Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutral point of view?

I have little to offer except to observe that the guideline that states that the article should have a "neutral point of view" seems not to have been adhered to in this article. Davb1947 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)davb1947

Can you expand on this please? In what way is the article not balanced? If you don't want to edit the article yourself, can you at least direct us to sources that might help rebalance it? --PLUMBAGO 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. Take for instance, the following paragraph. I've highlighted the worst parts

During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again. Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it." The St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com described his assertions as "not only unsupported but preposterous" and awarded him a special rating of "britches on fire". Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet."

I hope I need not go through why this is extremely subjective. I'm going to look through it and see if I can come up with some way of transforming the text to a less subjective form. I hope no one will disagree with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree - we're talking about reliably sourced reviews of his statements, published in mainstream outlets. Removing content because you do not agree with it is not an acceptable way to proceed. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether I agree or not. Obviously the actual quotes are correct but how are they relevant? "Rocketed around the fringe"? "Woefully inadequate"? "Not only unsupported but preposterous"? "Britches on fire"? "Whacked-out, far right ideology combined with an ego the size of the antarctic ice sheet."? Seriously, how can you think having this many libelous quotes could in any way be considered neutral? Cpx86 (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They're relevant because they're reviews of Monckton's talks. Salon and Politifact.com went to the trouble of analysing his claims and reported them to be false. Ethan Baron actually attended one of his talks and came away with a strong (if unflattering) impression. Think of it as being like theatre or movie reviews. If you think it's unbalanced, then the thing to do is to find counter-balancing reliable sources, not delete the reliably sourced reviews that you dislike. Bear in mind that our sources are not required to be neutral - we are only required to report those sources neutrally, not present neutral sources (if any exist). I've tweaked the text a bit to take out some elements that I agree were not really necessary. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks better with the changes you made. I still have some disagreements though. True, the only requirement is to report available sources in a neutral manner. However, I think the number of quotes as it stands now gives the POV an undue weight. To achieve a more neutral tone, wouldn't it be better to write something like: "was picked up by numerous commentators [...] but was criticized by others [including Ethan Baron, Axel Koppelman and PolitiFact.com?] as inaccurate, unsupported and preposterous [links to relevant articles]". Some other details which I think could be more neutral: While the phrase "commentators on the American right", isn't in itself biased, the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are very often used in non-neutral contexts. I think it would be better to write "conservative commentators in America". Also, since there are references to several opposing viewpoints, it might be prudent to add a few of the supporting ones (Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage comes to mind). To use the verb "campaign" to describe his tour also seems a bit colored, since it is most often used for describing politicians promoting or pushing a particular political or ideological agenda. A more proper term would be "lecture" since it doesn't say anything about the intention of Monckton, it just reports what he did. Btw, the reason I deleted the text isn't that I dislike what it says. As I said I do intend to rewrite it somewhat to get a more neutral tone. The reason I deleted it was simply because I find it to be so biased that it's better if it's offline for a couple of days while it's being rewritten, rather than continuing to be online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll play around with the text later today to see what can be done about the issues that you raise - you've made some very reasonable suggestions. Let's also see if we can find some conservative commentary to represent that side of the argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll do some digging Cpx86 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Under "Climate Change", paragraph 6, beginning "Monckton played a key role ... in a bid to prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being shown ...". First, the title of "An Inconvenient Truth" should be replaced with a link to the wikipedia entry for the film. Second, (NPOV) this film should be referred to as "the controversial documentary An Inconvenient Truth", matching the treatment of "the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle" at the end of this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.142.66 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An astute observation. I agree fully. Cpx86 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Look a little further than the facade. TGGWS is a controversial film because it has almost universally been called such, that is not the case with AIT. There are literally meters (in screen lines) of discussion about this at both of the movies talkpage archives. NPOV is not "equal time". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Both films have been attacked by partisans on the other side. Maybe we should just remove the emotive description from TTGWS? Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone confirm whether the author of the critique of the APS article, Arthur Smith, is an RS? Seems unlikely to me. Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal challenge of AIT

@ChrisO: I understand your point about it already being represented. I was hesitant to add the info since it's discussed at length in another article. However, if the event is significant enough to merit a mention in this article, wouldn't it be prudent to present a short summary of the event quickly describing the background, process and resolution? Cpx86 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. It should be brief though, not more than a sentence or two. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Item removed to preserve the subject's confidentiality in his medical history.

Perhaps we can put up a less recent photo of Monckton that does not display his current medical condition? It's always nice to go to someone's wikipedia bio and see what they look like...Pitchperfect (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The current photo (accessed 1/09/2010) possibly violates the "Image choice and placement" guidelines under Wikipedia:Images policy for both clutter (he is off-center with blurry camera in foreground), as well as the Gloria Steinem example to display persons "alone, not with other individuals." It also possibly violates Wikipedia:Image use policy under "Content": "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)". IMO this image depicts the subject unflatteringly, as if he was just surprised or made unease. Investigating the context of the image on flickr.com reveals that it was taken by protestors who were engaging with Monckton, and he looks understandably uncomfortable. A more natural, composed picture which supports all above mentioned Wikipedia guidelines can be found at this flickr.com location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlschlesinger (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Lords

Many long comments have been made yet the article itself remains unchanged. That should not be the case. CHANGE IT. He is a member of the House of Lords, and to suggest that he has wrongly claimed to be is a libellous accusation. The article's author is ignorant to imagine that you get into the British House of Lords by standing for election. I am certainly not Lord Monckton, so why am I prevented from editing? The article is a collection of insulting and derogatory comments made about Monckton by biassed sources. That is not "neutral", "verifiable" or appropriate for an encyclopaedia. GET IT OFF THE WEB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I only know what I read in reliable sources. Here's the most recent entry in a search for [TEXT(Monckton) AND TEXT("House of Lords")]:

• Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column.
  • "Is the state guilty of child kidnap?" Christopher Booker. The Sunday Telegraph. London (UK): Jul 5, 2009. pg. 25

An older article in an American papers says:

• He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by a member's death.
  • "Global-warming skeptic shunned in Bali" David Greising and Laurie Goering. Sunday Gazette - Mail. Charleston, W.V.: Dec 23, 2007. pg. 14.A

Are there any recent sources that describe him as an sitting member of the House of Lords?   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Monckton has never been a member of the House of Lords, so there won't be any such sources. All but 92 of the hereditary peers were kicked out of the Lords in 1999 (see House of Lords Act 1999); Monckton only obtained his peerage in 2006. The by-election in question was to replace one of the 92 hereditary peers who had died; only other Tory hereditary peers could vote. See [1] for background info. You'll see Monckton listed as one of the 31 peers who received no votes. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO is correct in all of that. Monckton has used the word construct "I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords" which is correct but could (has been?) easily be twisted.[2] He does not have a seat but many of his peers do, and as ChrisO says, he has tried to get his bum on the leather but unsuccessfully so.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Senseless reverting

When an editor has been improving an article, over a period of time, edit by edit, noting in each edit summary what they are doing, other editors arriving and wholesale reverting hours of work rather than selectively reverting or tagging what appear uncontroversial edits is unacceptable. I don't care what the history of the article shows. The edits Bullwhip made were not controversial and do not need reverting. If there are are surprising claims which cannot be verified they should, of course, be removed, but a wholesale revert is not collegial. Anything else should have been dealt with by either partial revert or by tagging with one of the "fact" tags.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not the way that biographies of living people (BLPs) work. The approach you suggest is acceptable for non-biographical articles but Wikipedia's BLP policy mandates a different approach: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (bolding as in original). We do not tag biographical claims with "fact" tags. The policy states: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims" and also: "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." I have asked Bullwhip on his/her talk page to provide sources for the material that was added, and suggested that it be restored if it can be sourced adequately (see User talk:Bullwhip#Unsourced edits). Please do not revert to Bullwhip's version until and unless such sources can be found. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The material you reverted was not contentious. Is the name of his wife contentious? Is her being a peer contentious? What specific information was objectionable? You and Kim were online throughout most of these edits, they haven't been made in a huge batch, they have been slow progressive edits, you took no opportunity to say anything about the earlier edits, but now revert it all with suprious rationale. What OR was involved in him being a speech writer to Margaret Thatcher? It's easily verified. And none of it is libelous. Your arguments are a mere screen, you are reverting because you want to, not because you should. You should have fixed any "libels" by removing just them, you could have sought sources for anything you found objectionable in good faith, but you chose a mass revert. This is not how editors work collegially.--Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about "libels", it's about basic fact-checking. For instance, how do we know what the name of his wife is? How do we know what degree he took? How do we know what work he did for Margaret Thatcher? And so on. Without any reliable verifiable sources, we have no way of checking that information is true (and if it isn't true, then it does potentially pose legal problems). It's certainly good information if it's sourced; the problem is that it isn't. If it's "easily verified" then why don't you do it? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

3 times I have been "auto not saved" trying to reply because of new links and the like.[3] [4] [5] support all the info you've asked about, very easily found. I don't see how getting his wife's name, or the title of his degree, or indeed getting it wrong about him an advisor to Thatcher wrong would in anyway present a legal threat, I think that's over-egging it. All the information (except the debating society) is easily verifiable. You could have made a partial revert. You could have advised the editor whilst the edits were ongoing. You could have sourced some of it yourself. You could have done a partial revert, You could have done selective reverts. You could have just deleted the info that in good faith, you doubted. You instead reverted all that editors work.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First, the sources that you provided are not reliable (and one of them appears to be based on Wikipedia) - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Second, nothing has been deleted - it is still in the page history. All the editor has to do is provide sources for the material he added, none of which was sourced. To be fair, maybe the editor didn't know that he had to provide sources but I've advised him of that requirement. The ball's in his court now, so I suggest that we wait and see what he says; he doesn't appear to have responded yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, this is not the case. They appear reilable to me. I would contend that for the level of information being checked, they are reliable enough and there are more out there I'm sure. Do you actually in good faith doubt any of the info the editor added or is this just a jump-through-hoops/paper exercise. If you do doubt something there, please state what it is you doubt. As I pointed out you had many options that could have helped improved the article but instead you have thown up walls.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerrard, please stop attacking my motives. I've pointed out the sourcing requirements. They are not optional. That is all. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out that, out of all the options available to you, you chose the most uncollegial option. Your understanding of the "non-negotiable" requirements of sourcing is flawed: Information must be verifiable from reliable sources or may be removed, simple as that. I asked a simple enough question about what data you, in good faith, challeng and you just wave your hand, enough said.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's Who 2009 entry

• MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, 3rd Viscount, cr 1957
• Christopher Walter Monckton
• Born 14 Feb. 1952; s of 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, CB, OBE, MC and Marianna Laetitia (née Bower); m 1990, Juliet Mary Anne, y d of Jørgen Malherbe Jensen
• Director, Christopher Monckton Ltd, consultants, 1987–2006
• Succession: S father, 2006
• Education: Harrow; Churchill Coll., Cambridge (BA 1973, MA 1977); University Coll., Cardiff; Dip. Journalism Studies (Wales), 1974
• Career: Standing Cttee, Cambridge Union Soc., 1973; Treas., Cambridge Univ. Conservative Assoc., 1973. Reporter, Yorkshire Post, 1974–75, Leader-Writer, 1975–77; Press Officer, Conservative Central Office, 1977–78; Editor-designate, The Universe, 1978, Editor, 1979–81; Managing Editor, Telegraph Sunday Magazine, 1981–82; Leader-Writer, The Standard, 1982; Special Advr to Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, 1982–86; Asst Editor, Today, 1986–87; Consulting Editor, 1987–92, Chief Leader-Writer, 1990–92, Evening Standard. Freeman, City of London, and Liveryman, Worshipful Co. of Broderers, 1973–. Member: Internat. MENSA Ltd, 1975–; St John Amb. Brigade (Wetherby Div.), 1976–77; Hon. Soc. of the Middle Temple, 1979–; RC Mass Media Commn, 1979–; Sec. to Econ., Forward Strategy, Health, and Employment Study Gps, Centre For Policy Studies, 1980–82. Vis. Lectr in Business Studies, Columbia Univ., NY, 1980. Editor, Not the Church Times, 1982. Kt SMO, Malta, 1973; OStJ 1973. DL Greater London, 1988–96
• Publications: The Laker Story (with Ivan Fallon), 1982; Anglican Orders: null and void?, 1986; The Aids Report, 1987; Sudoku X, 2005; Sudoku X-mas, 2005; Sudoku Xpert, 2005; Junior Sudoku X, 2005; Sudoku Xtreme, 2005
• Heir: Hon. Timothy David Robert Monckton [b 15 Aug. 1955; m 1984, Jennifer Carmody; three s] Kittybrewster ☎ 14:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kittybrewster, that is most helpful.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fisking of APS Article by Arthur Smith

The "125 errors, irrelevancies and contradictions" seems to be a self-published critique by a non-RS. The 125 errors are debating

If no-one objects (or removes it themselves), I'm going to remove this in 48 hours. Slowjoe17 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the first diff where the first self-published source appeared, here it got reinserted by the same editor, again by different editor, and here comes the arXiv source. Reliability of arXiv source is difficult for me to assess, but the article linked appears to deal with "125 errors" only in one paragraph, which refers back (twice!) to the self published source. After those edits it has been a sustained effort by about three editors to keep this information in. Just a heads up... there is a reason why this bio reads and looks like a hackjob and caricature of a man :) Doc15071969 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to trace the "125 error" matter back to news sources (sounds unlikely that the matter never entered news, but I can't find anything at all outside blogs). If someone can help with WP:RS for the subject, let's look at it again; in the meantime I'm removing the content as per WP:BLP: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject".

I also feel that APS article and arguments around it are not something that merits separate section... Forgive the continuing brash characterizations, but this: "However, Dr. Roger Cohen, a Fellow of the APS Forum, followed Monckton's article by publishing an open letter in which he stated he had been moved to doubt about the reality of man-made climate change", sounds downright silly. Oh no/yes, Mr. Monckton managed to convince one APS scientist; let's note that in his bio! Please... :) Doc15071969 (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Change picture please...

I do not believe the copyright status of this picture. A previous usage of it can be found here: [6], where it is attributed/copyrighted to Mike Wilkinson. Apparently Bullwhip asserts that it is donated by Lord Monckton - and is free because he has uploaded it to Flickr [7] on the 20th of December. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've exchanged it with the older picture, hopefully Bullwhip can provide evidence for the copyright status - because the previous was a much better picture. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Several versions of the same image appear on the web - Mike Wilkinson appears to be this fellow, a Scottish photographer. It is quite possible that it was a work commissioned by Monckton and distributed as a file photo to various news outlets, but we would need to have some evidence of this before it can be used here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a neutral article

A neutral article would be one that stuck to the facts. This article devotes far more space to the insulting and derogatory views of other people than to the facts or views of the subject. Not one single quote from his arguments is included! It sets out to be damaging. For a start, may I explain that hereditary peers are still members of the House of Lords, although their voting rights have been taken away. Lord Monckton has never claimed to have voting rights. The article is trying to discredit him in a sneaky way. Nor has he ever claimed to have been a scientific advisor. If other people have made that claim, it is irrelevant and should be left out of the article.

It accuses him of having no scientific qualifications, I attempted to correct this in the interests of fairness and neutrality, by pointing out that he has as much scientific qualification as Al Gore, or indeed as Caroline Lucas, the UK's sole Green MEP. Both of the latter make a career out of talking about global warming (and Al Gore makes a lot of money out of it too).

I also put in a very timely reference to the exposure of global warming deception:-

"Monckton's view has been supported, and some would say vindicated, by the recent revelations of fraud and distortion by climate-change alarmists in the University of East Anglia. Their private e-mails, which were published on the internet, revealed that they had selected only those facts which suited their argument, suppressing or falsifying others, and taking steps to prevent the publication of research giving a different viewpoint. They made remarks such as "We must get rid of the mediaeval warm period"."

Finally, I removed the insulting picture and tried to upload a better one. This and all my other corrections were instantly and repeatedly obliterated by the climate change fanatics who think they have a right to bombard the world with propaganda for their point of view while censoring the other side.

One of them even sent me an insulting personal message!

It is high time that this article was made genuinely neutral or removed from the web as offensive. Saldezza (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Saldezza.

Your edits were, to put it bluntly, a mixture of outright falsehoods, unsourced additions, personal commentary and partisan deletions of sourced material. For example:

• Monckton is not a "non-voting" member of the House of Lords as you falsely imply - he is not a member, period (see the list of members here).
• Many of your additions were totally unsourced - e.g. "advised Margaret Thatcher on scientific matters from warship hydrodynamics to epidemiology and psephology", "the print edition of Physics and Society, and all previous editions, had carried a differently-worded statement to the effect that the jounal carried "reviewed articles".", and many more examples. Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy forbids adding unsourced material to such articles.
• POV deletion of sourced content - e.g. deletion of reference to Monckton's endorsement of Gavin Menzies' pseudohistorical claims about Chinese navigators in 1421, deletion of reviews of Monckton's lecture tour of the US and Canada, deletion of sourced material about Monckton's lack of scientific qualifications.
• Addition of personal commentary - "Also, to be fair, he has as much scientific background as Al Gore, or Caroline Lucas, the UK's sole Green MEP." Such material does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, let alone in a biographical article.

If you continue in this vein I will ask for you to be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a sick and disgusting hit piece

This article is a sick and disgusting hit piece.

- "scientific consensus on climate change" in the intro links to an article that describes "climate change consensus describes the public debate ..." - as used in this article, therefore, it becomes a misappropriation and manipulation of the term as, under the consensus definition of "climate change debate" within wikipedia, it could only describe a state of opposition to public debate

- the entire climate change section is simply a point-by-point rebuttal of Monckton's writings from a cornucopia of his opponents; it is not a fair and neutral treatment of Monckton's views on climate change - it is, instead, an itemization of Monckton's critics views on Monckton ... a critic's perspective is reasonable but a point-by-point rebuttal of Monckton's views is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry

Nothughthomas (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral point of view is not "equal time", but instead requires that we present the mainstream as the mainstream, and significant minority positions as such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires a "consistently impartial tone." Point-by-point rebuttals of policy positions is not a "consistently impartial tone." Presenting opposing viewpoints in a concise and consolidated section would be acceptable, itemization attacks is not. This is notwithstanding the improper use of the phrase "scientific consensus" which is not a WP:NOV issue. (As previously noted, Wikipedia defines that term as 'a description of the public debate' not 'a state of consensus among scientists'. In the absence of a citation that the subject of this entry is opposed to public debate, this needs to be reworded to achieve commonality of terminology within Wikipedia.) Nothughthomas (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I made one edit I would like to discuss.

In the Climate Change section I edited once, as follows:

- Following the note that APS Fellow Smith decried Monckton's APS article I noted that APS Fellow Cohen wrote in support of it. As only two APS Fellows publicly commented on the article in written form it would be deceptive to not include both.

- Glenn Beck is described as a "conservative commentator." Only for consistency of style I noted George Monibot is an editorial writer for the "center-left newspaper" The Guardian. Again, this is just for stylistic consistency.

- Rebutting someone's viewpoints point-by-point is rhetorical, not encyclopedic, style. I grouped criticism into a sub-section given principle prominence below a non rebutted overview of Monckton's views.

- I added several voices in support of Monckton's views in a secondary prominence sub-section below the aforementioned. With the exception of President Vaclav Klaus, I limited these to editorial writers since criticisms of Monckton in this entry are only from editorial writers.

- I also cleaned-up some horrible grammar issues.

I'm open to discussing this edit in a very extensive and exhaustive way for a prolonged period of time. Thanks, Nothughthomas (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So lets go through your changes:

1. changing "public opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change" to "outspoken opinions on climate change"

   This is clear POV (as discussed earlier). Moncktons arguments are in clear opposition to the Scientific opinion on climate change, and they are not political arguments (mostly) - thus sayin "outspoken opinion" is whitewashing and ignoring the mainstream opinion on the subject (clear breach of NPOV)

   It sounds like "climate change consensus" as defined by wikipedia does not correspond to your personal definition. According to wikipeida, "climate change consensus" is "the public debate over whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change." A citation was not made available showing Monckton is opposed to "the public debate over whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change." This is not a NPOV issue, this is a simple style issue. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Not a style issue, but a redirect. It should have linked to Scientific opinion on climate change. But it still doesn't matter, what Monckton is arguing is on the science (which >97% of all scientists agree on). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Refactoring into criticism/praise sections.

   This goes against the WP:CRITS. Not an improvement. The two sections ignore the parity of references (WP:WEIGHT) by presenting opposing views as if they were equally prevalent (which they aren't). Again NPOV breach (weight). Presenting things in sections with pro/contra intertwined is the most neutral way, since we present the whole picture in one.

   The views were equally relevant. An editorial writer for The Telegraph (James Delingpole) is equally relevant to an editorial writer for The Guardian. The President of the Czech Republic is as equally relevant to a 28 year-old staff writer for salon.com. This sounds like a POV issue you may have. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   No, a blog by Delingpole most certainly isn't as relevant as Monbiot. As for the Czech president - whats his relevance here? Why not cite the German, French, Danish head of state (hint: You won't because only the Czech one agrees with Monckton - See: WP:UNDUE). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Please don't let your POV color your participation in this entry. I could cite the Danish Speaker of Parliament, etc. if this is a general article about climate change, it is not; the reason I cite Klaus is because he mentions Monckton by name and his quote is germane to the entry. You need to appreciate that this is an encylopedia bio about a living person, not a summary of views on climate change. Please see WP:NOT if you need some assistance. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Describing Mobiot as an "editorial writer" while elevating Delingpole (a blogger) to "journalist" is rather clear POV. [Monbiot is a journalist who writes editorials and columns; Delingpole is a journalist who writes a blog; of the two Monbiot is the most notable and also the most respected].

   Can you provide a source citation that states Monbiot is more respected than Delingpole or is that simply your POV? Delingpole blogs at telegraph.co.uk and writes a column that appears in the print edition, just like Monbiot. I will concede that Delingpole should also be described as an editorial writer, an error on my part. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry - but you should be the one to do that, since you want Delingpole in. But this is indicative (in the news 2008-2009: Delingpole (99 times) Monbiot (1030 times)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Please see WP:NOR if you need assistance. Thanks!Nothughthomas (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - this is not an improvement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So you accept my other improvements since you didn't address them? Let's leave this open for several more days or weeks to allow community consensus to build and a vibrant and open discussion to occur. Wikipedia is not a race. Please do not make wholesale edits without discussion. Please do not make wholesale edits 4 minutes after posting discussion. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You moved all of the criticism of Monckton's views into a separate "criticism section". Wikipedia articles are not structured that way. The segregation of different viewpoints is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy - see WP:NPOV#Article structure. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris - thanks much; on further review of that section I do notice this is the case and was not aware of that before. I'll go through and seamlessly weave my sources into the entry. Thank you for this clarification. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you hold on before you do that? There are sourcing problems with the content you added. We are not supposed to use blogs as sources for biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP#Self-published sources - Delingpole's blog and Newsbusters therefore can't be used as sources. I'm not familiar with The New American, but I see it's the journal of the John Birch Society, a notoriously extreme group; I would be very surprised if this could be considered a reliable source. You might want to ask about it on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'll look for alternate sources for those. I agree New American is not a good source. In the meantime I'll also go ahead and remove the salon.com reference, as it's from their war room blog. Nothughthomas (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

this entry is really rambling

Aside from content issues, this entry is really kind of a rambling train wreck rife with grammar issues and poor structure and flow. I think its length also gives undue weight to the subject. A lot could be cut down. Nothughthomas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

Proposal to Delete 'Views on AIDS'

Entry is about a subject who is frequently in the news many dozens of times per year and yet two interviews he gave 21 years ago about a single, niche subject warrant one of only three sub-sections under Political Views? I request consensus from non-problem contributors to delete. Nothughthomas (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should AGF on the part of all contributors. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, you and I are 100% on the same page, Kittybrewster! We should definitely AGF in the case of all non-problem contributors and not file noticeboard complaints in retribution. (e.g. of one recently made against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nothughthomas_reported_by_User:KimDabelsteinPetersen_.28Result:_.29) Nothughthomas (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. We should assume Kim and you are neither of you "problem contributors". So far as Monckton's views on AIDS were and are concerned, I believe he did think all HIV positive people should be rounded up and contained, but that he now thinks it is far too late for such a policy. The former view is sourced and should remain. The latter view is merely my impression from something I recently read and therefore needs a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I never identified any user as a "problem user." I was simply stating, generally, I would appreciate non-problem users input. If anyone chose to misconstrue that statement as me identifying another editor as a "problem user", I regret that you experienced confusion.

As far as AIDS, I think you are 100% correct on both points. I don't dispute the accuracy of this section one bit; withstanding even my personal views that Monckton is a detestable person for all his anti-climate change, and his homophobic views. However, as a NPOV contributor - even though I truly despite Monckton - I do have to note that to have 1/3 of the sub-sections in the Political Views section be about 2 interviews he gave 20 years ago when he's conducted hundreds of interviews on a wide variety of topics, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothughthomas (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You could cut it down it size but it is however an important part of his bio and mention of it should remain. He caused a lot of controversy with his statements so naturally it should be mentioned here mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article itself claims that his views merely "have been the subject of some controversy", yet little later - rephrasing what Bruce Bawer wrote, citing as evidence that Spectator editor "denounced" it in the letters column, that Monckton's article was "highly controversial". Little later - that he was yet able to cite on BBC a poll indicating public support for what is referred to as "his position" (not exactly highly controversial then, at that time?). So which is it? The section looks like cumbersome synthesis attempting to impart the sense controversy. At the very least, I'd propose to remove (or pare down) other people's/cited author's evaluations of his AIDS policy remarks - leave it to the readers to evaluate them.

I would oppose the removal of this section. Monckton's views on AIDS are significant for two reasons. First, they caused considerable controversy and comment at the time (so much so that the American Spectator's editorial staff felt moved to denounce his article in the same issue in which it was published - that's unusual, to say the least). Second, they are cited by numerous other sources in conjunction with the development of public policy and societal views towards the AIDS epidemic, so they are certainly of historical importance. Works citing Monckton's writings on the subject and specifically the American Spectator piece include Simon Watney, Policing desire: pornography, AIDS, and the media; Bruce Bawer, A place at the table: the gay individual in American society; Stanislav Andreski, Syphilis, puritanism and witchhunts; Virginia Berridge, AIDS in the UK: the making of a policy, 1981-1994, and others. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points, though, after cursory look, sources seem to mention him in passing - i.e. he does not seem to have been very influential or even very 'invested' (two articles and BBC debate are mentioned) in the debate. Bawer's scope looks broader - not devoted to AIDS policy specifically, - and it seems to be the only source expressly inferring controversiality. I do lean now towards including "views on AIDS", if for no other reason than because those seem to be vastly more notable and more often mentioned in sources than the Euroscpticism stuff (I'm tempted to remove lead-in sentence of that section, or request (self)published reference to "many years" part: "Monckton has been an advocate of Euroscepticism for many years"; the contents of the section suggest involvement only episodically, but I may have missed something and will continue looking). But back to AIDS - I'd once again suggest taking out (or at least harmonizing) express evaluations of controversiality and the degree of it. Doc15071969 (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you produce a draft version and post it here on this talk page? Then we can discuss it and get some consensus on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Credentials

I don't want to sound too dismissive but at the moment significant part of article reads like a collection of Monckton's detractors talking points attacking his credibility. Take, for instance, this sentence: "He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar," citing Michael Coren's opinion piece. It's nothing but a pretext to then add comments questioning his credentials, IMO. Does the claims and opinions or quarrels of everyone who can pronounce in some written source on Monckton's credentials, or the lack of them, really deserve a place in his bio? Doc15071969 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point, most certainly they do not. This would be like having the birth certificate "controversy" about Barack Obama appear at the forefront of the entry about him. Obviously inappropriate and it is not done. I second the request for deletion of the offending section. Nothughthomas (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since his credentials are the subject of significant controversy, we do need to describe this dispute. It's a matter of record that some parties have promoted Monckton's expertise while others have deprecated it. The birth certificate controversy is not an applicable example, as that has always been a fringe issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete 'Social Policy'

This section doesn't actually contain the social policy of the entry. It contains several oblique critiques by different news and commentary sources on his social policy, which is never actually identified. I request consensus from non-problem contributors to delete. Nothughthomas (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you do not use the phrase "non-problem contributors" you should always other editors are acting in good faith. I also see no problem with that section, i`ll take a closer look when time allows. --mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, I enjoy expressing myself freely and without guidance or counsel by a "free-speech ombudsman." If you, in turn, have a WP:CIVIL complaint to make against me, this would not be the correct forum in which to do it. Please see WP:CIVIL if you need help. Thanks - Nothughthomas (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Not a Neutral Article , continued. I must object to the aggressive and confused threats made by somebody called ChrisO. After getting my edits thoroughly mixed up with somebody else's he has threatened to have me blocked from Wikipedia! Stalinist tactics indeed. I think that the remarks I made comparing the scientific qualifications of Al Gore or Caroline Lucas MEP to those of Lord Monckton were not only appropriate, and logical, but highly informative. They put in perspective the accusations being made by fanatics and vigilantes. You, Mr ChrisO, are in the business of censorship. You are shrill and intolerant. It embarrasses you to admit that the vast majority of Greens have no scientific qualifications themsleves, and it ANGERS you (oh, yes!) to be reminded of the LEAKED proof of fraud by climate change lobbyists. Everybody knows about those e-mails from the UEA. Yours is not the only point of view, though you seem intent on imposing it on the entire world. My edits should all be put back in immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your edits was WP:Verifiable and WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not the place to write your own personal opinions. Do that on your blog if you must, but not here. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Further amendments

Nothughthomas, thanks for your recent edits. I've made a few further amendments:

• You'll recall I mentioned that we're not supposed to use blogs as sources for statements about third parties. I've taken out Delingpole's blog and replaced it with Monckton's own response to Monbiot. (I don't really see the point of using third parties when Monckton can speak for himself anyway.)

That's no problem; I took care of deleting the salon.com blog that was here when I found this article so everything is good then. Nothughthomas (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• You added an unsourced sentence, which I've taken out: "In 1987, Monckton founded a consultancy company, Christopher Monckton Ltd., where he served as a director until he retired because of ill health in 2006." I have no objection to its inclusion if it can be sourced, but please make sure that anything you add does have a citation.

That's fine; to clarify, I did not add this. It was already in the article, I simply moved it into the "Career" section. Nothughthomas (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted a couple of lines on Monckton's status as a peer. I've restored these, since they are a significant biographical point and evidently an issue that's caused some confusion. Since the House of Lords by-election seems to be the closest he's come to running for any political office, it's definitely worth mentioning. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, deletion was inadvertent. Nothughthomas (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Caption source.

The source for the caption is the original source of the photo: [8]. I add a citation. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess. I've shortened it a bit - it was too long and included extraneous detail; it's surely not necessary to include Monckton's opinion of the people confronting him (and I note that the inclusion of that material was rejected following a discussion above - see #'Hitler Youth'). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the citation and restored Monckton's description of the people confronting him. It is certainly pertinent information for this particular image. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've brought the caption into compliance with MOS:CAPTIONS by restoring ChrisO's edit. Besides, the "Hitler Youth" statement occurred on December 9. According to the caption, the image was taken on December 10. Nothughthomas (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your version is no more compliant than the version you reverted. They both suffer from same (and the only) violation, namely it is italicized.

"According to the caption, the image was taken on December 10." - Really? Where is this stated? December 10 is the date that Matthew McDermott uploaded the original to Flickr, not the date it was taken. Also, one of the two of you has edited the summary of the file to remove the "Hitler Youth" part that I had added, and in so doing you have mangled it. Please fix it and restore the "Hitler Youth" portion of the description while you are at it. I updated it with the full caption from flicker. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon rereading the caption on Flickr, however, it says "The evening before youth activists from SustainUS disrupted an event Lord Monckton, a prominent climate change skeptic, was holding. Mockton called them 'Hitler Youth'." So, apparently the photo is not from the event itself but the night before. I suggest we use the caption the original owner chose on Flickr. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a comma missing in that sentence: "The evening before, youth activists..." Other pictures in the same sequence make the chronology clear: "especially after he called a group of youth climate change activists "Hitler Youth" last night." [9] Also, you're mistaken about December 10 being merely the date of uploading. The date is when the picture was taken - it's encoded in the file's metadata by the camera. See [10] for the full dataset. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think you are correct. That explains the time discrepancies AND agrees with timestamp from the photo. I stand corrected. Sorry for the confusion. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. It's important we trust science and technology and the mainstream views about it. While digital date encoding certainly is prone to human manipulation there is no compelling evidence that occurred in case of this photo. I'm glad you are no longer choosing to deny the scientific consensus regarding the date this photo was taken. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits for Discussion

I request consensus on the following edits.

1. "VIEWS ON AIDS" - I request the title of this be changed simply to "AIDS" for stylistic reasons. This is a sub-section of a section titled "Political Views" and every other sub-section is titled simply with the topic of the views, not "VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE", etc. Retitling this as "AIDS" would achieve commonality of style.

2. DELETION OF LAST SENTENCE IN AIDS SECTION - This sentence - "Monckton has since clarified his views on AIDS, stating that "the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work." - not only has no citation but is irreconcilable with any academically acceptable source. There is no proof he made this statement. I would like to request it either be cited or deleted.

3. "EUROPEAN INTEGRATION" - I request the title of this be changed to "EUROPEAN UNION." The topic of European integration is broad with many touchpoints. Monckton has only spoken on the European Union, specifically. He has not spoken substantially on other touchpoints of European integration such as EFTA, NATO, the OSCE, the Nordic Council, etc.

4. MOVEMENT OF LAST TWO SENTENCES IN SOCIAL VIEWS SECTION - These two sentences - "In more recent years, he has been associated with the Referendum Party, advising its founder Sir James Goldsmith, and in 2003 he helped a Scottish Tory breakaway group, the People's Alliance.[39] In 2009 he joined the UK Independence Party.[40]." - more properly belong in the European Union section. Both detail his affiliation with political parties that are, virtually, single-issue, that issue being the role of the UK in the EU.

5. GRAVES DISEASE - Keep mention of, and link to, Graves disease but delete description of symptoms. The entry is a biography about Monckton not a an entry about Graves disease. A simple acknowledgment he has it is fine. If people are interested in learning about the symptoms of Graves disease they can click on the hyperlink to the appropriate entry.

6. MOVEMENT OF PARAGRAPH - I have no problem with this paragraph: "Editorial writer for The Guardian George Monbiot has criticised Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish,"[18]. In response, Monckton argued that he "got the science right", claiming that Monbiot got "too many facts wrong" and had shown "ignorance of the elementary physics".[19]" ... however, it's just sitting randomly in the middle of the Climate views section; the positioning is nonsensical and makes rough reading of the entry. I propose moving it to the end of that section, just prior to the APS sub-section.

Nothughthomas (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Sounds reasonable.

OK; in the absence of disagreement from someone else by Monday I'll make this edit. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2) I've found the source, the Chicago Tribune of Aug 14, 1999 (Google is your friend!). It probably got lost at some point. I'll add a citation shortly.

Thanks; I withdraw my request for deletion. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it got deleted here, with summary "remove reference that doesn't match quoted text" (what an unnecessary waste of time...). Perhaps "quarantine" needs to be moved out of quote to passage introducing it (or removed altogether) and "this" put back in. I'm not sure use of "clarified" actualy clarifies what is being clarified (is it any kind of retreat from the positions expressed earlier?). Maybe give just a fair rephrase along the lines of: "... stating that, with the number of people infected worldwide growing to 33 million in 1999, the quarantine proposal has become unworkable". Doc15071969 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, "clarified" is rather editorialising, isn't it? Your suggested wording works better, I think. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

3) Sounds reasonable.

OK; in the absence of disagreement from someone else by Monday I'll make this edit. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided here. As the text currently stands it is reasonable, but i believe that M's views aren't so much Euroscepticism, as it is opposed to any form of integration into multi-government cooperation. Ie. that he sees this as a move towards Europe as a country and further as a move towards World Government. Does anyone have more background here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen him advocate against any form (included among "any" = NATO, OSCE, the Nordic Council, EFTA, etc.). It sounds like you have academically valid sources you could cite, however, indicating I'm mistaken. If you could share those with the community I'm sure we'd appreciate it. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. I suspect he probably doesn't think much of the UN either. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, suspicion and gut feelings aren't a good guiding principle in the composition of encyclopedia entries. My preference is for facts support by citation. I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this point. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

4) I'm not sure about this. It would virtually empty the social policy section, though admittedly that section needs a major rethink. Let me see if I can come up with an alternative solution.

I don't think we should keep illogically out-of-place phrases in illogical places out of concern that correctly cataloging them would eliminate a sub-section. If a sub-section can only justify its existence by the placement of illogically placed information then there are larger issues with the relevance and usefulness of said sub-section. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right on that point, but we should agree on what is to be done with that subsection rather than just junking the whole thing. Some of it can probably be reused elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

5) I don't think we should do this. WP:BLP requires us to respect the privacy of individuals. As far as I know M. hasn't made his illness a public issue, unlike (say) Terry Pratchett's Alzheimer's campaign. It would be rather intrusive and undue weight for us to document it in the absence of it being a significant issue in his public life.

I revise my original request to now demand fast deletion of the entire sentence regarding Graves disease. Both citations point to blogs which, as we've already established, can not be used as sources. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I see you've removed it already. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

6) The Monbiot/Monckton bit is in the right place. The exchange of views was in response to Monckton's Sunday Telegraph pieces in 2006, which are discussed in the immediately preceding para. It's nothing to do with what he wrote for the APS nearly two years later. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For expediency of editing, I withdraw my request without prejudice, however, would like to request we delete the word "has" in the first sentence between "Monbiot has criticized" so it reads "Monbiot criticized" which provides more direct linkage to the Telegraph editorial. As it reads now we might be led to assume the criticism was general, not targeted to a specific piece of commentary by Monckton. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Status of Edit Debates

Because this is spanning many sections, I have condensed it into one for efficacy. If I have your position incorrect, please edit directly to the below, or make an addition if your position is not reflected at all. Please use the sections above for continued discussion, use this for a tally of our current status only. Since many of these requests have been out for close to a week, I will make the changes requested on Monday to any which have (a) 70% 60% (changed to 60% - the standard used for consensus in a recent discussion in the Medieval period entry to which many participants in this discussion were party) or greater support in favor versus opposition, and (b) vote from at least 3 editors, which will have provided both adequate time for discussion and reflects a consensus building percentage. Nothughthomas (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I - Move the Last 2 Sentences from Social Policy section to European integration section

In Favor: Nothughthomas

Opposed:

Undecided: ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen

II - Change "VIEWS ON AIDS" to "AIDS."

In Favor: Nothughthomas, ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen

Opposed:

Undecided:

III - Change "EUROPEAN INTEGRATION" TO "EUROPEAN UNION"

In Favor: Nothughthomas, ChrisO

Opposed:

Undecided: Kim D. Petersen

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

In Favor: Doc15071969, Nothughthomas

Opposed: ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen, kittybrewster

Undecided:

V - Delete entire AIDS section

In Favor: Doc15071969, Nothughthomas, Saldezza

Opposed: mark nutley, ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen, kittybrewster

Undecided:

VI - Add a Delete "has" between the words "Monbiot" and "criticized"

In Favor: Nothughthomas, ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen

Opposed:

Undecided:

VII - Delete Image

In Favor: Saldezza

Opposed: ChrisO,

Opposed (but open for image changes): Kim D. Petersen, kittybrewster

Undecided: Nothughthomas

VIII - Delete St. Petersburg Times PolitiFact.com quotes (note, the logo displayed at the URL politifact.com says "ST. PETERSBURG TIMES POLITIFACT.COM" ... please choose accuracy over POV shaping in correct identification of sources)

In Favor: Saldezza, Nothughthomas

Opposed: ChrisO, Kim D. Petersen

Undecided:

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NHT has been blocked for tendendious editing; everyone else agrees the tag is good

I have severe and serious issue with the scope of entries being tagged for probation. Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has been tagged for probation even though it is a bio of a living person that only incidentally deals with climate change. The person in question is notable for reasons other than climate change. This is not at all in the spirit of this resolution to tag any entry in which the words "climate change" may incidentally appear and has clearly been done to stifle discussion on an issue related to the living person's views on AIDS. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs) I've explained this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Enacted. Please direct follow-up discussions there - thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. By way of this final note I am providing awareness to other participants in the, now stifled, vibrant and interesting discussion on Monckton's views on AIDS and European integration, that they may support or protest the decision to enact censorship protocols on the Monckton entry there. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It's not a "censorship protocol". The aim is to reduce problematic conduct, not to censor articles. You may be interested to know that articles relating to Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are under similar restrictions - see Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Uh-huh. I think Juan Peron's stated goal was also to "reduce problematic conduct" when he shut-down La Prensa.Nothughthomas (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) No doubt, and the same thing was probably on Adolf Hitler's mind when he passed his Enabling Act of 1933. There, I've saved you the trouble of breaching Godwin's Law. Can we close this discussion now that the Nazis have been mentioned? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I don't appreciate your tone. WP: CIVIL. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I see from Godwin's Law that it is apparently "considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread." -- ChrisO (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I will caution you that violations of WP:DWIP can lead to a block or ban. You have, through your intent and actuation, managed to completely derail this discussion. It is recommended you exercise a seven-day period of self-sanction from further discussion in this article to allow the discussion to return to the topical and uninterrupted flow it previously enjoyed. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Oh well, evidently a bit of levity isn't working. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) The is no consensus to consider this article a "climate change" article. Please remove the probation template immediately and do not replace it until such time as there is a consensus to consider this article "climate change" related. --GoRight (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It's not up to you to determine which articles are climate change related. As I requested before, please discuss the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change, where the scope of the sanctions have already been agreed. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, neither is it up to YOU to make unilateral decisions of this sort. And I have raised the issue there. --GoRight (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Using the DYK-check tool, it's apparent that either this is a climate change article, or it has serious WP:UNDUE problems. At present, 51% of the "readable text" characters (6775/13241) and 50% of the "readable text" words (1058/2133) are either in the climate change-related section or the climate change-related final sentence of the lead. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It has serious WP:UNDUE problems. Attempts to correct this have been frustrated by a combination of sockpuppets and activist contributors/admins. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Guettarda makes an excellent point. The climate change section(s) of this article should be removed immediately. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) agreed Nothughthomas (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Hang on a second - Monckton is a prominent climate change sceptic, whose public profile is based predominately on his climate change scepticism, and you want to remove everything about that from the article? How does that make any sense? -- ChrisO (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere. Both User:GoRight and I support deletion of climate change. We note your opposition. Any other opinions? Nothughthomas (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Do I have to remind you that this article is covered by article sanctions? Deleting all the climate change info from the biog of a prominent climate change sceptic would certainly be seen as WP:POINTy. I must caution you that any attempt to do that is unlikely to be viewed favourably by others. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It's unnecessary either to remind us of the censorship protocols you've currently enacted on a large section of wikipedia, nor to attempt to impress us with the potency of your administrative powers. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I haven't enacted the sanctions (let's get the terminology right!), the community has. You've made your objection clear to the community on the admins' noticeboard and I'm sure your views will be received with all the seriousness they deserve. In templating articles which the community has defined as being within the scope of these sanctions, I'm merely acting as the humble tool of the community. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Please don't assert faux mandate by referring to yourself as "the community." It is discourteous of the great bulk of wikipedia editors who don't appreciate the current censorship protocols as evidenced from the tilting discussion on relevant pages. Thank you for considering this request. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not referring to myself as "the community". The sanctions have been agreed by a number of experienced administrators, with the encouragement of the arbitration committee. Administrators are empowered, by virtue of their appointment as administrators, to make decisions about the management of pages where problems are occurring (page protection is a trivial example). -- ChrisO (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC) If it's so important for you to get in the last word then fine. I won't dispute any of the outrageous claims made herein, User:ChrisO, or should I call you User:TheCommunity? Nothughthomas (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In my opinion this should be correctly classified as a climate change article, at least at present, because the subject is a prominent figure in the current controversy over global warming, and there is a very high likelihood of future conflict over the science and politics of global warming occurring in this article. And really, what's the harm in reminding people to behave well to each other? Thparkth (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Blindingly obviously true.As to the image, let it be replaced when another better image which is clearly without copyright issues is available. No image at all is unacceptable.Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NEUTRAL? What a joke! The founders of Wikipedia claim to have a "neutral policy" but this is a complete joke. Maybe originally they were intellectually naive enough not to realize that there is no such thing as a neutral policy, but now they are just hypocrites. It's rather like the Free Elections in a communist country - yes, you can freely stand for election so long as you are a member of the communist party!!!! Wikipedia is actually controlled by a small number of "Administrators" who select each other as "suitable". They have the power to vet, delete or change anything in any article, and many of them appear to work round the clock as they are dedicated to promoting their own obsessions. They expunge within minutes any attempts to change their point of view. They restore the insulting or biassed material they wish to display. They go further and quickly block or ban anyone who does not conform to their dictates. They then police the web to prevent anybody from that server ever registering on Wikipedia again.

These tactics are in my view despicable. 

Take, for example, the Wikipedia articles on two leading British figures, Caroline Lucas MEP and Chris Monckton, the notorious global-warming sceptic. If Wikipedia were neutral, these articles would conform to a CONSISTENT template. Instead, the article on Lucas, a global-warming fanatic, is wholly uncritical and reads like a party political broadcast. The article on him is just an assassination! It consists of few facts, quite a few errors, and the rest is vilification. A collection of insults from people whose point of view is as far from neutral as the administrators' themselves. Neutral? Ha ha!Yet the recent revelations about fraud on the part of global-warming scientists in the UEA and the USA (Phil Jones and co, Michael Mann) have to a great extent supported, even vindicated Monckton's views, while those of Lucas have been shown to be naive. It would be fair to put into Lucas's entry that she "has no scientific or economic qualifications" since the article on Monckton thinks it necessary to include such a remark. Yet when I included that, and some factual material about the errors in Lucas's publications or the contradictions in her policies, the administrators not only erased it but immediately resorted to blocking me. I also got insulting e-mails. What hypocrites they are. They designate as "edit-warring" anything that goes against their fixed prejudices. Doubtless they will soon ban me as the final proof that they are neither neutral nor interested in being accurate. PS IT is absolutely true that Monckton has Graves disease. He has stated so in an E-mail sent to me in response to the discussion of his article. Saldezza (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.

Just picking up on the Graves disease point. Yes he seems happy to reveal his condition. He described it as an endocrine disorder which has necessitated surgery in, I think, the Guardian. Poor fellow. The relevant issues are (1) is that a reliable verifiable source? (2) it results in the ocular proptosis which is visible in a number of photographs of him. Should that consequence be mentioned in this article? My opinion is that his condition should be mentioned and a photograph should be shown. Not necessarily this photograph but one such as this which has no copyright problems. They are strictly factual matters. But I do see that an email from the subject to Saldezza is not a good source. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like the suggestion that he had surgery in the Guardian - who knew they had an operating theatre there? ;-) This issue has been discussed before. My opinion then, which is unchanged now, is that including this information would be unnecessarily intrusive into the subject's privacy and would be undue weight on the issue. You've stated that he has disclosed his condition to the media on one occasion but this does not make it a significant part of his public profile. It's not like Terry Pratchett's public campaign on Alzheimer's Disease, from which he suffers, and it hasn't attracted media interest in the same way that Barbara Bush's own case of Graves' disease did. So I would say that it shouldn't be included until and unless it becomes a significant, well-covered issue in Monckton's public life. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We have had problems with the photograph being removed or replaced with a clear copyright violation twice now and it hasn't been there long. It also seems that there are some people who disagree with the consensus on Climate Change who are engaged in POV pushing who don't want anything remotely critical of a climate sceptic appearing on Wikipedia. Just look above. And this includes a photograph that presents Viscount Monckton as having bulging eyes. We have a good source for the statement in the form of his own blog. There is no stigma to being ill, surely and it is only fair to Viscount Monckton that we explain that the reason he looks a little odd in the photograph is that he has a medical condition. Furthermore, he has made claims which are repeated in a reliable source that he has developed , inter alia, on a cure for the disease. There are questions as to the credibility of these claims but that isn't really relevant. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/10/viscount-monckton-ukip

QUOTING THE ARTICLE

Now, on the CV attached to his announcement of his Ukip candidacy, he claims to be "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves' disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV." END OF QUOTE

I'm not suggesting that we incorporate any of that article directly in Wikipedia, as it is clearly a deliberately critical piece, but it is a reliable source, a prominent newspaper. It is reliable enough to answer the question of significance. Neilj (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Note that it doesn't say that Monckton himself suffers from Graves' disease (or for that matter MS or HIV). We can't use it to source a statement to that effect. By the way, where is "his own blog"? I wasn't aware that he had one. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I don't say that the article I quoted is a reliable source for his having Graves Disease. That is established in the blog that he writes. The article IS however evidence that Graves Disease is significant in relation to him BECAUSE he claims to have a cure. This counters what you say about his campaigning on it. He quite obviously does in some shape or form. I also note that we have had another problem with someone deleting the photo yet again because , it seems to me, that they want a more flattering one.

Neilj (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's original research in the form that you put it. I don't dispute that he has Graves' Disease, or that he claims to have found a cure for it (along with a host of other conditions). A passing mention reported second-hand in a gossip column is not, however, a very good source to start with, and it doesn't convince me that there's a good case for intruding into Monckton's private life. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename article

Seems we should rename the article to drop the absurd 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley stuff. Simply Christopher Monckton with a dab tag for the other guy. Why include a pompous title that was inherited and not earned. I am aware of the tabloidish infatuation with royalty and nobility, but Monckton isn't a member of the house of lords. Vsmith (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While this is in keeping with the MOS for articles about nobility, Monckton isn't most commonly known as "Viscount Monckton of Brenchley", as far as I can tell. So I think that "Christopher Monckton" would be the better title. Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. He is the 3rd Viscount and the title is neither an exaggerated dignity nor pretentious; it is part of who and what he is. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But he's also "Christopher Walter Monckton", according to the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kitty, and I note that Monckton is routinely referred to by media sources as "Lord Monckton" or "Viscount Monckton"; he is also often referred to by mostly American sources as "Lord Christopher Monckton", though this is erroneous as the first name is not supposed to be used with a title. The usage of titles is covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British peerage, which provides a number of comparable examples; the only relevant exception for excluding the peerage dignity is where peers are known "exclusively by their personal names", which clearly isn't the case here. Omitting the title would also be inconsistent with the usage for his forebears Gilbert Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and Walter Monckton, 1st Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Finally, I think Monckton himself would reject the view that the use of his title is "absurd" and "tabloidish infatuation"; as you can see from this letter he sent in 2008, he refers to himself, and signs his correspondence, as "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense to me. Guettarda (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And I agree the title as displayed is pretentious. Please simplify, and add the honorifics to the beginning of the articule immediately below the title. Jlschlesinger (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By way if support for changing this, ChrisO mentioned Monckton is "routinely referred to by the media sources as "Lord Monckton". For one, then it follows the title of the Wikipedia article should also be therefore termed "Lord Monckton", not "Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley". A slightly more deep media check shows that the term ['Christopher Monckton'] resulted in 239,000 hits on google, while ['Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley'] resulted in only 45,700 hits. He should be referred to here by the term most commonly associated used everywhere else. Jlschlesinger (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon comment moved here:

Errors by Wikipedia in Lord Monckton’s biography

Please note that a well-funded campaign paid for by a convicted fraudster who owns a solar-energy corporation and thus has a vested interest in advancing the "global warming" scare is linked to various people who, full time, detrimentally edit the Wikipedia pages of scientists and others who question the alarmist viewpoint. They use automatic bots to monitor the pages, and automatically reverse within minutes any changes intended to restore the truth and remove inaccuracies. The Monckton biography is one of those pages that has been subjected to this corrupt form of editing. Users should note that the following are among the offending passages that have appeared, and may still appear, and which Wikipedia refuses to remove.

Offending passage 1: “.. and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change”. Reason for correction: “Mainstream scientific consensus” is a matter of opinion, not of biographical fact. Furthermore, tendentious commentary of this kind has no place in what is presented as though it were supposed to be a factual biography. Proposed correction: Replace by “and opposes the theory that anthropogenic climate change may prove catastrophic”.

Offending passage 2: “Although he has in the past stated that he is ‘a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature,’[3] Monckton has never been a member of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons.” Reason for correction: Lord Monckton has never said he is a sitting member of the House of Lords: he is, however, a member of the Upper House by succession (hence his title), is registered as such on the list of Peers entitled to be elected by his fellow hereditary peers, and, as a member of the House in good standing, is entitled to use its facilities, though not to speak or vote in the Chamber, for it is in this sense alone that the House of Lords Act 1999 removes the right of membership from hereditary Peers. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete this damaging libel altogether. Otherwise, replace by “He is a hereditary peer, but his father’s automatic right to sit and vote, like that of most hereditary Peers, was terminated by the Peerage Act 1999”.

Offending passage 3: “… he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt.” Reason: Lord Monckton fabricated no such story and has never said that he did so. We note that this passage is not referenced. Whatever the reference that may (or may not) underlie this libel, it is false. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete altogether. Otherwise, replace by “… he sold his house one month before he was required to pay the £1 million prize to the winners.”

Offending passage 4: “Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" [7] who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party.” Reason: This is a tendentious, inaccurate, and somewhat pejorative misrepresentation of Lord Monckton’s opinions and political and religious affiliations. In particular, Lord Monckton has not been “closely associated with the ‘New Right’”. In fact, he is known chiefly for his expert knowledge of reforming taxes and benefits to end working-class poverty, a matter on which he advised Margaret Thatcher during her term as Prime Minister, leading inter alia not only to the sale of 1 million council houses to their tenants but also to major reforms of the structure of both taxes and benefits, including ending the separate taxation of husband and wife, to the great benefit of families; significant increases in child benefits as a step towards eradicating primary poverty; a root-and-branch reform and simplification of housing benefit; and the ending of large-scale homelessness by compelling local authorities either to put tenants in empty publicly-owned houses or to sell them at advantageous prices to poor people who could not otherwise afford to house themselves. None of these hallmark policies could by any stretch of the imagination be described as “New Right”, or right wing at all. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 5: “In more recent years, he has been associated with the Referendum Party, advising its founder Sir James Goldsmith, and in 2003 he helped a Scottish Tory breakaway group, the People's Alliance”. Reason: This passage is misleading. In fact, it was Lord Monckton’s consultancy company that acted, in a professional capacity, for Sir James Goldsmith, and also for the Scottish People’s Alliance. The words “Scottish Tory breakaway group” are a matter of opinion and have no place in a supposedly unprejudiced biographical entry. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete altogether. Otherwise, replace by “Lord Monckton’s consultancy company has acted for several political parties, among others Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, providing it with the names of many hundreds of candidates, and the People’s Alliance (later the New Party), whose first manifesto he helped to draft.”

Offending passage 6: “Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy.” Reason: This formulation goes beyond a mere biographical entry. Proposed correction: Either delete the entire passage about AIDS altogether or replace by “Lord Monckton’s recommendations in 1985/6, following advice from specialist medical researchers into HIV, that AIDS should be treated like any other fatal infection were not acted upon. Since that time, according to UN statistics, some 25 million people have died of AIDS, and 40 million more are infected. Lord Monckton regards this as a cruel and continuing tragedy, and is currently working with academic medical specialists to find a cure, which is to be tested shortly.”

Offending passage 7: “… there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." Reason: this quotation has been wrenched out of context, and is incomplete and, consequently, unfair to Lord Monckton. Proposed correction: Either delete the entire passage about AIDS altogether or add: “Lord Monckton made plain, however, that isolation of the infected – the standard method for containing fatal communicable diseases to spare the uninfected – should be humanely done, and need not be as drastic as that which had helped to eradicate previous fatal infections.”

Offending passage 8: “Monckton has since modified his views on AIDS, stating that ‘the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work.’ Reason: Lord Monckton has not “modified his views on AIDS”: he considers that, at the time when it could have been prevented from killing tens of millions, the usual public-health measures ought to have been taken. Unfortunately, now that there are 40 million infected, it is no longer possible to contain the disease as he had recommended 20 years ago. Proposed correction: Delete this passage altogether.

Offending passage 9: “His petition for judicial review was dismissed by the court for want of relevancy”. Reason: this passage unfairly omits to state that the judge expressed considerable sympathy for Lord Monckton’s position throughout the case, and is unfairly pejorative in the circumstances. Proposed correction: Replace by “The court expressed considerable sympathy for Lord Monckton’s position, and only found against him when a line item was discovered in that year’s European Union budget authorizing the expenditure by the UK on the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty which Parliament had previously and expressly refused to sanction. The Government of the day took Lord Monckton’s challenge seriously enough to put up the Lord Advocate in person against him; and the outcome was such that the Lord Advocate was unable to recover his expenses in the cause.”

Offending passage 10: “His views have attracted controversy and strong criticism from scientists and environmental activists, including Al Gore and George Monbiot.” Reason: Neither Al Gore nor George Monbiot has any qualifications in any climate-related science; and it seems unfair that what is supposed to be a straightforward, biographical article should not only contain tendentious material of this kind but should also fail to mention the numerous scientists who have cited Lord Monckton’s work with approval, and have even cited him in peer-reviewed papers as having assisted them. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 11: “Gavin Schmidt has criticised Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary" [1]. Dr. Stephan Harrison criticises Moncktons' articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples" [2]. The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[18] Reason: Once again, Wikipedia has cherry-picked statements made by scientists at the invitation of Monbiot, whose newspaper was compelled to print a strongly-worded correction by Lord Monckton the day after Monbiot had published a scientifically-erroneous article attempting to criticize Lord Monckton inappropriately for having misunderstood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which Monbiot had no knowledge, and which Monbiot had himself grievously misunderstood. Proposed correction: Delete this passage.

Offending passage 12: “Monckton's critics charge that "[his] science is self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent"[15] and that "he is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge."[23] For his part, Monckton takes the view that it is "a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths."[15] Reason: Yet again, only pejorative opinions of Lord Monckton’s research are cited. Proposed correction: Delete this passage.

Offending passage 13: “… part of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools.[27]” Reason: This passage is not only tendentious but is at all points factually incorrect. The Science and Public Policy Institute is not and was not ever a part of “Frontiers of Freedom”; nor has it ever campaigned against the screening of Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie in schools, though it has recommended that, by way of balance, schools should also show Lord Monckton’s movie Apocalypse? NO! Proposed correction: delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 14: “He is also funding the distribution to schools of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle as a riposte to Gore's film.”[23] Reason: This passage is both tendentious and inaccurate: tendentious because it describes one film as “controversial” without describing the other as controversial (a High Court Judge, after all, has described Al Gore’s “Armageddon scenario” as “not based on any scientific view”); inaccurate because Lord Monckton is not funding any distribution to schools, nor has he ever said he is doing so or will do so. It appears that, yet again, Wikipedia has readily accepted and repeated errors detrimental to Lord Monckton and published in an unverified source, without having checked it with Lord Monckton. Indeed, on no occasion has anyone from Wikipedia ever checked Lord Monckton’s entry with him before publishing it on the Web. Proposed correction: Delete this error entirely.

Offending passage 15: “He is a supporter of The New Party, which lent its political support to the litigation over Gore's film, and wrote part of its manifesto.” Reason: This passage is inaccurate. Lord Monckton’s consultancy provided professional help to his then clients the New Party (then the Scottish People’s Alliance) by assisting in the preparation of its first manifesto. He is not and has never been a member or supporter of the New Party – indeed, contrary to the false impressions scattered throughout the libelous Wikipedia entry now complained of, he does not in fact belong to any political party, and has not done so for many years, though he was simultaneously a member of the Conservative and Labour Associations at university so that he could familiarize himself with both sides of the political debate. He was not even a member of the Conservative party during his four years as a special adviser to Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 16: “… described as "showing Monckton presenting a slide show in a vitriolic attack on climate change science."[23] Reason: Yet again, only a pejorative comment has been selected for inclusion, when a properly-constructed biographical entry would merely have reported the fact that Lord Monckton had made a movie questioning Gore’s [proven scientifically-inaccurate] representations of climate science; and a balanced entry, even if it had decided to include comments, would have included some of the numerous favourable comments that Lord Monckton’s movie has received, by way of balance to the above-quoted pejorative comments. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

--recommend update-- In the Global Warming section, it should be noted that Viscount Monckton did criticize current calculation methods, however, in August of 2007 both GISS NASA and Dr. James Hanson made a clarification/correction to the raw data calculation global mean regression analysis year previously 1981 and this has improved the science and publications for the world of people analyzing the years of data and information from the scientific and the journalist communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.191.60 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, take off that tin foil hat weirdo. Are you going to provide anything to back up your statements or are we to believe a random conspiracy nut?118.208.47.214 (talk)

So, you all are writing off these POV concerns without even addressing them? I personally thought this article was particularly negative towards the subject. The "right-wing nuts" and "tea-bagger" name-calling in this discussion page is very telling. I think the editors of this article are letting their ideology get in the way for their neutrality. (76.246.55.192 -- talk) 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeats stuff which is reliably sourced and verifiable. A number of the statements made by 207.191 may well be true but they are likely to be adopted only when sources are provided. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

207.191 is Monckton himself. He sent the same text to OTRS. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guessed as much. What is clear is that he sees himself as much maligned by this article. And in my opinion wikirules of V and RS can be very difficult to get around and can result in unfairness. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted, though, that those comments were posted 2 years ago and referred to an old version of the article. Some of the things he objected to have in fact been removed. Others, as you rightly say, can't be sourced. And a number of items are simply POV whitewashing of critical commentary, like his objection 12. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)