Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 26 July 2010

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Qualifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member of the House of Lords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

salon.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debunking by John Abraham

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

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

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

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

Claims of winning a Nobel prize

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

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

Deleted Telegragh blog

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

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

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

Monckton debunked , but still an unduly positive wikipedia profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monckton curing AIDS

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

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

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

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

Two thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IP Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific credentials

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

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

JA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, all from WP:BLP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Monctkton has threatened that university with a libal suit

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

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

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

I see a lot of blogs in your google search. Are you focusing on some of them in specific? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Note

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

If you are going to do so - then i'd prefer if you'd actually presented what happens correctly. fight to include this.. is not correct. You are writing what you think you are reading - instead of what is actually written. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a source for it, that according to both regular WP:V and WP:BLP is allowable (since it is a British news-blog) . Whether it is weighty enough is quite another thing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of an actual BLP violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rv again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overhaul

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Template:Cite article
2. Template:Cite article
3. Template:Cite article
4. Template:Cite article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page full protected...

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

Nobel Laureate

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

Monckton-Abraham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair points. How about this proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request

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

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

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

Monckton and Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've shortened it a bit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's great BHG.

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

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

1. McAuliffe, Bill (July 22, 2010). Minneapolis Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/local/99072699.html?page=1. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. Abraham, John (June 3, 2010). "Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk". The Guardian.
3. Karnowski, Steve (July 23, 2010). "UK climate change skeptic accuses US prof of libel". Associated Press.
4. Abraham, John (June 3, 2010). "Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk". The Guardian.
5. McAuliffe, Bill (July 22, 2010). Minneapolis Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/local/99072699.html?page=1. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
6. Karnowski, Steve (July 23, 2010). "UK climate change skeptic accuses US prof of libel". Associated Press.
7. Abraham, John (June 3, 2010). "Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk". The Guardian.
8. McAuliffe, Bill (July 22, 2010). Minneapolis Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/local/99072699.html?page=1. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
9. Karnowski, Steve (July 23, 2010). "UK climate change skeptic accuses US prof of libel". Associated Press.
10. ^ "House of Lords Act 1999 (original text)". 1999-11-11. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
11. Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15). "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My Recent Testimony". Science & Public Policy Institute. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
12. ^ Hickman, Leo (2010-04-20). "Lord Monckton throws his safari helmet in the ring as Ukip candidate".
13. "Conservative Hereditary Peers Byelection March 2007 Result" (PDF). British Parliament. 2007-03-07. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
14. Beckett, Andy (2007-02-24). "Born to run: There are 47 voters, 43 candidates, and the race to be elected a hereditary Tory peer is on. Is this democracy at last in the House of Lords?". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
15. "Crossbench Hereditary Peers' By-election, May 2008: Result" (PDF). 2008-05-22.
16. "Results: Crossbench hereditary Peers' by-election following the death of Viscount Bledisloe" (PDF). 2009-07-15.
17. "Results: Crossbench Hereditary Peers' by-election" (PDF). 2010-06-23.
18. ^ Cite error: The named reference UKIP-Lord Monckton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15). "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My Recent Testimony". Science & Public Policy Institute. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
20. "Conservative Hereditary Peers Byelection March 2007 Result" (PDF). British Parliament. 2007-03-07. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
21. Beckett, Andy (2007-02-24). "Born to run: There are 47 voters, 43 candidates, and the race to be elected a hereditary Tory peer is on. Is this democracy at last in the House of Lords?". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
22. "Crossbench Hereditary Peers' By-election, May 2008: Result" (PDF). 2008-05-22.
23. "Results: Crossbench hereditary Peers' by-election following the death of Viscount Bledisloe" (PDF). 2009-07-15.
24. "Results: Crossbench Hereditary Peers' by-election" (PDF). 2010-06-23.

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Low-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles