Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

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.”

Sorry to interleave my post, but I'm not responding at the end of this hokum. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp states that "[Monckton,] 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.". Reputable source, their words; they later state in the same article that Monckton says the story was something "which the PR people dreamed up", to which he agreed. 131.111.17.143 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Monckton again

In case anyone is wondering, the anonymous editor who posted a lengthy screed here earlier today, deleted earlier discussions and made numerous unsourced, highly POV edits to the article is likely to be Monckton himself. He is currently blocked from editing (as Mofb (talk · contribs)) for making legal threats. The same editing block extends to the IP addresses that he uses. Basically, if you see an anonymous IP editing the article from the Energis network, it's likely to be Monckton himself. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the edit attributing Monckton's lack of votes to the Freemasons. :) Bi (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who the Anonymous editor is but I see that someone has changed the key phrase in the opening line back to "mainstream scientific consensus on global warming". I'm sorry, but this is simply a false statement simply reflecting the person's point of view. If you choose to believe that this makes me a "right-wing zealot" then so be it. I stand firm that there simply is NOT "mainstream scientific consensus" on this subject. It's a pity that some are more interested in pushing their political agenda that striving to keep Wikipedia as unbiased as possible. rwerner (talk) 5:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, sadly, you would be in error - see Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps rwerner could direct us to the reliable sources that state that there is no mainstream scientific consensus on global warming. Because, frankly, one editor "stand[ing] firm" on a particular viewpoint regardless of the weight of evidence for or against it isn't worth the energy it took to express the sentiment. Perhaps he could begin by directing us to the peer-reviews papers that take issue with the fact of anthropogenic global warming that have been published in, oh, the last five years, before using their number vis a vis those that support the anthropogenic position to demonstrate that they constitute anything more than fringe theories.FrFintonStack (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FrFintonStack, MIT scientists Prof Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi have written a paper that was accepted for publication by the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters in July 2009. You can see a pdf at [1]. It is based on observations made by ERBE and directly contradicts the predictions made by the leading climate models. It's a very serious attack on the "consensus" view. --Archstanton (talk) 12:49, 13 December 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)

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)

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? [2] 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)

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)

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)

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

The new photo is good in most respects (well-lit, in focus, etc). However the subject appears to have a startled look on his face, and he appears bug-eyed. Is this the most neutral image we have available? This image, from the same photographer, isn't as good in terms of its framing, but the expression appears more natural.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Monckton's appearance is apparently due to Graves' disease - the eye problem is exophthalmos. It's the only full-face image I was able to find and it took a bit of persuading for the photographer to agree to let the pic be used. The image you linked to is from the same sequence (note the camera lens on the right and the laptop on the left in the pic on the right - you can see the same laptop and camera framing him in the pic you linked to). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Bush has that condition. If that's what he looks like then there we are.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for persuading the photographer to license it.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense, he looks perfectly normal in most photos... e.g. [3]. Do a google image search. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How old are those images? This one was taken only a few days ago. Graves' is a progressive disease, so his appearance is bound to have changed over time. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the video of him during that confrontation, he does not look like that in all frames. By any stretch of the imagination. Per WP:BLP, specifically WP:MUG, images that are not representative of a living person, when a representative one is available, should not be used. Bastin 13:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When a representative one is available. I've been trying for months to find a picture of him that was (1) reasonable quality - i.e. not blurred or otherwise unacceptably poor and (2) freely available. The latter has been a particular sticking point. If you can find a picture that is of good enough quality and that the photographer will allow free distribution, then please produce it and we can discuss it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2009 (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 [4] 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)