Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

Recommended removal of entire section on philosophical and political views

In what is supposed to be a short, straightforward biographical entry, the inclusion of so large a section on "philosophical and political views" seems inappropriate, both because the subject has published articles on a wide range of political and religious topics, not just on climate change, and, particularly, because one editor who apparently bears a grudge against the subject keeps inserting material that has been challenged as libelous and that has led to a correction being printed in at least one national newspaper that had inaccurately attacked the subject's work on climate change. We recommend deletion of the entire section on philosophical views. Wikipedia ought to approach the subject to ask if he would oppose such a deletion. That would be the quickest and most reliable way to resolve this matter permanently.

I disagree. Rather than deleting this section, it should be expanded to include the subject's views on other matters, where notable.Craticula 11:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for just the info you want deleted. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.55.208 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Venerable Order of Saint John

PJTraill 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) It seems likely that the link should be to Venerable Order of Saint John, rather than to a disambiguation page Order of St. John, but I see no definitive proof.

Yes, it should direct to the VOSJ. He was made an Esquire in 1969 and an Officer in 1973. Craigy (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions?

Could someone explain to me what happened to the page? The front page and this discussion is not the same as yesterdays - and there is no indication in the history that anything happened to the page at all. Did history just get rewritten? --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) In fact looking at the top discussion about text about a Telegraph article from November, cannot be found on the front page - so i know i'm not hallucinating. Is this some administrative "erasure" of material that is under conflict? If so i have a hard time understanding why not even a note is left of it..... --Kim D. Petersen 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Acting on a complaint the article has been restored to an earlier version. There should be an official notice to this effect tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why was the content of the article which was documented (ie had references) also deleted? I have no vested interest in this page - but it seems to me that this kind of thing is bordering on revisionism - does this happen frequently? I mean is it enough to threaten with a law-suit and everything gets purged? Don't take this wrong, but i'm simply shocked that it is that easy to remove information. And finally another question - is this documented somewhere? --Kim D. Petersen 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, there was an edit war between two anons. One (possibly Monckton himself) kept deleting the entire controversy section, and posting vague edit summaries about libel proceedings against WP. The other kept restoring the deletions, including a rather contentious (but sourced to Private Eye) statement that suggested Monckton was homophobic. Given that the source was Private Eye, a satirical newspaper, I'd be inclined not to view it as an entirely reputable source (without seeing the actual source itself). Anyway, to my mind, this contentious piece (and possibly a very out-of-date piece on AIDS, which was sourced to, essentially, a blog) were the only portions that could justifiably be deleted. The section on Monckton's crazy attempts to discredit climate change, for instance, should certainly be retained (as it was published very recently in the Sunday Telegraph, a mainstream UK broadsheet). Also, edits to other sections, including an expanded references section, should be restored (although I say that as someone who worked on that). Looking forwards to seeing the details of the case in this official notice. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The later revisions cannot be restored as is. I'll perform another selective restore later today. To answer the question above, this is extremely uncommon, it does happen in exceptional cases, especially where WP:BLP comes into play. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's where we are. Those revisions which did not contain potentially libellous information have been restored. Unfortunately that does turn the clock back a few months but there's simply no way round it without breaking GFDL compliance. The previous article gave undue weight to controversial episodes in Monckton's life without providing adequate sourcing. This isn't acceptable on biographies of living persons. Moving on, the article is unprotected and freely editable. So long as everyone keeps the above in mind there shouldn't be a problem. Thank your for time, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Monckton's (non)qualifications

I noticed an earlier edit (by another user) that mentioned that Monckton does not have a degree in climate sicence has since been removed. I think this is valuable information that should be included in this article (for example, if someone recommends a medical procedure, but is not a doctor, this should be noted in a biography that discuses said recommendation.) I thought I'd post the idea here before going through with it since this article seems to be rather toxic at the moment. I'd suggest starting the paragraph on Monckton's CC articles with "Although he has no formal training in climate science..." although a seperate 'graph might work.SeaAndSand 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an Observer interview with him a while back which said (if I remember rightly) his degree is in the classics and that he has no scientific training at all. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- ChrisO 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I found it, so I'll go ahead and add it in. SeaAndSand 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Just one thing though, "claims" is a word to avoid - I'd suggest changing this to "says". -- ChrisO 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical and/or political views

The section on "Philosophical and/or political views" has several problems. 1 The statement that Monckton "pointed out errors" in the IPCC report is not NPOV, as it presupposes that he is correct. It would be better to write that he "asserted" that there were "errors". A citation should be given for these alleged errors being corrected - and ideally that it was Monckton that uncovered them. 2 A citation for the alleged libel damages of £50000 must be given. 3 The reference to the New Law Journal is insufficient. There are five issues of this periodical published in June 2007, which is the relevant one? 4 Dr Gray should not be described as an "official reviewer" for the IPCC, but an "expert reviewer". 5 Dr Schmidt rebutal of Monckton's work should have a citation. The text should not allege that this rebutal is mostly ad hominem; this is original research. 6 Is it notable that Monckton has challanged Al Gore to a debate? Every sceptic and his dog has done this.80.202.243.223 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your critique. The article has been locked because the editor who inserted this has threatened WP with a lawsuit [1] [2]. Unfortunatly noone has really looked critically at this section - but have merely locked the page. There is no reference that i can find in any of the New Law Journal indexes that i can find that mentions such a suit.[3]. Another trouble here that i can find, is that the journal 'UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin' - is ambiguous - i haven't been able to locate this one. --Kim D. Petersen 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a "QUARTERLY ECONOMIC BULLETIN- LIVERPOOL RESEARCH GROUP IN MACROECONOMICS" [4] which seems like the most likely candidate. This journal has little web presence, and I cannot find a table of contents. It may well be peer-reviewed, but it's not a high impact journal. I don't think that publication there is notable, and think reference to it should be deleted.Craticula 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. After looking over the site, the journal is associated with the Cardiff Business School and Liverpool University. Interestingly, one of the main views of this group is that the UK should not join the Euro. I think Wikipedia readers will find it interesting that Monckton is associated with this group.RonCram 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I just read the section referring to Quarterly Economic Bulletin and do not see how it could have published a peer-reviewed paper on climate sensitivity of CO2. This is not an Earth Science journal. If Monckton has written something on climate sensitivity that has been peer-reviewed, it should be listed. But this looks bogus to me. I agree with most of the numbered points above, except #6. I think it is notable that Monckton has challenged him to a debate and continues to do so. RonCram 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In Monckton's latest article, Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming? Monckton's bibliography refers to a paper he submitted to GRL.

• MONCKTON and Ahlbeck. 2007. Quantification of climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters [submitted].

Perhaps this is the intended reference? RonCram 12:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it notable that he's challenged Gore to a debate? Al Gore is obviously an extremely notable figure and household name. Monckton is... well, I think most people's reaction on hearing his name would be "who?". That was certainly my reaction. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing the headline "Former US Vice-President doesn't respond to challenge from minor British global warming sceptic" any time soon. -- ChrisO 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton is a former advisor to Thatcher and a respected journalist. He is very well known in the UK and becoming better known in the U.S. The fact he challenged Gore to a debate may not make the Global warming controversy article but it is a notable enough for the article on Monckton himself. RonCram 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In what respect is he "very well known in the UK"? I'm very familiar with the UK press and he certainly doesn't have a high profile as a journalist. A Lexis-Nexis search shows barely a couple of dozen articles which mention him, mostly in relation to his recent advocacy of global warming denialism or his Eternity Puzzle. He only just appears to satisfy Wikipedia's own notability criteria in relation to his own personal notability. Quite honestly, his "challenge" doesn't seem to me to be any more notable than any random creationist's challenge to debate evolution with a prominent scientist (such challenges are two a penny). -- ChrisO 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't read Private Eye :o) Guy (Help!) 16:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much, and it's not really a reliable source anyway. :-) However, I have to take back what I wrote above, having looked up Monckton in a bit more depth over the past couple of days. He does seem to have had some media and political prominence in the 1980s, though maybe not so much now that he's apparently retired. -- ChrisO 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's latest on global warming

The article should mention Monckton's latest paper on global warming. [5] The web page has a link to a pdf. As much as I would like to see it, I doubt that Al Gore will ever agree to debate Monckton though. RonCram 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why? That looks like just another astroturfing group publishing anything that challenges the scientific consensus. What's its standing in the scientific community? Is there any objective assessment of the quality of this paper? In mainstream journals, dissenting opinion will attract correspondence, which is usually published even if it disagrees with the editorial line. Is this journal likely to publish challenges from those who dispute Monckton's interpretation? Or would those scientists even read it? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a scientific journal or other independent venue. It's not even notable in the context of expressing Mr. Monckton's views; as far as I can tell it's received no third-party coverage that I can find. Raymond Arritt 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SPPI is Rob Ferguson's spinoff from FF. One of Monckton's other piences,[6], via marc Morano (EPW), Michael Asher (DailyTech), and then Matt Drudge, managed to get 700,000+ hits for:

Google: less than half published scientists endorse global warming

by referencing an anti-consensus piece by a London endocrinologist named Klaus-Martin Schulte, who did a study somewhat akin to that of Naomi Oreskes' 2004 Science essay. SPPI also published (and referenced on Business Wire!) the following: [7]

That turned out to be filled with plagiarism of Monckton's consensus piece, which re-used Benny Periser's error-filled (and later withdrawn) letter from 2005.

See: [8] [9] JohnMashey 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He has also published an essay here in which he claimed that global temperatures have decreased at 0.4 °C per decade recently, but I was able to debunk that fairly easily. Make of that what you will. - Jürgen Hubert, 16 April 2008

Discussion on WP:AN/I

I've raised the issue of this article's continued protection at WP:AN/I#Anonymous legal threats create an impasse. Comments are invited there. -- ChrisO 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have changed the protection level to semi-protected and removed some of the most obvious POV material. But the article as a whole could use some work, so I've tagged it as such. ugen64 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder of editing principles

I'd like to remind all editors of this article that material added to it must be verifiable, reliably sourced and neutrally phrased, as well as compliant with our policy on biographies of living persons. Any material that doesn't comply with these non-negotiable policies will be removed. And for our anonymous contributor, I'd like to point out that editors should not make legal threats - if you're concerned about material you consider libelous, please see Wikipedia:Libel. Issues of concern can and should be discussed here on this talk page. -- ChrisO 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Damned nobility screw everything up, don't they? Luckily, the U.S doesn't have nobility. I'd also like to state though, that Wikipedia:Libel doesn't mean anything in the real world. Sure, it could get you blocked from editing Wikipedia, but that's a very small price to pay to be awarded damages in libel suits. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.191.238 (talk • contribs)

The French had a creative solution. :-) -- ChrisO 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

it wasn't that effective in the long term...Napoleon recreated a whole bunch of titles, the royals came back into power for like 30 to 40 years and then all of then got dethroned again and look at the present...three families are now fighting over who gets an defunct and non-existent french throne... nat^tang 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton and The Guardian

I asked George Monbiot about the anonymous contributor's assertion that "[Monckton] won £50,000 libel damages from The Guardian regarding an article by George Monbiot, which alleged that Monckton had incorrectly treated the Earth as a blackbody in his calculations." According to Monbiot, "this is untrue. He has not won any damages from me or the Guardian, and despite numerous threats and demands ... he has not sued me or the Guardian." I had a strong suspicion that the claim was untrue, if only because the Monbiot article is still in The Guardian's online archives. Articles judged libellous are invariably removed from online archives due to the liabilities incurred under the UK's very strict libel laws. -- ChrisO 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I might add that since this claim has proven false, we should view with scepticism anything else that the anonymous contributor has added. I've removed a line that named a number of scientists who have either supported or opposed Monckton's claims, per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'anonymous contributor' seems to be using Monckton's e-mail address - Georger Monbiot has directly challenged Monckton on this and has published the rather evasive e-mails he received from Monckton in reply. According to Monbiot, Monckton has now contacted the Guardian to tell them that unless Monbiot desists in this line of questioning, he will sue.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/03/did-lord-monckton-fabricate-a-claim-on-his-wikipedia-page/

Dean Morrison 07:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot probably means IP-address, not email address. Craticula 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Monbiot controversy has now made Private Eye magazine (1195, 12 Oct-25 Oct 2007 p. 7). Quote:

By way of reply Monckton contacted Monbiot's bosses at the Guardian, demanding that they telll the columnist to stop asking questions as it was making him gravely ill. Characteristically, he also threatened to sue for libel.

R Bartholomew 07:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that ill health clearly leads one to provide evasive answers to direct questions? I assume once Monckton's health improves, we'll find out exactly what has been going on here. 'Anonymous Contributor' indeed. 9 10:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note Request for Arbitration

The subject of this article has filed a Request for Arbitration which alleges libel in the article. Sam Blacketer 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is at WP:RFAr#Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. There is also an OTRS ticket on this matter (#2007082810012738). -- ChrisO 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

House sale

I've removed a line about Monckton being forced to sell his house. I'm not happy with the wording, and I'm not sure it gets the facts right. I'll have a look at a newspaper archive to which I have access to see if I can provide a more satisfactory version. -- ChrisO 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source provided? "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales" It opens:

• • A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.

Our text said:

• Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize.

How is that unsatisfactory? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize." The wording is somewhat confusing. To me, the meaning of this statement is "Monckton said that he was forced to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize. Also, it was a publicity stunt", i.e. it implies that the claim was true (or, at least, doesn't say it was false). In reality the sentence should specifically reflect the fact that this claim was actually false. Even rearranging the words, something like "Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize; he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt" or something. ugen64 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I added "As part of a publicity stunt, Monctkton claimed incorrectly that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SPPI, Frontiers of Freedom ??

Does anyone have a source for the relationship claimed there?

ExxonMobil has funded FF's CSPP, which was run by Robert Ferguson, and which hosted Monckton's letter to Snowe & Rockefeller.

Ferguson started SPPI, apparently in June 2007, and it has 9 of Monckton's papers, and is run by Ferguson, the only listed employee. Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor.

It is unclear whether there is any direct relationship between FF and SPPI, or whether Ferguson actually left FF, or just started SPPI as an additional venture. I have not yet found anything on the funding of SPPI, which could even come from Monckton or (who knows?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

multiple blatant violations of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, including obvious lies?

CC removed a pile of info [10] under the guise of "multiple blatant violations of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, including obvious lies". RS etc are often matter of opinion, but obvious lies should be... obvious. So what was wrong with In the same letter, Monckton claimed to be "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"; he is not. for example? Cleary the source is reliable; is it a lie? I'm confused William M. Connolley 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Monckton never was a member of the House of Lords; he inherited his title after the passage of the 1999 Act which disenfranchised most hereditary peers. There are two possibilities here: Monckton doesn't accept the validity of the 1999 Act, or Monckton was speaking broadly. If no publication has queried the assertion (and it is tangential to the letter's purpose), then I see no reason to make mention of it. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A rather curious attitude. M was clearly trying to influence the US; and was clearly trying to use non-existent qualifications to do so (M *isn't* a member; he must accept the act or it wouldn't have stood for election). How can that be irrelevant? I'm still looking for the lies, BTW - have you any idea what they might be? William M. Connolley 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems that Monckton doesn't accept the premise of the Act; a Guardian article of 24 February 2007 quotes him as saying that it's "a bizarre constitutional abortion", though obviously that didn't stop him from running in the by-election. Given that Monckton has publicly asserted his membership of the Lords, I think there is room for genuine confusion on this point. I think the line that you cited above would be better placed under the politics section with a bit of rewording. -- ChrisO 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your quote merely indicates that he dislikes the act, not that he doesn't accept it. Given that he stood under it, it would require a very clear statement on his part to demonstrate that he doesn't accept it William M. Connolley 10:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the overt reliance on the Guardian - a well known left wing paper and Pro Climate Change this whole discussion page appears to be an attempt to do a hatchet job on Monckton because he challenges the anthropomorphic view of climate change. What have such papers as The Telegraph or the Independant to say on the man ?

Refer instead to his document on the web site where he deals with Al Gore's repre3sentatives replies to his demonstration of error in Gore's movie along with the UK High Court's take on the movies purpose.

Further - why if he believes that the 1999 act removing hereditary peers is wrong does that prevent him from taking advantage of said act to regain his right to be represented in Parliament - horrible wolly thinking; one suspects the assorted editors here are also still waging the class war; and since the man is an aristocrat his views and legitimacy count for less than any one else.

One - he uses the IPCC to demolish many of Gore's contentions. Two - IPCC is funded by people who have a financial and academic interst in Anthropomorphic Climate Change - so at least as suspect as any funding by any other source.

I am incredibly disgusted by the level of bias indicated by this editorial discussion; I suggest that all the contributors should declare their interest or have thier edits removed.

I am a (now disgusted) fan of Wikipaedia - this is the sort of article that does immense damage to the project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.183.98 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you bothered to look you would have seen that many of the references are from the Times and the Telegraph. Einztein 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Human-shaped" climate change? You might at least try to get the terminology right... :-/ -- ChrisO 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to BLP issues and edit warring I have had to protect this page. Please discuss article improvements here. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for further protection

From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

I am afraid that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Wikipedia content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Wikipedia had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Wikipedia libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

On balance, therefore, Wikipedia may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

COI

I have given this editor (who claims to be the subject) the standard warning template about conflict of interest. He deleted it with a sneering assertion that the subject of an article was no more likely to have a conflict of interest than anybody else: a dubious theory at best. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Article section entitled AIDS

Quoting from the section: "In 1999 the British gay rights group OutRage! launched an unsuccessful campaign to force the manufacturer of Monckton's Eternity Puzzle to disassociate itself from him because of his desire to spare the 25 million who have since died and the 40 million who are now infected (UNAIDS statistics) because the standard public health measures were not applied."

Does this sentence make sense to anyone? It does not to me. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a POV edit, taking the position that if Monckton had been listened to and the victims quarantined for life, millions more would not have died; thus, the sentence implies, OurRage! is calling for boycott of a man who'd tried to save lives. It's very POV; I've taken that part out. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is broken - how do we progress from here?

As it currently stands that article is broken (take a look at the references section). And it has quite a few rather self-serving statements, such as this for instance:

The case was heard in the Scottish Court of Session in May 1994. His petition for judicial review was dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.

Assuming for a moment that the original article[11] contained some BLP/NPOV violations, should we go through it to salvage what was there - and rewrite the current version to remove the rest of the POV introduced by the subject? Ie. how do we progress from here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try not to edit the article - since my name, as opposed to my (non-existent) edits here, apparently have already acted as a red cloth in front of Mofb's eyes. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the pre-mofb version, so I've restored it (sorry, I guess I've been busy elsewhere...). I see various legal threat type stuff swirling around... are there any restrictions on this article? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

None other than the usual ones.(BLP,V,NPOV) But of course on an article such as this more care is needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought some of his changes were justified. The bit about "fabricating a story" about the sale of his house seems unnecessary to me and should come out. I suggest also going back to the sources cited in the article and making sure that whatever's attributed to the sources actually matches what the sources say. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any doubt that the story was "fabricated" for P.R. purposes - but the interesting question is whether its notable enough to merit mention. Imho it doesn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article has been reverted wholesale to a version prior to Mofb's edits, I think that is a step in the wrong direction. We should look at each edit on its merits, while recognizing that a) it is not appropriate to simply have the subject of an article write the article, and b) the subject of the article knows more about the subject of the article than you or I.

IMO, we were making some progress working from the version after Mofb's edits. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the amount of POV inserted by mofb, as well as the completely broken reference section, i think that the original version is the better starting point. But we should be looking at it with critical eyes and take out whatever seems wrong, and discuss it here. The previous version was mostly written in the aftermath of the last legal threat mofb made - so its pretty much clean already. (but of course i can be wrong).

So my suggestion is that if we find anything that is remotely POV we cut it and paste it here - and discuss it on the talk page. Before either deleting or reinserting it. Hows that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs)

I wasn't happy with mofb's version. We can look at each edit on its merit just as easily in the opposite direction. Cut-n-paste to here seems a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you were not happy with that version. But I do not think that should be the deciding factor.

We have a policy "wp:blp#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article" to consider. To work from the more recent version of the article, after the editing by Mofb, is more in conformity with the policy. Editors can still reexamine the information that Mofb removed and might decide that some of it should go back in.

The other approach of putting everything removed by Mofb back into the article and then considering what to remove, is a highly provocative approach because it discounts all the edits made by Mofb. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that policy demands that we ensure strict adherence to NPOV and verifiability with a high regards to reliable sources. mofb left us with something that is very much POV - while we have no indications (yet) that the original version was particularly bad.

I agree that we should follow and adhere to the BLP guideline to the letter (and beyond). But we can't just remove well-sourced notable criticism because the subject doesn't like it. As another example (there are 2 others mentioned so far) of something that is extremely POV and not even close to an accurate description of what reliable sources say, was this:

...The judge held that "The Armageddon scenario that he [Al Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view," and ordered that the UK Government must issue corrective guidance in writing to all schools, putting right nine "errors" of science in Gore's film.

The original source is this[12], but the quote doesn't exist... Its a mangled cherry-pick from #25 in the judgement.

So no, i don't think its a good idea to go with mofb's version - since we are choosing a distinctly POV and self-serving version, something that BLP says we shouldn't (in any circumstances). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC

I've looked at mfob's edits. To take them backwards:

1. [13] - not defensible
2. [14] - doesn't look good. Has replaced "attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and climate change." with a strawman "has questioned the theory that anthropogenic global warming and climate change may cause catastrophe. For a more accurate biographical entry, see Who's Who."; deletes the fact that he's been telling porkies about being a peer; less exciting stuff about AIDS; adds a pile of dubious and unsourced stuff about his failed court case; more GW strawman inserted; deletes a whole pile of scientific criticism.

And has Kim has pointed out above, mfob is fabricating quotes as well.

So yes, I do indeed discount at least the majority of his edits. Which ones would you like to re-do? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Mr. Connolley pointed out a few edits ago, "We can look at each edit on its merit just as easily in the opposite direction." I think the direction I'm advocating has the merit of better respecting the policy. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think mofb's edits are so fundamentally flawed (unsourced, POV etc) that his version is unacceptable as a starting point. It makes more sense to start from a version that is reasonably good and pare that back, rather than to try to make something of a POV-ridden mutilated version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion - editors are making this more complex than it need be. If information is unsourced, delete it asap. The policy requires that. If information is POV, delete it on those grounds.

But give a defensible reason for each change.

The approach of simply reverting all of Mofb's changes to get to a starting point you prefer is, as I said above, highly provocative and against policy. Surely there must be someone else in this discussion who is not committed to the philosophy "we will do as we like". Wanderer57 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that its against policy, leaving mofb's version is on the other hand against policy (as shown). But lets leave that aside... Try instead to make a critique of what is wrong in the current version, what (if any) of mofb's edits where correct? What should be cut? What should be retained from mofb's edits? etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kim. I did not say, or expect, that Mofb's edit of the article would stand unchanged. The end result I am striving toward is that his version should be used as a starting point. (Option A.)

As contrasted with option B, which is using the article, as it was before his edits, as a starting point.

The central point is that option A, if it is carried through in a civil and careful manner, gives the subject of the article the courtesy of knowing the reason that changes were made from the version that resulted from his edits, WHEREAS option B consists in reverting all those edits without any explanation.

Which option is more efficient IN TERMS OF THE EDITING PROCESS, I do not know or, frankly, much care. Either option is technically possible, as Mr. Connolley has pointed out.

The key difference, IMO, is that Option A respects the views of Mofb to the extent of considering them and giving reasons for rejecting them, if in fact they are rejected. Option B, on the other hand, rejects all those edits without explanation.

To me, A is clearly the correct option. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.

—Jimbo Wales, November 2003

That, I submit, is an overriding concern. A version that does not respect NPOV is fundamentally broken in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves

is a horribly stupid thing to do." Jimmy Wales Fri May 19 2006"

Wanderer57 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jimbo - now can you please point out the libel? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanderer57 - you've been asked by several people what *specifically* is wrong with the current article and you haven't replied William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article for the first time today I think it is an okay article that generally avoids POV or BLP violations and only needed mild tweaks (from my editing perspective). Thanks, SqueakBox 08:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim: If I have not managed to persuade you (or anyone else it seems), I should probably just quit. The libel? The subject of the article, in a note on his talk page, speaks about lies. Whether you believe there is libel is secondary. Apparently he does. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the information is sourced to reliable sources and in general adheres to NPOV, within the limiting guidelines of BLP. Then i can't see the problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that we also write non-flattering things about people if its reliably sourced and notable enough. That is something that the people, we write the biographies about, in some cases will dislike. But that doesn't mean that we remove it. We try to err on the side of caution.

Now please address the issue, instead of talking around it.... What is wrong with the current article? What items do you consider dodgy? Where can we improve? What needs to be cut? What is missing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between libel - maliciously false information - and things which a subject simply doesn't like, i.e. possibly unfavorable but reliably sourced material. Let's not make the mistake of confusing one with the other. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

sources

Consultancy company section

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. In 1999, he created and published the Eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called Polydrafters. A £1m prize was won after 18 months by two Cambridge mathematicians. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize; he later admitted the story was a publicity stunt . A second puzzle, Eternity II, was launched on 28 July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

notes

I'll look for a couple of sources to go along, I see it is sourced, but I'm looking for multi reliable sources on the last two assertions. Until then, I have moved this text from the article to the talk page. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is now two reliable sources for this. The Scotsman and The Sunday Herald. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I have replaced the section. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Member of Parliament claims

It seems significant if a politically active British peer claims to be a member of Parliament when he isn't and never was. The second source removed by NVS was the Guardian, seemingly a "reliable source." The Frontiers of Freedom source is probably not. Even so, it seems like something that can and should be included and sourced more fully if possible, no? Avruch ^T 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not reinsert this edit using sources and content that are not original research. Please discuss reinsertion here before inclusion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't remove that perfectly valid edit; please discuss re-removal here before removal. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I had removed it in response to a valid OTRS complaint. If you look at the sources... what do you think about the sources? Do you see the OR? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you had. Which one? Just "OTS" is not convincing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the claim was repeated in the Tribue here but I don't have access to the article. The google search result snippet has the bit, though. I'm not finding any other clear news results on Google, tons of blogs and whatnot that have it though. Avruch ^T 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• And if you check here and do a search for "Wikipedia" - in that paragraph he mentions the "member of the House of Lords" issue and says that he hereditary member but does not have a seat. Not being British or an avid parliamentarian, I don't know how that works. (To make the link work, you'll have to replace the AAA with freerepublic - blacklisted apparently.) Avruch ^T 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See House of Lords Act 1999. There are only 92 hereditary peers now, and Monckton isn't one of them[15]. And since it happened before he inherited the title, he also never has been one. But of course without references this is WP:OR/WP:SYN. (unless the Chicago Tribune mentions it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What I think can be confirmed is Lord Monckton of Brenchley was not one of the 92 to remain in the House of Lords in 1999[16], and the results of the by-election in 2007[17][18]. The quote from The Guardian should also be a valid source for the article, which would leave one disputed sentence, about the claimed membership of the House of Lords. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scream is right in saying that the assertion that Monckton has inaccurately claimed membership of the House of Lords would be original research unless it represents a view that has already been published in reliable sources. I've found a snippet from a Chicago Tribune article of Dec. 16, 2007, "Climate in Bali is harsh for global warming skeptic", which states: "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..." Does anyone have access to the full article? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and I linked to it just above as well - but only the abstract. Also, to the comment above yours about Lord Monckton of Brenchley - the '99 Lord Monckton was the 2nd Viscount, not the 3rd. The 2nd died in, I think, '06 at age 90 and until the by-election he was, actually, a member of the House of Lords. Avruch ^T 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it was the 2nd in 1999; according to the article on the BBC website he did not remain in the Lords as a hereditary peer (unless he was elected later in a by-election). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Have we reached one? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Christopher Monckton's entry says that he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the House of Lords. I find this incredible since membership in the Lords comes about in two ways: (1) some hereditary peers still have automatic seats in the Lords (but most no longer do) and (2) a person can be named a Life Peer by the Queen upon the recommendation of the government. The Lords is not presently, and has not been, an elected body.

Peter.zimmerman (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The election in question was a by-election to replace one of the remaining hereditaries who died in 2003. See this news story for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, I have removed "politician" from occupation. RobinGrant (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Christopher Monckton sell his house? Yes.

re: the house, the 'Eternity puzzle' page currently contradicts this page... "The puzzle's inventor said that the prize payout had forced him to sell his home; however, in 2006 this was revealed to be a publicity story."

Or in plain English: a lie.78.147.159.6 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

so one or the other needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.212.249 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The material related to Monckton's nov daily telegraph article is totally inappropriate. I will remove the following statement.

"It is worth pointing out that this trait of underestimating likelihoods and mathematics persists despite similar failures with the Eternity Puzzle."

No it is not worth pointing this out. This is some snarky attack that has no place in the article. How is Monckton's article a failure? It is 2 days old. --Josh Quinnell 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious, if one reads the article, that it is incompetent. Do need someone to tell you that? 71.132.131.162 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that the article refers to two articles in the "Telegraph", though the second is not scheduled for publication for another 5 days. It doesn't seem worth changing this, though. Groogle 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear example of unmitigated bias that should have no place in a supposedly impartial encyclopaedia: "The first criteria, that a consensus implies all practitioners are in complete agreement, is ignorant of the meaning of consensus. Furthermore, Monckton offers only rough probability estimates of the likelihood of other criteria." It cannot possibly be argued that to say that the first criteria is "ignorant" or that Monkton offers only "rough probability estimates" conforms to the "neutral point of view" policy; they are clear, tendentious expressions of opinion. I have therefore deleted them.

Error: Physics and Society is peer-reviewd

Under Monckton's views on global warming, there is a new entry regarding his article in the current (July, 2008) issue of Physics and Society. The entry incorrectly states that the journal ("newsletter") is not peer-reviewed.

Source is the publication website - here "Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews, and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society." It is not at all unusual for a peer-reviewed scientific journal to carry both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed material such as letters, etc. Physics and Society is like many other scientific journals by many other scientific organizations, for example PS: Political Science and Politics by the American Political Science Association; which similarly carries peer-reviewed articles, letters to the editor, comments on the teaching profession, and other things current issue

In addition, Monchkton himself has described the peer-review that the article received in a recent letter to APS. letter. A well researched article on the current confusion here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I traced the reference to the comments describing Physics and Society as not peer-reviewed and found it to be some little blog in nowhere land. The statement at the journal website itself, as well as the process described by Monckton convinces me that the paper was peer-reviewed. This however is clouded by the statement made by APS administrators in their contraversial disclaimer. The description of the journal on the journal website is definitive however on the question of whether this is or is not a peer reviewed journal. It is, and we may need more evidence to prove how relevant that is to the article. So at present, I'm just deleted the false statement that it's not a peer-reviewed journal. And please do not use bizarre little blog comments as authoritative references. ~~

I'm sorry, that's just dead wrong. The APS itself says that it's not peer-reviewed - and it should know. See the disclaimer that's now at the top of Monckton's piece: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris. The journal website says that the journal is peer-reviewed. The quote has been provided above as well as the webpage from the journal website. No authoritative source is given for the APS claiming that it's not, and who would you be talking about anyway? The journal webpage saying that the journal IS PEER-REVIEWED - that's within the APS. You're just not making any sense here. Once again - no authoritative source has been given for an APS claim that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Don't start playing undo wars unless you at least have a source to backup your claim. ~~

Chris - I note that you've undone the change again. Is there anything that will convince you to act responsibly in this manner? There is an absolutely definitive source that contradicts that statement. The journal website itself explains that it is a peer-reviewed journal. There is no authoritative source at all saying it's not. Your claim that the APS says it's not, is not supported by any authoritative source. The citation given is just an odd blog comment somebody made - and it's unsourced as well. ~~

IMO, the question of whether or not the journal (which, by the way, is referred to in our article as a newsletter) is "peer-reviewed" is secondary, if not irrelevant here.

The assertion of a number of media commentators "that the publication of his paper was a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change" is addressed directly by the later sentence "In response, the APS issued a statement reaffirming its unchanged position on climate change...."

There is no source given for the "In response..." statement. However, if it is properly sourced, it refutes the statement "the APS has abandoned..." This would be true, I believe, regardless of whether the journal/newsletter is peer-reviewed.

Since there seems to be uncertainty as to whether the thing is peer-reviewed and since it does not seem much to matter, I think it should not be included in the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only uncertainty is on Monckton's side - he apparently doesn't have a clue what peer-review means. (Hint: it's more than just some random person reading your article before publication.) The APS is the publisher of Monckton's piece, therefore it is really the definitive source on whether or not it was peer-reviewed. Note also that the publication in which it was published is not a journal - it's explicitly a newsletter. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I said above that the question about whether the journal is peer-reviewed is not relevant - agreeing with reviewers above. That is why I merely deleted the statement that the journal is not peer-reviewed rather than changing it to agree with what the journal on its website actually claims to be. There is no reason (Chris) to make false statements about the journal just for the sake of attacking Monckton's position. There is no credible source anywhere saying that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Whether or not Monckton's paper was reviewed is another question - but please stop putting the statement that the journal is not peer-reviewed into the article. There is no support whatsoever for that assertion. BTW: The reviewer of Monckton's article was Professor Alvin Saperstein, Professor of Physics, Wayne State University. I suggest being more careful about any text dealing with the issue of whether or not the article was peer-reviewed. Something very odd happened there with the disclaimer, and it's looking more and more like whoever ordered it may not have been totally honest. The best thing at this point is probably to leave out any discussion of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not supposed to be some half-witted, rumor oriented daily blog rooting for your favorite horse. It can wait until the dust settles. ~~

Comment: the previous paragraph would work better if the second last sentence in it was removed. It implies some, presumably-unintended, slur on another honourable editor. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get these issues straight:

• The publication is not a journal: "The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." Source: [19]

• The publication is not peer-reviewed: "This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." Source: [20]

• The specific article was not peer-reviewed: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters." Source: [21]

The APS is the publisher of the newsletter and the article in question, so it's ridiculous to claim that it doesn't know what its own publication is or what its own procedures are. It's as if someone was denying that the New York Times was a newspaper and refusing to accept the word of the New York Times Publishing Company that it is in fact a newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Chris. I see where you're coming from. The original cite for the information was a blog out of nowhere. Now you have one comment on the daily blog at the APS website, with no sign whatsoever who posted the comment, whether the comment itself represents the position of APS administrators, or discussion of the conflict between the statement and the one at the journal's website. But being on the APS website at least gives the appearance of being more authoritative. If it had been there in the first place, I can see how someone might have honestly taken it as fact. However, it doesn't change the fact that Physics and Society, on their own website, describes the publication as including reviewed articles. It is also clear that the article went through review by Professor Saperstein. From the details, it is clear that Saperstein did not merely perform the work of an editor. His efforts were those of a scientific reviewer. The part that is missing, in this invited paper, is the "review" by randomly selected reviewers prior to acceptance - with ratings regarding whether it should be accepted for publication. Clearly, that did not happen. It was rather an invited paper. It did not undergo that particular review process. That however is not the only type of review that can be performed. I must still conclude that both the evidence supports neither the claim about the journal, nor the claim that Monckton's paper was not reviewed. My position as a Wikipedia editor is still the same. Leave it out. It doesn't belong here anyway. It's the kind of issue that advocacy blogs love to deal with. ~~

One more thing - one should not assume that there is no politics among the APS administrators. There is at least one on The Council, that issued the disclaimer to begin with - who has a large stake in the global warming game. He and perhaps another may be largely responsible for this contraversy, and may be responsible for adding (apparently false) statements about the journal (and the review of the article) on the APS website. The steps that have been taken, beginning with the disclaimer, are unprecedented in the history of published science. They appear to be aimed at discrediting the paper to reduce its public impact. There will be at least some continued scrutiny of all this by the press. Don't use Wikipedia like a daily blog while the controversy rages. At this point, I am certain that statements on the APS website cannot simply be taken at face value. Keep in mind that The Council is just a few guys, and they each have their own agenda. I have lots of experience with scientific journals. Do not underestimate the amount of politics invovled. There are good admins and editors, but sometimes it seems they become fewer and fewer with the years, as the politicization of science continues. ~~

Umm, no. This is a bit surreal. The APS doesn't have a "daily blog" - it has a space on its home page where it makes official announcements. By definition we have to assume that represents the official position of the APS. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris. I can imagine that it seems surreal to you. It does seem surreal in a way. I might use the same term if I wasn't such an old guy with so much life experience that I'm not surprised when I see such strange things going on - in places and by people in positions that were once imagined to be completely above it. Science - it should be. But alas, it's a thing that's done by people. And they are still after all people - just like the rest. But look closely. Official position of the APS? Why do you conclude that? Who wrote that Physics and Society is not peer-reviewed? I understand the comment is on the APS website, but who wrote it? What evidence is there that it is an official position? Then - regardless of who is responsible for the comment - does the APS organization actually have the authority? Publications are typically rather independent - not subject to dictatorship from the bureacrats that administer at the top of the organization. It wouldn't be a real science organization if they were. The website of the journal itself says that it carries peer-reviewed articles, re: physics and it is published periodically. So by definition, it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Doesn't that at least raise a question in your mind? Don't you think the people who actually run the journal and its website know whether they publish reviewed articles or not? Here's another article, one that I think is written by a guy with insight (probably an old guy like me maybe, and with a knowledge of scientific orgs) - note that he does have a quote from a scientist, giving his view about the matter. American physicists warned not to debate global warming Now - re: comments in Wikipedia: are you more qualified than the scientist he cites to decide the matter? I realize that you can find quotes on the other side of this contraversy. But that just makes it a contraversy with two sides, doesn't it? Why does Wikipedia need to weigh in on this argument right now? Wikipedia is neither a blog site nor a newspaper. I don't think this contraversy needs to be included at all, unless it blows up into a war or something, or maybe APS gets nailed and all the administrators fired, or something else that might be of historical consequence takes place. At the very least, it can wait until the dust settles. There is absolutely no need for Wikipedia to keep up with the daily knocks and to try to decide which side to be on. ~~

Let me ask you this, why are you so interested in having coverage of this current contraversy in an encyclopedia? It doesn't strike me as something that has a place here. It's in a section re: Monckton's positions on global warming. He's had a paper published. It can be cited as one of his published works. His positions can be discussed. If you want contraversy - his positions seem contraversial enough right now. Just say what they are - done. Leave the slug-fest to bloggers. If one day, the person or persons on The Council decide to come out in the open and debate the analysis in the paper, then okey dokey - perhaps you can explain that person or persons positions on their Wikipedia page or pages. ~~

This is incoherent. You're saying that the "contraversy" [sic] shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia at all, and at the same time the controversy should be mentioned only if it accords equal weightage to 'both sides' (regardless of merit). Anyway, the APS states that the Monckton paper was not peer-reviewed. How much more definitive do you need it to be? Bi (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Absurd Imbalance

This article currently has 1200 words in the section on Monckton's political views on Global Warming.

This is four hundred more words than are in the section "Light and General Relativity" in the article on Albert Einstein.

In my opinion this is placing inordinate emphasis on Monckton's political views.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with that. Really, there is little to say other than that he is a rabid septic and people have noticed. But I don't suppose we can say that. I've hacked it down a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If he's a "rabid septic", antiseptic should deal with that quite nicely. ;-) Seriously though, while I agree that there was probably too much detail on his global warming activism, his own efforts have ensured that this is the issue for which he's best known. We shouldn't lose sight of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I stopped half way though. But probably the second half should be done William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If something's worth writing it's surely worth publishing. I suspect POV attacks on the text because of its unfashionable stance. Maybe the Einstein-article needs more material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

APS headers to Monckton's paper

Response for KDP - ive done a web search and found alot of blog references including a full reproduction of the letter from Monckton protesting the header, but nothing that directly attributes the change to Monckton's noise. I did a search of a major aus MSM domain (news.com.au) and got no hits on the subject. Maybe the british ones might have something. In any case at the moment the link I put in is not really supported by WP:RS so you can axe it if you want re wiki = verifiable, not truth (though I still think the paragraph flows better with the linking sentence). Jaimaster (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So its neither truth, nor verifiable then, but merely conjecture. I've removed it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The letter sent by Monckton prior to the change of the header can be viewed here - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monkton_letter_pys.pdf

Doesnt look like a blog. Pretty biased site though, but then its hardly possible to publish a POV version of a letter. I think that will do for a citation to add a link stating Monckton critised the initial header and that the header was later changed, without stating that it was changed because of the letter. Ill do that now and you can critique it. Jaimaster (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Its very well that Monckton protested. But the former edit stated that the APS changed it because of this protest. Perhaps they did - but noone apparently knows. Thus it was pure conjecture (and still is). Your current edition implies this, which may be over the top. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My current edition just relates the sequence of events (APS header, Monckton's letter, APS header changed) without stating causation. Any implications of causation inferred by the reader exist because the actual sequence of events implies a possible causal link, not because the author of the section wishes them to. Jaimaster (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi

I've semi'd the page for a week. Discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sensible enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Title?

Uh, why is this article under the subject's full title? It's absurd. I'm going to move it. Graft | talk 21:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see why. Graft | talk 21:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that too, but it seems to be our standard style for people with titles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Membership in the House of Lords

This already appears to be the subject of a scuffle up in "Anon comment removed here" (item 2), and I'm certainly opposed to using Lord Monckton's wikipedia entry as a hit-piece on his integrity. But it's a notable point worth addressing in the main article that Lord Monckton chooses to present himself as a member of the House of Lords (or often more specifically as a member of the Upper House of Parliament).

He refers to himself this way implicitly in this letter to two U.S. Senators:

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf (search for "upper house" to find the reference)

And he refers to himself this way explicitly here, in fact specifically addressing the criticisms of his use of that description:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/chuck_yet_again_schmidt.pdf (search for "footnote")

The House of Lords Act 1999 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1), which came into effect 7 years before Lord Monckton inherited his title, unambiguously states as its central impact:

"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."

Thus, while he is indeed a hereditary peer and a Viscount, he is not in any legal sense whatsoever a "member" of the House of Lords. His father's seat was not one of the handful maintained for transitional membership until reform is complete (as evidenced by his assertion of the same in the "footnote" link above and in that he stood for election in a by-election, which he would not need to do if he had a seat.

Along with other elements of the way Lord Monckton chooses to present himself and his qualifications, this is something about which many of his critics express concern regarding his integrity and honesty. So is there any reason not to include a note that he presents himself in this way, and note the disparity?

naltrexone (User talk:naltrexonetalk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

No, we cannot use this, no matter if its correct or not, unless you can come up with reliable sources that point this out. Your statement that "many of his critics" implies that you might be able to do so - if so - please present these, otherwise i'm afraid that it will be considered original research (which is something that WP cannot do per policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. While the preponderance of critics taking issue with Lord Monckton claiming that qualification seem to be doing so in science blogs, which may not qualify as Reliable Sources, there are certainly instances in RS print media. Would this be sufficient?

He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by the death of a member.

from:

"Global warming skeptic finds unfavorable climate in Bali"

Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.

Author: David Greising; Laurie Goering

Date: Dec 16, 2007

Start Page: 20

Section: News

Text Word Count: 912

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1399339251.html?dids=1399339251:1399339251&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+16%2C+2007&author=David+Greising%3B+Laurie+Goering&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Global+warming+skeptic+finds+unfavorable+climate+in+Bali&pqatl=google

(It's behind a pay-barrier, so I had to pay for access to the full article, but it's there.)

Naltrexone (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it - be bold (but also brief). I found a non-pay copy here [22], and its a regular journalistic piece it seems, and not an op-ed. If you can find more RS's for it, then tag them on as extra references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for all the help on that-- especially on tracking down the free version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naltrexone (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Monckton in the news

To be aware: Monckton is currently receiving heavy coverage in predominately right-wing media and blogs, so there is likely to be (a further) influx of new editors who have some disagreements with the mainstream viewpoint on climate change. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream? LOL.. it's only gullible tea baggers that don't believe the climate is changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.151.54.169 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This project has become a joke, no wonder contributors have been leaving in their tens of thousands. You are like the editors of some commie newsletter. In case you hadn't noticed while the masters of the universe were flying into Copenhagen on their private jets there was heavy snowfall across europe. But of course its not global warming anymore is it? but 'climate change'

As for the consensus, the IPCC only consists of a few thousand scientists, what about the 30,000 scientists including 9000 PHDs who sued Al Gore for fraud over his claims on 'global warming'? Google it if you dare. But then this has become a religious belief for you people, yet you call us naive! Educate yourselves.

Also, to those saying Lord Monckton has no scientific training, I would lay good odds he has more knowledge on scientific matters than any of you editing this page or the related climate change pages on wikipedia. You are all just zealots clinging to a malicious communitarian agenda

P.S. Even if the anon editor is Monckton, what is the problem? Why shouldn't the man have a right to defend himself against this completely biased article? But once again the wikipedia mandarins show their true colours and ban his IP, typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.161 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

anon you state "the IPCC only consists of a few thousand scientists" - of those, "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate." guesses William Schlesinger (3:35 mark) but that is irrelevant to this article, though I share the view that this article does include and unduly highlight any information negative to his character.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobel laureate?

The intro says he's a nobel laureate. Maybe I missed it, but is there any detail/reference for this in the article? Odd that it should remain unexplained.Shtove (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it - it's a hoax. He most definitely is not a Nobel laureate. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This may explain it, although sourced from a biased site: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php As far as I can tell Monckton doesn't claim he's a laureate, but does point to a laureate's badge on his lapel, which he reckons is merited by some contribution equal to that of Al Gore. An echo chamber for bullshitters?--Shtove (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, amusing. He has gall, if nothing else. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He wears the pin as a satire on how easy it is to get a Nobel peace prize. Just do some slides and talk for an hour and a half, is the POV. I think there are quotes from him where he explains it himself.

Anyway, it would perhaps be appropriate to note this in the article, so as to set the record that he's not a real Nobel laureate. --Cpx86 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore." [23] So contributors to the 2007 IPCC report each got a badge when the IPCC got their Nobel Peace Prize - w00t. Our own article says that particular award is shared between Al Gore and the IPCC. So he does, in that way, share the prize with Al, even if disproportionally so, but he's probably glad about that aspect ;p I don't think it's relevant to this article to mention that individuals involved with groups that receive a Nobel Prize each get a badge.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the prize was shared by authors of the IPCC report. Someone who was just a reviewer does not share it. And he wasn't even a reviewer. His "contribution" was that he noticed a typo in one report. And others noticed it before him. --TimLambert (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't have a cite for my theory, do you have for yours that contributors didn't get a badge? He does employ satire and other form of humour in his writing, maybe we should put it down to that.--Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the "badge" was made by another climate sceptic and was presented to him. It's as fake as the claim of a prize. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, I have made a wrong assumption then. Knowing that then, it sounds like part of a running gag which we're not partial to the background on. He is obviously being much more satirical in his writing than I first thought and likely his detractors are taking the opportunity to twist things about - and hence the two very related weirdy items - this and the House of Lords stuff. Thanks.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it is a running gag or not (it probably is). But it is a fact that both pro and contra misunderstand this, it certainly doesn't merit mentioning unless it is covered in reliable sources, but might merit an FAQ notice. (ie. is M a nobel prize ..., is M a member of the House of Lords... - written in a neutral language of course) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

UKIP

In December 2009, Viscount Monckton joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/10/viscount-monckton-ukip 131.111.17.143 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that info has been added to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

'Hitler Youth'

Dear editors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-activists-hitler-youth has a video and transcript of Viscount Monckton calling a young Jewish man a member of the Hitler Youth, and shows him claiming that the campaign SustainUS, which (I believe) encourages biofuel use, is responsible for starvation around the globe. This is notable and sourced; might it be added to the article?

Yours sincerely,

131.111.17.143 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Balthazar132 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)== Hitler Youth ==

Isn't the wiki coverage of the Hitler youth incident a little biased? You say Youtube is an unreliable source - it is the original source for the incident!

Incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-vrBKMxy4

Monckton explaining http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The kids invaded his private meeting and prevented it from going ahead, and Monckton fully explained why he said what he said. Maybe that should be written in to the wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use YouTube as a source. It's not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and the video in question is a primary source. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires us to use "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". So in this instance we need to use media sources that have reported on the incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me? That is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So you cannot use the original source just some biased news articles?

The world really has gone to hell hasn't it. Blimey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason why we're not supposed to use primary sources, especially in biographies of living people, is that Wikipedia isn't meant to get involved in analysing such things. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - that is, it summarises what secondary sources say about primary sources. So when it comes to something like a YouTube video (a primary source), we have to use reliable media reports (secondary sources) to write our article (a tertiary source). -- ChrisO (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does he not have advanced Graves disease? Secondary sources suggest this. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting - it would explain his physical appearance and perhaps some of his behaviour. I've not seen it covered in reliable sources, though, and I suspect it wouldn't count as much more than trivia (i.e. undue weight) if it was to be incorporated in this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian? [24] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It says he's ill but doesn't say anything about the cause. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He does have Graves' Disease. He says so himself. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4624 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilj (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? Kittybrewster ☎ 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not of paramount importance, but may I suggest to change the reference you added to point directly to Monckton's own article at SPPI blog? It would be in agreement with WP:BLP on subject's self published sources, I think, whereas third party self-published blog as a source could be questioned. Doc15071969 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As primary sources aren't allowed, and yet newspaper articles are: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235187/Former-Conservative-peer-Lord-Monckton-labels-Jewish-activist-Hitler-Youth-climate-change-event.html That has multiple quotes, and explains both sides of the argument- the view of the boy in question who was labled a hitler youth, and Lord Monckton's explanation for his actions. In this case I think it is fair to say that Monckton DID have justification- if SustainUS hadn't been interrupting a meeting and drowning out his and other's point of view, there would have been no incident. Danish law also supports his case: Anyone is entitled to in print, writing and speech to publish his or hers thoughts, yet under responsibility to the courts. "Anyone is entitled to in print, writing and speech to publish his or hers thoughts, yet under responsibility to the courts. Censorship and other preventive measures can never again be introduced." as taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press_in_Denmark As his point of view is not racist, blasphemy or libel, it is protected by Danish freedom of speech. SustainUS is in violation of Danish law by attempting to prevent others publishing their thoughts Balthazar132 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you all take a look at Wikipedia:SELFPUB which says: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Clearly, the YouTube video where Lord Monckton explains his position qualifies:

  1. It's not "unduly self-serving" to explain yourself in regards to a controversy
  2. While the video does contain claims about third parties, that can hardly be seen as a problem since this part of the article is itself a description of these claims.
  3. Obviously the event is directly related.
  4. It's obviously authentic, or he has a very convincing double.
  5. The entire article is not based on the source, only a small segment.

--Cpx86 (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This might be relevant if the video was by Monckton or issued by him, but it's not. It's a third party video about him. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Self-published sources explains the rule here: "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". That condition is not met here. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a misinterpretation of that clause. The clause uses textual sources as examples of sources that must be explicitly written/published by the subject. However, a recording is different in a very significant sense, namely that the source isn't the actual video but the speech of the subject. A text from a self-published blog which describes a third party is not appropriate to use as a source because it's an expression of the writer's own subjective view and facts can be easily fabricated in text. But video is completely different in this regard because it's nearly impossible to fabricate a video in such a manner. So therefore, I don't think it's meant to apply to recorded video. However, this is an interesting problem, so I'm posting a question to Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests for clarification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.74.27 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly i find the whole thing bad taste.. It's focus on a single instance (ie. undue weight), as such it has no place in an encyclopedia, now if this had been common for M and had been described as such in reliable sources, then it would be different. (its an "Yes! Now we got him - look at that twat" kind of entry - and as such shouldn't be here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree fully on that. I got caught up in the discussion of a general principle and forgot completely to object to the actual subject matter. In all seriousness, if we project say 10 years forward, would anyone reading this article looking for general information about Lord Monckton be even the slightest bit interested about a spur-of-the-moment comment made on a conference of relatively small size compared to the one it was rivaling, targeted against a, to the general public, mostly unknown and by then possibly defunct youth lobbying organization. The notion really is ridiculous.

I put forward to all others active in the writing of this article, a suggestion to just completely remove the entire section. Meanwhile, I'm removing the parts that are irrelevant, subjective, libelous and/or in downright "bad taste", as you put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the content's removal - I didn't add it in the first place... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Cpx86 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless that young Jewish man had the words "young Jewish man" prominently inscribed on his forehead, I don't see what his religion has to do with anything. It's obvious Monckton was referring to the young man's behavior (i.e. attempts to "crash" Monckton's meeting, which is censorship, you know, like the Nazi book burnings), not his religion (which was unknown at that moment). Or do you mean to say that it was inappropriate to label (unknowingly) a Jewish man -- who engages in Nazi-like behavior -- as a Nazi? Perhaps you think it fair for this Wikipedia entry to also include reference to this young man's religion in the context of, say, the Group 13? Or of the burning of the mythical writings of Moshe Chaim Luzzatto by Rabbis? Now that would be humorously ironic, wouldn't it? --Alibubba7 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)