restricts membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. No present or future holders of a hereditary peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland 1 , Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or their heirs, have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords by virtue of that peerage, or to sit and vote in committees of the House, or to speak in the House, or to receive a writ of summons, unless they are excepted from this general exclusion by section 2 of the Act. - from - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/en/ukpgaen_19990034_en_1

Monckton is not entitled to receipt of a writ of summons, and has not received a writ of summons. His argument holds no water. - Ted 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.131.188 (talk)

Is there a single Wikipedia editor among us that is qualified to interpret UK law? The law is often not what it seems to the layman. Is it a good idea for Wikipedia to be settling disputes like this? Why such resistance to one sentence in Monckton's defense? This resistance to minimal basic fairness is hard for me to understand. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to get into Monckton's explanation of why he thinks he's a member. It's an extreme fringe view, as you acknowledge, and it would be original research to try to "balance" his claims with the legal and constitutional realities. You're also quite mistaken that the government has anything to do with this. Neither House of Parliament is run by the government. The Parliamentary authorities are understandably very firm about their independence from government. It's not the government saying that Monckton is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords; it's the House of Lords itself. In other words, the body to which Monckton claims to belong says that he's not a member. One would think that the House of Lords would have a pretty good idea of who its own members are. The key point here, as BHG has suggested, is whether Monckton actually is a member, not whether his apparent belief that he should be a member is justified. Finally, re your last point, we are not in any way relying on "the judgment of Wikipedia editors" - we're simply citing what the House of Lords itself has said about its own membership. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I referred to the government of the UK I was using the term in the general sense that includes Parliament, the Executive branch, and all the other parts of the UK government. I'll continue to use it in the general sense because I can't think of another term to use. I don't acknowledge it is an extreme fringe view. I merely argue that even if it is, it should be mentioned as a matter of fairness. We don't know what the legal and constitutional realities are. We have only the opinion of the UK government and non-expert Wikipedia editors. If the House of Lords is using an invalid interpretation of UK law, then it might well not have an accurate position on who its members are. Monckton's belief on whether he should be a member is relevant because it goes to whether he is lying or just mistaken. But whether Monckton actually "is" a member is independent of how the HoL interprets UK law or what claims the HoL makes or whether Monckton sits or votes in the house. If he has the legal right, then he "is" a member, regardless of what the HoL says. We don't know if he has the legal right or not. Your proposed wording makes the judgment "never a member of the House of Lords" The UK government makes that claim, but it is the primary source of that claim and no secondary source that comments on the invalidity of Monckton's claim has been cited. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder; I could possibly be considered semi-authoritative about UK law; I've trained in some aspects of law, but not specifically this (interpretation skills are the same though). As it stands from my reading through; Monckton made a silly claim in that letter to the US senators which was then used to make him look a bit silly. So his defense is that the law was not specific in removing him from the house (just that it removed his voting rights). As others have said; it's a complete smokescreen to defend what he said in the letter. Legally speaking the HoL are in the clear - the law (which I dug out and read) is pretty explicit in removing hereditary peers from the house. More to the point it denies the peers the right to receive a "writ of summons". To be clear on this; you do not get to sit in the HoL simply by virtue of having a peerage - the Monarch issues you a writ of summons which allows you to sit and vote. It was customary, of course, prior to 1999 that all peers received one. The act revoked that custom/right to receive a writ. Technically speaking the Queen could issue a writ to Monckton and he could sit - but there would probably be a big constitutional fuss :) Anyway; point is, the law is very clear and specific and the HoL are quite clear over their membership. Monckton is, as best I can read it, either clutching at straws or simply blustering a defense of what he said (I'd suspect the latter). No matter what he argues, unless someone wangles him a writ he is not a member of the house. I have not looked into the separate legal challenge by other peers - but I think it is dealing with other flaws in the 1999 act. Including all of that into the article is complicated; considering it is something he said then, perhaps. But on the other hand it's all part of a thing to undermine his credibility and I don't really see that it is notable (either his original statement, the calling out of it or his response). Not least because we do not have a solid source that said the above. In summary; I simply do not think we can adequately verify this or probe it notable. I'd much prefer to stick to his biography --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-authoritative is not authoritative. Furthermore citing to you, a Wikipedia editor, is considered Original Research. We shouldn't really even be debating the merits of his claim. Would someone please explain to me why there is such a strong objection to such a small sentence. Do you all think a person should only be heard if it's somebody you like and agree with? Mindbuilder (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore citing to you, a Wikipedia editor, is considered Original Research - absolutely :) Do you all think a person should only be heard if it's somebody you like and agree with? please stop such poor rhetoric; it's boring. The fact is that it is not possible to verify his rationale, and even then it is subjective how to present it (as a claim by himself, on a par with the legal rebuttal). Really we need a RS that discusses his counter-claim in context. Per BLP we can only take Monckton as authoritative on himself - in matters of law he is non-authoritative. More the the point all this discussion of the law is very interesting (and enjoyable) but BHG's point below remains - everything can be reasonably reliably verified up to Moncktons rebuttal/explanation - which has a number of serious issues. Why do you want to get this in so badly? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed final wording

Following the discussion above, the following is the final version of the text that I propose to add to the article. In the lead:

Formerly a Conservative peer, though never a member of the House of Lords, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010.

And in the body, in a new "Political career" section:

Monckton's father lost his seat in the House of Lords following the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 which provides that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage". Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote", but the House of Lords has stated "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

He stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats in the House of Lords created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the House following the 1999 reforms. He stood for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion." He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008, July 2009 and June 2010. On each occasion, he received no votes.

Monckton briefly stood as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2010 United Kingdom General Election. As a non-member of the House of Lords, Monckton was eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. At the 2010 general election he was nominated as the UPIP candidate in the Scottish constituency of Perth and North Perthshire, but subsequently withdrew in accordance with UKIP's policy of not opposing other Eurosceptic parliamentary candidates standing for election. In June 2010, following the election, UKIP announced that Monckton had been appointed as its deputy leader, to serve alongside David Campbell Bannerman.

I'll add this when protection is lifted shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add the sentence with Monckton's defense that I mentioned above. If anyone reverts it then I'll remove all mentions of the HoL claim that Monckton is not a member and challenge it until a secondary source can be found to back the governments interpretation of the law on this issue. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that about half-a-dozen editors have supported the inclusion of ChrisO's text, and only you disapprove of it, I strongly suggest that you seek consensus for any removal rather than proceeding unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When an article gives a slanderous impression without so much as a single sentence allowed in defense, it is my understanding that the critical material is to be removed pending a final decision of the issue. Is it not Wikipedia policy that critical statements in a BLP must cite to a secondary source? Has a secondary source besides one of the parties to the dispute been cited? Just allow the defense, it's not a violation of Wikipedia's spirit. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Formerly? He is still a peer. That is indisputable. But otherwise I approve of the above [edit: by which I mean ChrisO's proposed text] because it is detached from the controversy :) nicely done. I would also reword second sentence of the second paragraph as follow (because referring to him as a non-member is... troublesome for various technicalities): The 1999 act allows that peers not sitting in the House of Lords to stand for election in the House of Commons. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has it right here.

Monckton's rationale for his claim is a fringe theory, apparently supported only by himself, and there is a risk of giving it WP:UNDUE weight. We do not even have a reliable source for his reasoning, let alone alone anyone else supporting it. As noted by Jimbo, the wording of the Act

Mindbuilder is try to invert the burden of proof here, by casting this as an "accusation" against Monckton. It is not an "accusation": it is a claim by Monckton, and Mindbuilder's suggested addition does not even include a ref to a reliable source for Monckton's description of his rationale. If Mocnkton can persuade a reliable source to publish his rationale, then we may be able to use that if we feel it appropriate to expand the article with a detailed examination of legal theories, but we cannot use what purports to be a self-published rationale when we don't even know for sure that it is published by him.

Finally, Mindbuilder is being decided mischievous in asking that "the judgment of Wikipedia editors about UK law must be set aside" to allow for the insertion of Mockton's arguments. I have argued throughout this against making any such judgement, and the text follows that approach of specifically avoiding an interpretation of the law. ChrisO's text briefly reports Mockton's claim, and it briefly report the response of the body of which Mockton claims to be a member. That's all.

AFAICS, the only editor here arguing that Wikipedia editors should make judgements about UK law is Mindbuider, who apparently wants us us to conduct original research to construct both Monckton's case and a response to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another Lord supporting Monckton's theory. Even if Monckton's claim is fringe, an exception should be made to undue for a short sentence in defense. I'm not trying to invert the burden of proof here. The burden of proof goes both ways. The proposed text doesn't avoid an interpretation of the law, it flat out states Monckton was never a member. I quoted that. Did you not notice it? Furthermore the text reports Monckton's claim and then reports the governments unsubstantiated claim that he is not a member. I'm not the only one, the others here want to report the government's legal interpretation without Wikipedia's standard demand for a secondary source. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, please read ChrisO's text before commenting on it. It does not "flat out state Monckton was never a member" ; it reports the assertion by the House of Lords (not, as you falsely say, the govt) that he was never a member. One side claims, the other replies -- that's balanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

From ChrisO's proposed text: "Formerly a Conservative peer, though never a member of the House of Lords" Leaving in the UK government's claim without a sentence of Monckton's defense isn't balanced. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not balanced because without a mention of Monckton's defense, it will likely not occur to the reader that there might be a dispute about the legal interpretation of UK law. Readers will assume that the HoL is authoritative on who is a member. The word of one man will have little weight compared to the official declaration. A short mention of his defense is necessary for balance. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's defence has no authority. It as irrelevant as a convicted fellon stating that they they believe the Law is an ass. Membership of the House of Lords is determined by the 1999 Act and the Act is crystal clear on this matter. Furthermore the Information Office has commented directly on Monckton's case and made it abundantly clear he is not a member. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

l

Even a condemned murderer is allowed to speak his final words, no matter how frivolous. But Monckton doesn't even get that consideration. That membership is determined by HOLA1999 is your non-expert legal interpretation of the law. Can you not stand even one sentence from Monckton to challenge that interpretation? The information office is part of the UK government which is a party to the dispute and therefore not a secondary source. Mindbuilder (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why climate science is loosing credibility. The bias is so intense that even basic fairness cannot be recognized. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think with that last comment you just lost your credibility. You've made you agenda abundantly clear. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Mindbuilder would be topic banned if he were to insert or delete against consensus. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've admitted that Monckton's defense is weak, though I haven't admitted that it is totally frivolous. I'm only pushing for something closer to fairness in the treatment of Monckton. Not even for complete fariness and certainly not for highly favorable treatment. I called before for the accusation against Monckton to be included. I suggested an indepth rebuttle to his claim. I think I'm being more than fair. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, by calling it a "defense" you make it appear that Monckton is being accused of something. Not so: Chris's text reports a claim and a denial of that claim, but no accusation is made or quoted.

You now want to expand this issue (and thereby give in WP:UNDUE weight in the biography) even though you have offered no reliable sources for any such expansion. That's straightforward original research, which you should know is not permitted, and you have compounded this with an unfounded bad faith accusation that the editors who support the inclusion of this text have a "bias". I see no evidence for that claim, and I suggest that you withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is technically an accusation or not it is very much like an accusation that he made a false statement. Without further context it would appear to the reader that the false statement would have to have been an intentional lie. I only want to expand the issue with one sentence. It's not permitted to include claims that suggest bad behavior into a BLP without a secondary source. Is that correct? Are you going to dodge that question? I haven't accused anyone of bad faith. I think they are well meaning. I just think they are biased, as really everyone is at least to some extent. I have an alternative proposal for the article. How about:

Monckton's father lost his seat in the House of Lords following the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 which provides that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".[12] Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote" because he claims that the House of Lords Act 1999 was a general law and only a specific law can change the effect of Letters Patent granting membership in the House of Lords. [27] but the House of Lords has stated "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

So now it is balanced. A claim and a counter claim. And now the House of Lords gets the last word. Mindbuilder (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above; Monckton is not authoritative on aspects of law. Only on aspects of himself. We cannot include his claim because it has no grounding and his opinion is not authoritative. Furthermore the source for it is not verified so we cannot include it as his opinion --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you willing to break Wikipedia policy by including the HoL interpretation of the law that implies dishonesty by Monckton, without a secondary source, but you are not willing to make a minor and justified break for Monckton's self defense? Are you aware of the cite to Monckton's answers at SPPI? And why does no one answer my questions around here? Is that a good faith discussion? Is that an admission that no one can come up with good answers to my questions? Mindbuilder (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Monckton's claim is authoritative as to his own state of mind and opinion and his reasons for his actions. Mindbuilder (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed text includes the following " ... only a specific law can change the effect of Letters Patent granting membership in the House of Lords". As has been pointed out to you already, membership of the House of Lords is dependent upon the receipt of of a writ of summons, not letters patent. The whole point of the 1999 Act was to exclude those who held letter patent granting peerages. This is the law and Monckton's dispute of the Law is irrelevant. Honestly this is becoming absurd. What we have here amounts to Person A saying that they are a member of certain a club and the club says they are not a member. Person A then says I'm a special sort of member without certain rights. The club then say there are no such members without those right, and further it is pointed out that the Law states the person A cannot be a member. Person A then says the Law does not apply to me, because I have a letter from the Sovereign which cannot be revoked by law that does to specifically refer to Person A. Its then pointed out that the letter is irrelevant because membership of the club is not dependent on the letter but upon a different sort of letter and the Law says person cannot receive the different sort of letter. Your argument against this is that the club, is not an authority on its own membership rules and neither is the law which was specifically designed to exclude holders of the type of letter that person A claims allows him to retain membership. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I expect he would say that a writ of summons is only required to SIT and VOTE in the HoL. But again, why are you even arguing the merits of his and the HoL claim? Wikipedia shouldn't try to settle the issue. Why is it OK to include a claim with slanderous implications without allowing a single sentence, no matter how frivolous, in defense? Nobody here wants to address that issue of fundamental fairness. They just want to say he's wrong and keep the claims with slanderous implications. I'm not asking 1000 in depth questions. I'm just asking a few. I think it is bad faith discussion to not answer any of the questions I ask. And it's an indication of the weakness of your position. Mindbuilder (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"... to SIT and VOTE in the HoL ..." and ... (as per the text of the Act) the right to be paid allowances, to use the restaurant, the library, the toilets and every other facility of the House. How can it be called in anyway "membership" if one is excluded (by Law) from every single facility? 87.252.60.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Mindbuilder, you're flogging a dead horse here.

1. We do not have a reference to a reliable source for Mockton's explanation of his reasons for his claim, so we can't include them. (All we have is this link to somebody else's blog posting of what they claim is a response by him. A blog is not reliable source for the views of anyone other than the author of that blog)
2. If we were to include Monckton's reasons for his claim, we would need to balance that with include the HOL's reasons for rejecting the claim. We cannot do that without synthesis.

Finally, please stop alleging bias on the part of other editors. It is a blatant assumption of bad faith to assert that editors who disagree with you about the narrow issue of reporting this claim do so because of any broader stance on the policy issues where Monckton takes a stand. I stay right out all the substantive climate change controversy stuff, and you have no basis whatsoever for suggesting that I take any view either way on that topic. In the course of this discussion about his title, the only editor who I have seen advance a view of climate change is you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition HoL can be considered authoritative in relation to it's own membership. Beyond that (the statement by the HoL that he is not a member and his statement that he is) we can go no further - because that requires analysis of the law & we do not have any sources, let along reliable, about that. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder has repeatedly made the false assertion that the response was made by the govt, rather than by the HoL, but then changed tack by asserting that "the information office is part of the UK government". Wrong again: the House of Lords Information Office is one of a number of services provided by Parliament itself, and as with other House of Lords services the House of Lords Information Office is managed by the The Clerk of the Parliaments, not by the govt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a link to Monckton's claims from the SPPI. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The Salt Lake Tribune article reported that SPPI sponsored Monckton. The HoL counter argument need not be included for balance. An official organization like the HoL has so much more credibility on an issue like this than an individual, that their assertion alone stands powerfully, though not totally definitively.

The House of Lords claim on this issue is a political claim by a political body which is a party to the dispute. Do you seriously assert that such a claimant can be considered a reliable source for a claim with slanderous implications? If such an organization was making assertions with slanderous implications about you, would you respect the objectivity of such a political body? When your favored party is not in control of the House, do you still respect it's objectivity and correctness? Mindbuilder (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the House of Lords is not a reliable source as to the membership in the House of Lords? Do you suggest this holds true with other legislative bodies - is the US Senate not a reliable source as to the membership of the US Senate? How about the UN General Assembly - is it not a reliable source as to the membership of the UN General Assembly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have been saying. There can be disputes in places like houses and senates and assemblies about who is a legal member. Just because some of the members say some others aren't members, doesn't mean that claim should be considered reliable. Mindbuilder (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to ask that question at WP:RSN for uninvolved input. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Since the only remaining disagreement here seems to centre on Mindbuilger's lonesome assertion that the HOL's Info Office is not a reliable source on the membership of the Lords, we need an outside view on it.

It's also exceedingly disingenuous of MB to claim that "some of the members say some others aren't members". MB implies that this is a matter of a small group in one corner being rude another group ... but in this case, we have the info office which acts on behalf of the entire house, speaking about one claimant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of one claimed member versus the entire House. Several hundred hereditary peers are claimed to no longer be members. if my vague recollection is correct it's something like 1000 to 600. But I don't know how many of those 600 make the same claim as Monckton. I know at least one other one does. Asking a question at RSN doens't seem like a bad idea. But if you are all really discussing this issue in good faith, why will you not answer any of my questions? Mindbuilder (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid going down too many of the side roads which you open up, but if you insist, I';ll asnwer your questions:

1. You say The House of Lords claim on this issue is a political claim by a political body which is a party to the dispute. Do you seriously assert that such a claimant can be considered a reliable source for a claim with slanderous implications?
   Response: Your premise is false. The House of Lords info office is not a political body, but a non-partisan service provided on behalf of the whole of the House of Lords.
2. You ask: If such an organization was making assertions with slanderous implications about you, would you respect the objectivity of such a political body?.
   Reply: there is nothing slanderous in a person employed by an organisation responding directly to the best of their ability to a question of fact relating to membership of a body.
3. You ask: When your favored party is not in control of the House, do you still respect it's objectivity and correctness?.
   Reply: no party has a majority in the House of Lords, so the question of partisanship would not arise even if the were any truth in your false assumption that the info office is subject to party control. In any case, the question here is not a matter of party dispute.

As noted below by 87.252.60.26, you appear to be basing all these questions on a huge range of assumptions about the way Parliament works, possibly because you confuse its procedures with those of some other body. At this point I am struggling to hold onto the assumption that you make these errors as a result of a genuine misunderstanding; in view of the number of times when your characterisations of parliament have been corrected, it is starting to look more like wilful misrepresentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained that when I refer to the government that I mean it in the broad sense of the entire governemnt. I don't know what else to call it. What do you call that entire organization that includes Parliament, the Queen, The Prime Minister, the Military, city councils, the local dog catcher and everything else in the government? Mindbuilder (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the words "... formerly a Conservative peer ... " are misleading. He is a peer of the realm and I assume he was a member of the Conservative party before he jumped ship to UKIP, but he has never taken the Conservative whip at any level, certainly not in the Lords. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe remove the words formerly and conservative, inserting instead "hereditary". Kittybrewster ☎ 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur - that would be accurate. @Mindbuilder. While parliament is part of government it is also a "separate entity". In the sense that the houses are separate bodies that administer themselves under the laws of the land. There is an important legal distinction. Also; I do not see where the HoL is being slanderous? They were asked if Monckton is a member and they say no - surely they are authorities on their own membership requirements. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The HoL made a claim that has slanderous implications, namely the implication that Monckton made a false statement. It's not directly slanderous, but in the context of the Wikipedia article without Monckton's defense, it is likely to give a strongly negative impression. And I see no reason to consider political claims by a political body authoritative in a situation like this. Imagine for example if the dominant party wanted to exclude Monckton because he was from an opposing party. Politicians have been known to lie about what the law says to get their way. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If your example were the case, there would be reliable sources discussing it - see, for example 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, from your earlier spelling of "defense" I get the impression that you are not British. This may explain why you're comment "Imagine for example if the dominant party wanted to exclude Monckton because he was from an opposing party.". The House of Lords (and Parliament as whole) is not part of the ruling party machine. Its staff are not answerable to the Government, but to Parliament itself and to the Crown. Your scenario cannot happen. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This is getting very silly. MB refers to the House of Lords Information Office statement as "political claims by a political body". In fact the, the info office is a non-partisan body working on behalf of he House of Lords as a whole, and they might well regard it as slanderous to be described as if they were the spokespeople for a political faction.

Finally, the info office did not "imply" that "that Monckton made a false statement". They said clearly and unambiguously that he is not a member: no implication involved when it's as plain as that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeh, I give up :) And I see no reason to consider political claims by a political body authoritative in a situation like this - it is not a political body, it is very resolutely (under law) not political (do not confuse the HoL as a legislative entity with the HoL authority - different beasts). Imagine for example if the dominant party wanted to exclude Monckton because he was from an opposing party. - umm, this is very bad rhetoric. Clearly such a thing would undermine the statements... BUT you can't just throw that out there and say "but if they were...... therefore the statement is flawed". If you have a RS that something like that undermines the HoL authorities statement then we can bring it in, of course. I do not think they the wording suggested above is slanderous; we present facts. As to the HoL statement - that is not directly slanderous, or even slightly so. It is "accepted truth" so Monckton would have to prove that it was both false and malicious. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you all held in there long enough. If no other editor will back me by doing the edits I've suggested then I will not either. If I'm really all alone here on this then I'm very likely wasting my time. But I hope you will all consider seriously the sadness of an information source like Wikipedia that won't even allow a person one frivolous sentence in defense of himself, out of support for a rule that is inappropriate to the particular situation. Such refusal to allow ones opponents to be heard is a strong sign of weakness. If Wikipedia policy won't allow Monckton's defense, you should work to get the policy changed. The BLP policy should be that a person should always be allowed at least one sentence in their own defense, regardless of what Wikipedia editors think of the merits of the claim. I'll be back tomorrow to see if there is any change in the debate. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If, when you come back tomorrow, there is a reliable source for the alleged defence by Monckton of his claim, then there will be something to discuss. Otherwise, no.

Mindbuilder, if you want wikipedia to change its foundation-level policy of verifiability to allow the attribution to living people of words for which there is no reliable source, then I suggest you go through the proper channels make the case for such a change. However, this page is not the place to press for such a momentous revision of policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Mindbuilder and I think it's a necessary addition in this BLP. Otherwise there is left an implication that Monckton is being intentionally deceptive and I do not believe that is the case. The implied deception should not be part of this article as it is a violation of BLP policy. Minor4th 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Page dropped to semi-protection

However, I'd like to warn all parties that continued edit warring will be judged harshly. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.

I have made a number of changes to the article. As well as adding the material that's been agreed on the talk page, I fixed a number of potential POV issues that I spotted:

1) In the lead - changed "Monckton has attracted attention for his denialist stance on anthropogenic global warming" to "Monckton has attracted attention for his views on anthropogenic global warming."

2) In the body - removed a line that I felt was WP:UNDUE: "In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser." While it's reliably sourced, it doesn't seem to have been reported anywhere else and its significance is dubious, so I took it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just dreadfully written - how many more pragraphs are going to start with a date? "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue."  Giacomo  20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am about to request full protection again as ChrisO is already reverting changes that are discussed on the talk page. Yes, this is dreadfully written and it cannot be improved when there are unilateral POV insertions and reverts after talk page discussion. Minor4th 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that ChrisO has made 24 revisions to the article since full protection was lifted without any discussion on the talk page, or very minimal. Minor4th 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you focusing on my fairly minor changes when other editors, including you, have made much more substantial changes without discussion? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should be bringing changes other than typos or grammar fixes here, given SirFozzie's warning. And one person's minor changes often are another person's major changes. 24 changes without discussion does seem a lot unless they are one character apiece. I have no comment on the nature of the changes but I do have concerns that this article doesn't end up fully protected again. You may not be taking input from others on board sufficiently. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, my edits have primarily been minor fixes and clarifications, including fixing a couple of accidental errors and omissions. That is not - or should not be - contentious. Minor4th seems to be assuming bad faith here, which is not helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Either that or you're assuming the assumption of bad faith. Perhaps Minor4th just finds your edits problematic. Perhaps your previous sparring with her has led to this situation. Perhaps you should consider softening your approach, you come off as rather tendentious to this observer. Why not try to work with Minor4th? ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've counted 7 reversions by ChrisO. I would like to report this. I think as long as ChrisO is editing this BLP it needs to be full protected because no one can edit it or even have a discussion about proposed changes without Chris systematically reverting or adding POV. Where should this be reported? Probation enforcement? 3RR noticeboard? AN/I? I had already asked SirFozzie to revert the article to pre-protetion status and fully protect it again, and Hipocrite had made the same request. I don't think there's a response yet though. Minor4th 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is - see his talk page. Now please stop taking things out of context. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think most of Chris' reversions (the ones I have reviewed) were acceptable - notably the additions from the IP editor (one of which was wrong but done in good faith and he later corrected it after talk page discussion - which was fine) and some stuff from SV which actually affected areas we were discussing. A few of the reverts I was in the process of doing when he beat me to it :) I'd support encouraging Chris to step back from time to time and let other people review additions (and revert if needed) - if only to save him from this :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I have made one edit and it was after I posted the proposed edit here on the talk page and I incorporated it exactly as discussed, with the concerns addressed as discussed. For Chris to say that I have made substantial changes without discussion is incorrect. Minor4th 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You had no consensus for that version but in any case it's superseded - SlimVirgin re-edited the lead and produced a version that was better than either version that we came up with. What objections, if any, do you have to the current version? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Minor4th 23:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Yes" is not a meaningful answer to the question "What objections do you have". Please specify. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I will. Why don't you ease up for a while so others can edit. Minor4th 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lords

(copied from SV talk) Could you please tell me why you're repeatedly deleting the central point of the discussion on the talk page, namely the issue of Monckton's status as a non-member of the House of Lords? That's not "tidying" - or if it is, you're overdoing it a bit. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to make that section a little less aggressive. That part now reads: "Monckton has referred to himself as 'a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote,' but the House of Lords has said he is not a member, and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member."

Rather than "Monckton has referred to himself as 'a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote', but the House of Lords has stated 'Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member.'" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

SV, it seems a reasonable change (actually, I kinda prefer it). But that whole paragraph/sentence/issue is what has been under massive debate recently! :) Changing it seems a little risky - I wouldn't say we had 110% consensus on the wording ChrisO added but it was a growing compromise :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that version is better. My comment related to this edit in which SlimVirgin deleted entirely the reference to Monckton's status relating to the House of Lords - not "making it a little less aggressive" but deleting it outright form the article. I reintroduced it, SlimVirgin revised it, and it now looks fine to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) Could you PLEASE slow down and take more care? Your edits are introducing serious mistakes - Monckton's criticism of the the Lords by-election procedure related specifically to that used in the March 2007 by-election, not the procedure in general. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please don't keep posting to my talk page; others may want to join in. The problem here is that you're reverting a lot, so it's not possible to fix things or continue copy editing, unless I start reverting too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Slim; can you bring your suggestions here to the talk page. Your risking another edit war - we have been making good progress discussing all this. (not that they are bad - but they are right in the middle of sections that have sparked the recent discussions :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is poorly written, and badly needs someone to go through it, regardless of POV. I see it's not going to be possible at the moment, so I'll give up for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I'm not "reverting a lot", I actually think your changes are generally improving the article. But you have unfortunately made a few errors along the way, which I've been trying to fix - for instance, deleting the info about the House of Lords which was the centre of the lengthy discussion above, and misrepresenting Monckton's view of the March 2007 by-election procedure as a general comment about the by-election procedure in general. (The number of candidates and electors varies from by-election to by-election and is not fixed). I'm sure this is accidental, but between us and the other editors who have contributed, I think we're making progress. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer SV`s version of the lede to the one chris has reverted to, lets go with that mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually restored an amended version of SV's lede. I re-read her addition, thought it was an improvement, and hybridised it with a 1st para that provided some of the info that I had added (see diff). From a British perspective the info omitted in SV's version (Conservative Central Office and the Number 10 Policy Unit) is too significant to leave out. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have fixed anything like that myself with the next few edits, Chris, but a little bit of space is needed for something like this. As I said, I see this is not a good time, so I'll take it off my watchlist for now, and maybe look in again in a few weeks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No harm done... it's just that we were getting there on content consensus - so, yeh, maybe a little while for the content to settle would be good :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Menzies claim

Sunday Telegraph, 12 November 2006: "Last week I implied James Hansen told Congress sea level would rise several feet by 2000 (no, 2100); for “Congress” I wrote “Senate”; I added a tautologous “per second” to “watts per square metre”; and I mentioned the perhaps-apocryphal Arctic voyage of Chen Ho." Context makes it clear he's apologizing and withdrawing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.78.10 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor has turned up making a claim that I don't understand. In this Sunday Telegraph article Monckton alluded to the claims of the pseudohistorian Gavin Menzies that "a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421". The IP claims that Monckton "withdrew" that claim in a subsequent Sunday Telegraph article. But the subsequent article makes no reference that I can see to any withdrawal, and the original article still has the Menzies claim in it. Where is this "withdrawal" documented? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Last week ... I mentioned the perhaps apocryphal Arctic voyage of Chen Ho. Sorry." --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for highlighting that. I didn't associate Chen Ho with Menzies at first. OK, on that basis I've added mention of his retraction. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Page re-full-protected

I have re-protected this article. It is glaringly obvious that the parties will not and cannot work with each other productively during this case. This protection will remain through the case's closure, at which time we can see how the situation is. SirFozzie (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. The parties are working with each other productively. The discussions above are quite amicable. The only problem we are having is that every time I make an edit Minor4th is running to your talk page to complain. Can you not see that this is a case of one editor targeting another and trying to get him sanctioned? It has nothing to do with the state of the article or the course of editing, but with Minor4th seeking to remove me from editing this article. Don't fall for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, if that was in response the edits between ChrisO and and an IP, that appears to be settled and I do not think anything is "glaringly obvious" as a consequence. If you weren't just reacting to that, though, please ignore me. --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, see SirFozzie's talk page. Minor4th has been making false claims that I've been "edit warring". SirFozzie, where is the edit warring? What content is being disputed? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's about six or seven editors here.. and note, I'm not sanctioning anyone. I have my own thoughts on what's going on here, but since I'm recused on the case, I'm not going to air them publicly. I have sympathy for folks who are trying to work productively in this area. However, I think the odds of productive editing coming on this subject to be nil. I have informed a fellow arb of my actions.. they may wish to follow up as needed. Oh, and let me state for the record, this is NOT an ArbCom action.. if you find another administrator or clerk who thinks that the situation can improve, I have no problem with being reversed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, since we've resolved the immediate BLP problems, I guess the article can wait. But I have to say I'm very disappointed that you've let yourself be manipulated this way by Minor4th. Yes, there are about six or seven editors here. But none of them, including myself, has been doing any edit warring. Three editors - myself, GiacomoReturned and SlimVirgin - had just started overhauling the article. We had some edit conflicts and some confusion. This happens! Especially on an article that's just come off full protection and that's been heavily discussed. It is not an edit war. My own changes have been largely fairly minor - fixing errors, adding clarifications. I have no problem at all with the vast majority of the changes that have been made by others. My only wholesale reversions related to the IP editor you just blocked. Right now, no content is being actively disputed. Folks are trying to work productively here on the talk page. I've done more than most - this talk page shows my own lengthy efforts to find compromises and consensus. The only thing that has stuck a spoke into the wheels of this process is Minor4th's false accusations. It's a real shame that all of the editors who have put time into improving this article are being stymied because of this one editor. I can't see any way forward on this article if it gets full-protected any time he decides to complain. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I thought the parties in the current case were following a voluntary article-editing topic ban until the case was decided? Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly that that is not so, and I am in any case not a party to the arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you willing and able to voluntarily accept a topic ban? If you had done so already, this latest episode might not have happened. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. "This latest episode" as you call it is groundless. Some content elements are being discussed amicably on the talk page, but nobody is fighting about it in the article. There is no edit warring and no content dispute. There is no need for a topic ban or for article protection, though there is a need for someone to have a word with Minor4th. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop casting these aspersions. Minor4th seems to be trying to craft a better lede and is participating constructively, despite your flurry of intervening edits. As for being a party to the case, ArbCom has already stated that the party list as posted isn't definitive. You are acting in a way that suggests that perhaps you should be a party. SlimVirgin is a patient and persistent editor but you managed to drive her off... that suggests that your editing behaviour might not be exemplary. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I can't tell what the basis for this is. If it isn't the edits between the IP and ChrisO, then what is it? I think you do need to give a reason, beyond "it looks to me like there'll be more trouble ahead". --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris you were asked by several editors to slow down a bit and discuss; obviously this is a sensitive area and needs calm discussion and measured editing right now. Of those other editors you mention, at least one walked away from editing the article due to your approach. Shell ^babelfish 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem slowing down and discussing. If you look at the two sections above that is exactly what I've been doing. Notice that when Minor4th raised an issue with part of the article, I refrained from rushing out and editing it myself and asked him to present some ideas. As this shows, I do respond to feedback and I have acted on it. That's why I'm so surprised and disappointed to find the article suddenly being full-protected for no good reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider improving a different article. Michael E. Mann, for example, barely mentions the controversy that has surrounded his "hockey stick" research and its impact on the Climategate controversy. Also, Climate Audit needs to be restored as a separate article and information added about its role in the background to the Climategate emails. Plenty to do elsewhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep out of this. I am not interested. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in those articles. My involvement in these articles is first and foremost because of BLP. That's why I'm involved with this particular article, which has been the subject of appalling BLP violations for a long time (the most recent only yesterday). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was full protected because, I expect, you claim your 30 edits are all vital and everyone else is out to get you.... which is just wrong. No, Chris... you should have edited much more slowly, so that you could say "half of my edits for the day were fixing that BLP problem" instead of 1/30th. No, 30 edits in one day gives the appearance of OWNership. I note now that you're even arguing back to Shell when she explained what the problem is. You're an experieced editor, you know better, presumably, than to try to own articles and attack everyone that calls you on it. Please consider changing your approach. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Until you get complaints, I think that's a common and often constructive edit pattern, especially on contentious pages ("be bold", as some might say). When you get complaints, you should pause. These complaints should usually be on the article talk page, but I don't see any there in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look up a bit at the last four sections of this talk page? Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the section "Protection dropped" above, which I hadn't noticed before. But in this, no-one says "this edit you made is wrong for this reason". How is the editor supposed to respond to comments like: "no one can edit it or even have a discussion about proposed changes without Chris systematically reverting or adding POV"?

So, yes his adversaries did generally moan about him, but no-one picked him up on any of his edits. I think it is reasonable for him to conclude from that that they were all ok. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Minor4th has not at any point mentioned any specific edit he has a problem with. What's more - and this shows the partisan nature of his complaint - he's singling out only my editing and not the much more substantial changes made with no prior discussion by SlimVirgin and GiacomoReturned. His objection isn't about any specific edits I've made, it's about the fact that it's me doing the editing. As I said, this is a case of one editor targeting another for partisan reasons. I've already pointed out that I had already - before Minor4th started whining to SirFozzie - "slowed down". Minor4th falsely pretended that there was some kind of ongoing problem and misrepresented my reversion of a now-blocked IP who was adding libelous claims to this and another article. To repeat: there is no ongoing editing problem here, and I had already responded to the "edit more slowly" comments by doing precisely that, well before Minor4th stepped in. I am not "arguing back" to Shell in pointing this out - I'm saying that I'd already done what she is suggesting. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

An observation

I came to this article through a note on at the peerage wikiproject about a discussion on the BLP noticeboard, and ended up joining the discussion here. The result of a lengthy discussion on how to handle Monckton's claims about membership of the House of Lords was the addition yesterday of three paragraphs which had achieved consensus support, and I am pleased to see that that they have survived the flurry of recent changes.

I have no reason to question the good faith of those engaged in the flurry of edits since then, but it seems to me that so many rapid changes on a clearly contentious article do run the risk of stirring disputes. So I suggest that the protection on this article should remain for the foreseeable future, and that editors should get back to discussing changes before they are made. That worked well over the last few days, and I don't see why it cannot do so again.

I do not intend to have any further involvement with this article, so I have no stake in what happens next. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Immigrant racket

I disapprove the removal by ChrisO of this section and think it should be reinstated. Chris says ... In the body - removed a line that I felt was WP:UNDUE: "In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser.[33]" While it's reliably sourced, it doesn't seem to have been reported anywhere else and its significance is dubious, so I took it out. Good for him for raising it on the talk page. Please can we discuss it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Clear BLP violation (it was discussed on the BLP board I think - I would have to have a look back and see) so I support that removal. It appears everything was alleged and nothing even charged (it's not even clear his involvement). BLP policy suggests not including such things --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also support the removal. I can't see anything specific on this in WP:BLP, but a police investigation may conclude that no wrongdoing took place, or that the individual concerned had no part in any wrongdoing uncovered. It is quite wrong to mention such an investigation without (at minimum) a mention of the outcome of the investigation, and some evidence of the significance of the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly my reasoning. I remembered that someone had mentioned it on the BLP board, took a closer look at it and thought it was unsuitable for exactly the reasons set out by BHG and Errant. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghastly as this page is

Ghastly as this page is, I have no interest in this person at all, other than it has been brought to my attention how badly written it is - I thought you lot professed to speak English? Someone has reverted many of my edits of yesterday. However, I'm sure your esteemed enemy/friend, the noble lord, will agree with me: one works "on" a newspaper, not "where he worked as " One does not "accede" to a viscountcy one "succeeds." In this day and age, only the Son of God "accedes." Perhaps some English speaking Admin would attend to this. These are just a few of the things, on this page, making Wikipedia appear amateurish and, quite frankly, daft. This page has now been mentioned in the British Press don't you give a cuss how this appears?  Giacomo  18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it looks like the majority of your edits are still in place. Some of your wording, notably the "on"/"where" thing you mention, was changed by SlimVirgin [36]. "Accede" is, I believe, a valid usage (in the meaning of "enter upon an office or dignity" as Wiktionary puts it), but I agree that "succeed" would probably work better. Where have you seen the page being mentioned in the press? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It did go a bit crazy.. but probably it is not a good idea to be snarky :) The article got a lot of editing in a very short space of time. We are reworking the main sections though here on talk - why not help here. (@chris; accede is possibly technically correct but I would be shocked to see it commonly used, or for most people to understand it :D) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be obsolete usage. Maybe I need to update my English. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)