Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive 6

RfC:Right then, how many paragraphs should the Climate change section have?

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * After reading through the discussion in the 2 sections below, it seems consensus is in favour of including the 4th pharagraph presented. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  10:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We can see and  proposes one while  proposes eight, and  (=Guy) is suggesting about half of eight (in words or paras). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All other comments and justifications welcome - let's establish a size first. I think I'd be happy with anything from JzG's upwards (4-8 paras or 385-770 words) - it is a pretty prominent part of what he's notable for. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't proposed a specific size. The size of a section in and of itself is not a meaningful benchmark. I have no problem with the material being edited with care, collaboratively. My issue with the removal of the majority of it is that the justifications have been faulty ("he's not a climate scientist or expert therefore what he's said is inaccurate and violates NPOV" is immaterial to a BLP about that person, as shown by the Jenny McCarthy article). Anastrophe (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The evidence does not show that Monckton is notable for climate change skepticism. This is a claim made by editors performing original research. Monckton was notable for other things prior to 2006, when his essays about climate change were published.  He was already 54 years of age at that time, and he had already had a career as a journalist and editor, and a political career as an advisor, spokesperson, and candidate, and a business career as an entrepreneur. Furthermore, there appears to be an effort by Wikipedia editors to make it seem like he was known for his climate change views in 2002, but in actuality, the sources used to make this claim do not support it.  Finally, many of these types of claims in the article are not made by reliable sources, but by Wikipedia editors interpreting primary sources, in particular, newspaper articles written by Monckton, so much of the content is actually bordering on original research. For example, the article currently says, "Since 2002 Monckton has had several newspaper articles published critical of the IPCC and current scientific consensus on climate change."  The citations listed do not support that claim.  There continues to be no evidence that Monckton is notable for his climate change journalism.  In fact, the current article shows that for 54 years prior to the manufactured controversy in 2006, Monckton was not known for climate change journalism at all. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even without the material that you removed, there is substantial coverage of who Monckton is, and other things he is notable for - none of that has been ignored in the article. You appear to be saying that no coverage of more recent things that he is known for is appropriate. I see you've moved your rationale to OR - listing one instance in the removed material that appears to be so. That's fine, that one claim can certainly go. You haven't supported that many or most of the information in the section is OR or that the sources are not reliable. Please share your findings specifically, and we can discuss them. One instance of OR doesn't condemn the rest of it. As other editors have stated, he is notable for his anti-global warming advocacy in recent years - characterizing this as a lone editor who has been refuted is revisionist. It has just turned more than 24 hours since this discussion began, on what is a holiday weekend for many people around the world. Let's let more than this handful of editors share their views on this matter. I don't see any reason this can't be discussed - where is the fire? Anastrophe (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Monckton has devoted considerable time and energy to this cause over the past few years, which is mirrored in his exposure in the press. I haven't checked the citations specifically but I know what I see/hear and read in the news. I can't believe my news is that different to other people's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is of no weight in a BLP -- we do not use the fact you "know" stuff about him -- we have to use what reliable sources proportionately consider notable, and his fairly mild skepticism is hardly worth taking the proverbial sledgehammer out for. Viriditas is not especially known for concurring with my positions on BLPs, but when we agree, it is pretty likely that we are collectively correct on this .   The lengthy screed was of UNDUE weight, and the trimmed version states what his positions are I a succinct manner, without feeling the need to add commentary thereon.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anastrophe, the only reason I started throwing size around is that if there are more than a few people involved in this discussion, it gives a framework for people to work around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Viriditas - scroll down here and see how/what his name comes up in google books. QED. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He is notable for having "worked at the Number 10 Policy Unit during Margaret Thatcher's premiership". The most relevant source you offered from your search string is The Inquisition of Climate Science (2013), which notes that the Telegraph series gave him a new career as a climate "expert" in 2006, which is exactly what I've said above. For 54 years, OTOH, he was known as a journalist, editor, political spokesperson, candidate, and entrepreneur. Giving his opinions on climate more space than the breadth of his entire career is undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The section in question is most certainly not given more space than the rest of his career. The article is right there to be viewed, it goes into specific details at length regarding his career and life. The section in question had numerous short paragraphs, but it was not "unprecedented" in its length, nor is it longer than the rest of the article. Monckton has been notable in recent years for his views on climate change. The section in question doesn't provide a platform for his views, it shares details relevant to Monckton's notoriety on the matter. I will repeat, I have no problem with it being judiciously edited, collaboratively. Editor Viriditas's initial stab at it was a good start, but only that - a start. Anastrophe (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The size of the section should be of due weight only for the entire biography (read WP:PIECE). Eight paragraphs, mainly serving as an editorial sledgehammer is UNDUE. A simply direct statement of his views seems quite sufficient for an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a good place for sledgehammering anyone's views about any living person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the current paragraph is good. An additional paragraph (or even two) would be fine. Eight is excessive. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement so far that the version Anastrophe has insisted on is unsuitable and disproportionate. So, assuming that we have pretty much established a size, we're presumably also interested in what the section says. What should it include and exclude, how should it be presented and framed? As I've already said on ANI, I think the section currently offered by Collect is poorly presented and unhelpful to readers. It starts in medias res, as if in answer to some specific (but unasked) question, and has no framing at all in terms of the impact or the reception of Monckton's views. Collect, your responses in several places to me has been to state that you wrote that way because you wanted to say exactly what reliable sources say. That doesn't really address my criticism, which is of style, structure and presentation. The sourcing policy doesn't oblige us to merely offer a disconnected list of "he says", though the sad fact is that that's how articles on controversial subjects often end up, and our readers are the losers. Viriditas' short version here is much superior in my opinion, because it gives an overview. That's not to say it couldn't stand tweaking for NPOV. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC).


 * And why should a BLP give "impact" and "reception" more than to the actual views? Are you asserting that the quotes used are inaccurate in some way and not supported by the cites given?  I took great care to precisely follow the cites, and suggest that any desire to make his words appear other than as cited would violate WP:BLP ab initio.   Does Monckton have an enormous impact with his views?  Not that I could find.  Is he primarily a climate theorist?  Not that I could find.  Is he a "horrid denier who should be shamed"?  Not that I could find.  He appears to be a moderately notable individual, almost entirely not for climate change views, and his views appear to be consistent with everything except a belief in the "papal infallibility" of the IPCC.  Perhaps that makes him a "horrid climate denialist" but I find his words do not seem to justify such a categorization.   And if we have a section on his views, we absolutely do not need to then outweigh his views with seven paragraphs of "he is evil" at all.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has been proven that eight paragraphs is necessarily UNDUE emphasis in this case. Monckton has been very active in the climate change debate, and has received a fair amount of coverage. Yes, the section could certainly be edited and improved, but I don't see the need to remove information from the article if it is well sourced and potentially useful to a reader. Wouldn't a better solution than removing 90% of the climate related material be to make the article as a whole more comprehensive? The article is not over-long, so could stand some beefing up of other sections to do with his past political activities. 7-800 words is not exactly a novel, and might be necessary to discuss the details of a certain topic. I really don't think it is unprecedented on wikipedia to discuss an important aspect of a person's career in this way, and I think we would do a disservice to readers if we just boil it down to "monckton is a sceptic, gives lots of talks, and has been accused of fabrications on numerous occasions." Wikipedia should exactly be a place where an interested reader can come to dig into the details of the third party debate around his positions. (For the record, I find the tone of this debate unnecessarily personal and unconstructive, for example, I don't get the impression that User:Anastrophe has "insisted" on any particular version, particularly as he just said "I have no problem with it being judiciously edited, collaboratively. Editor Viriditas's initial stab at it was a good start, but only that." Let's try to be a bit more collaborative, and less confrontational. )Peregrine981 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Peregrine981: Funny how often that "for the record" heralds some supposedly "collaborative" unpleasantness. Anastrophe no longer insists in this discussion; they clearly learned from the ANI thread, which is great, and that's why I used the preterite "has insisted". I was merely trying to clearly identify the version I was referring to. To nitpick other people's wording on the basis of mistaken "impressions" may not be the best way to keep the discussion collegial. Anyway, don't worry about further "confrontation" from me, I've said what I had to say. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
 * You will find, on careful reading, that nowhere in this discussion, nor in my misguided ANI thread, have I insisted or demanded anything. My words are here for the reading; they aren't ambiguous. My argument was that one editor's wholesale, fiat eliding of significant, well- and reliably-sourced material, on vague claims of (first promotion, then undue, then npov, then finally OR - whatever rabbit could be pulled from the hat) - was inappropriate, in a collaborative editing medium. Mere hours transpired before the material was wiped, with only myself and the proximate editor having weighed in. I saw no fire in progress - the rush to remove the material was inappropriate. I accomplished my goal, by throwing a hissy fit, so to speak, to draw attention to a serious failure of collaboration. Am I looking back with rose colored glasses? Yes! Review the record, review the other editor's statements and tone, as well as mine. Only one editor insisted - and it wasn't me. Anastrophe (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's my opinion, as an uninvolved editor who hasn't looked closely at the sources, and who ended up here only because my RfC was next door (hint, hint):
 * I've visited various climate blogs, so I've heard of Monkton as a denier several times, and in no other context. There's certainly no question of lack of WP:V for his views on this.
 * So I think it's not inappropriate for this section to be larger than the others in the "political views" part of the article. 1 paragraph is certainly too small.
 * Still, 8 paragraphs seems excessive. I'd say anything from 3-6 paragraphs is good. Homunq (࿓) 13:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot has change on this article since I worked on establishing its notable content a years ago - the outright culling of information that is factual and backed by sources is wrong. Is there are an issue with 8 paragraphs? Only if they are as weakly sourced as described. The removal of the below content for instance doesn't make a great deal of sense:
 * Since 2008 he has toured Britain, Ireland, the US, China, Canada, India, Colombia, South Africa, and Australia delivering talks to groups related to the subject. In 2008-09 he was invited on four occasions before Congress to speak on the behalf of Republican representatives. He followed this up with his January 2010 and July 2011 tours of Australia, as well as tours of China and India in December 2011. Between 2009 and 2010 the film maker Rupert Murray followed Monckton on his climate change tour. The film was later broadcast on 31 January 2011 on BBC Four titled Meet the Sceptics. Prior to its broadcast its depiction of Monckton was described by fellow sceptic James Delingpole as "another hatchet job". 
 * All of which is factual and relevant review of relatively current events upon which there has been comment by primary and secondary sources. The only criticism of the paragraph I can see is that it needs more citations (the Delingpole article only covering part of it).
 * On 6 December 2012 Monckton took Burma's seat at the COP18 Climate Change Conference in Doha without permission and made a short speech attacking the idea of man-made climate change. He was escorted from the building and given a lifetime ban from attending UN climate talks. Monckton said that there had been no global warming over the last sixteen years, and thus the science should be reviewed. 
 * I would argue it's somewhat notable to be banned from UN Climate Talks?
 * Arguments of "undue weight" are red herrings. His only notability of any relevance in the last 15 years has been his Climate Change Denialism, and his Peerage claim. The absence of "weight" to his earlier career is because it was of no significant notability - or if it was, then it's currently not cited which is a deficiency that means those sections should be strengthened, not other sections weakened for "balance". Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Koncorde that the article should include the information in two paragraphs mentioned. I'm not going to restore it, but I suggest that it would be appropriate for someone else to do so.
 * Separately, I agree with Collect that the topic sentence which I had proposed was not sufficiently NPOV, but I think that instead of just removing it, Collect should have tried to make a NPOV sentence which summarizes the ideas in this section. It's important to give an overview before we start to get stuck in details. Homunq (࿓) 16:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to recent reverts, as per some other comments here - I see no evidence of undue weight in any case. Undue wordiness maybe, poorly written after several years of multiple editors almost certainly, in need of pruning and management - yes - but requiring blanking down to one paragraph to meet some mystical and arcane suggestion of "Undue Weight", no. "8" paragraphs is irrelevant - any talk of a number really doesn't make any sense (any more than a word count). All that is relevant is that the article successfully presents notable information. How many paragraphs is right for any subject? Arbitrarily are we now restricted to one paragraph per subheading so that it's all evenly spaced?
 * The claims of "sledgehammer" (recent edit summary, may have been used above also) to try and apply leverage to the claim the article is somehow not neutral or lending "undue weight" is another red herring. We're not here to provide a tepid article but present valid sources for biographical content. This is currently being deleted for little to no purpose. A lot of content has been consistently resisted over the last few years that would have leant undue weight. It seems the editors have done a reasonable job in keeping it up to date with his activities and it just needed some TLA to re-frame the content.
 * The key issue, it seems to me, is that now the entire section has been borked and requires a proper re-write of the existing content, not blanking - and in order to present a more coherent and cohesive article the entire thing may need updating from start to finish. Koncorde (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires that biographies be written "conservatively" -- that you seem to think conservatively written articles are "tepid" is not a policy-based rationale for much at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes someone inflicted upon the page were not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. Attempting to dress up blanking 8 paragraphs upon a whim as conservative when the content as it stood was (largely) very biographically average, with some meandering due to several years of accumulated cruft'i'ness, is dishonest. Trying to claim that the article was a "sledgehammer" or that he was presented as "evil" is piss poor form when in reality we were talking about maybe 5 sentences that required culling/condensing, and then some minor re-arranging of the content in order for it to actually make sense. I would refer to WP:CRYBLP or WP:BLPMEND. In general - some people just aren't neutral subjects. Omitting tabloid journalism is one thing, but what was being culled out was ridiculous, over officious and removing quite obviously notable content. Koncorde (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I fear you misapprehend the use of "conservatively" in the policy. Perhaps an ArbCom principle:
 * Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.
 * Is this clearer as to what is required by the policy? Collect (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what the policy is, what I am saying is blanking a section under the auspices of being "conservative" is not even remotely anywhere near plausible. the suggestion that the article required immediate dramatic action is massively overplaying the hand that has been dealt. Koncorde (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Two proposals, or a third to be suggested here, if any, would concern the "Climate change" section of this BLP. Which one best fits the strictures of Wikipedia policy? 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1. ''Monckton says a greenhouse effect exists,[40] and that CO2 contributes to it. He also says, "there is a startling absence of correlation between the CO2-concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that—at least in the short term—there is little or no causative link between the two", and that, on a different timescale, there is "a close correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature: but it was temperature that changed first".[41] In a 2006 article he questioned both the underestimated costs of mitigation and the overstatement its benefits, saying that mitigation was "expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations".[42]''

''These opinions have brought Monckton into conflict with climate scientist John P. Abraham. After Professor Abraham claimed to "debunk" Monckton's claims in a lecture at Bethel University (Minnesota),[43] [44] Monckton "initiated the ... disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct" against Abraham.[45][46][47] The university responded that "The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The University of St Thomas.",[48][49]''

2. ''Monckton is known as a "sceptic" or "denier" in relation to the theory of Anthropogenic climate change.[40][41] He is on record as accepting that there is a greenhouse effect,[42] and that CO2 contributes to it. However, he has questioned whether there is a "causative link" from CO2-concentration to global average temperature.[43] He has also cast doubt on the economic calculations relating to climate change responses in such sources as the Stern Review; such sources, he claims, had underestimated the costs of mitigation and overstated its benefits. [44]''

''These opinions have brought Monckton into conflict with climate scientist John P. Abraham. After Professor Abraham claimed to "debunk" Monckton's claims in a lecture at Bethel University (Minnesota),[45] [46] Monckton "initiated the ... disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct" against Abraham.[47][48][49] The university responded that "The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The University of St Thomas.",[50][51]''

''Since 2008 he has toured Britain, Ireland, the US, China, Canada, India, Colombia, South Africa, and Australia delivering talks to groups related to the subject. In 2008-09 he was invited on four occasions before Congress to testify by Republican representatives.[citation needed] He followed this up with his January 2010 and July 2011 tours of Australia, as well as tours of China and India in December 2011. Between 2009 and 2010 the film maker Rupert Murray followed Monckton on his climate change tour. The film was later broadcast on 31 January 2011 on BBC Four titled Meet the Sceptics. Prior to its broadcast its depiction of Monckton was described by fellow sceptic James Delingpole as "another hatchet job".[40]''

''On 6 December 2012 Monckton took Burma's seat at the COP18 Climate Change Conference in Doha without permission and made a short speech attacking the idea of man-made climate change. He was escorted from the building and given a lifetime ban from attending UN climate talks. Monckton said that there had been no global warming over the last sixteen years, and thus the science should be reviewed.[52]''

3. Revised version of elided original, with significant cleanup, wordsmithing, and with updated refs (several were dead). This is very rough, there are probably redundant/excess references, but I erred on the side of too many references (which establish reliability and notability with regard to the subject of this article) than too few. Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Monckton began publicly engaging in criticism of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the mid-2000's. He is on record as accepting that there is a greenhouse effect, and that CO2 contributes to it. However, he has said "there is a startling absence of correlation between the CO2-concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that—at least in the short term—there is little or no causative link between the two". In a 2006 article he questioned the appropriateness of using a near-zero discount rate in the Stern Review, which he claimed had underestimated the costs of mitigation and overstated its benefits. He said that mitigation was "expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations".

After a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University in Minnesota, Professor John P. Abraham of University of St. Thomas in Minnesota produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims, and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. The university rejected Monckton claims.

Since 2008 he has toured Britain, Ireland, the US, China, Canada, India, Colombia, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, delivering talks regarding climate change. In 2008-09 he was invited on four occasions before Congress to speak on the behalf of Republican representatives. He was the first climate change skeptic to address the weekly nationally-televised meeting of the National Press Club (Australia). Between 2009 and 2010 filmmaker Rupert Murray followed Monckton on his Australian tour; the resulting documentary was broadcast on 31 January 2011 on BBC Four titled Meet the Sceptics. Prior to its broadcast, its depiction of Monckton was described by fellow sceptic James Delingpole as "another hatchet job". Monckton requested an injunction against the Meet the Sceptics broadcast, complaining of breach of contract and requesting that his rebuttal should be added to the programme. The injunction was not granted.

On 6 December 2012 Monckton took Burma's seat without permission at the COP18 Climate Change Conference in Doha, and made a short speech attacking the idea of man-made climate change. He was escorted from the building and was banned from attending any further UN climate talks.

4. Anastrophe has it largely okay, but some elements aren't required as they have been re-located to his career section, and I would expand his views to be clearer that he is not just a critic of the science, but also the people and also introduce context for some of his statements / and responses.

Since 2006 Monckton has been engaged in the public criticism of Anthropogenic Climate Change, climate related socio-economic policies, and supporters of the AGW scientific consensus. While Monckton accepts that there is a greenhouse effect, and that CO2 contributes to it, he claims that "there is little or no causative link between the two" and has framed CO2 as "a harmless and beneficial trace gas". In a 2010 piece for the Telegraph he summed this up as "Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot." and described "The climate bugaboo" as the "strangest intellectual aberration of our age".

In a 2006 article he questioned the appropriateness of using a near-zero discount rate in the Stern Review, which he claimed had underestimated the costs of mitigation and overstated its benefits. He said that mitigation was "expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations".

In 2008 Monckton penned an open letter to Senator John McCain, then running for President of the United States, outlining issues he took with the Arizona Senator who supported Economic policies to help mitigate climate change. In summarising his complaints Monckton stated: "All of these propositions must be proven true before any action is taken to tamper with the climate, still less the fatal, self-inflicted wounds that you would invite your nation to make to her economy: #1. "The scientists, politicians, and media behind ‘global warming' are honest":  They are not."

Following Moncktons testimony in front of Congress in 2009, where he claimed an absence of warming in the previous 7 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was "requested to research and assess whether the information presented in Lord Monckton's testimony...is factually correct", they stated that the "calculation of a trend over the last seven years is a gross mischaracterization of the longer term trend".

In 2010 after a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University in Minnesota, Professor John P. Abraham of University of St. Thomas in Minnesota produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims, and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. The university rejected Monckton claims.

Version 4a:

Since 2006 Monckton has criticized the models of Anthropogenic Climate Change, climate related socio-economic policies, and supporters of the AGW scientific consensus. Monckton says there is a greenhouse effect, and that CO2 contributes to it, but that it is primarily "a harmless and beneficial trace gas". In a 2010 piece for the Telegraph he said "Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot." and described "The climate bugaboo" as the "strangest intellectual aberration of our age".

In a 2006 article he questioned the appropriateness of using a near-zero discount rate in the Stern Review, which he said underestimated the costs of mitigation and overstated its benefits. He said that mitigation was "expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations".

In 2008 Monckton wrote an open letter to Senator John McCain, then running for President of the United States, outlining issues he took with the Arizona Senator who supported economic policies to help mitigate climate change. Monckton stated: "All of these propositions must be proven true before any action is taken to tamper with the climate, still less the fatal, self-inflicted wounds that you would invite your nation to make to her economy: #1. "The scientists, politicians, and media behind ‘global warming' are honest":  They are not."

Following Moncktons testimony in front of Congress in 2009, where he said there was an absence of warming in the previous 7 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was asked whether this was factually correct. NOAA stated that the "calculation of a trend over the last seven years is a gross mischaracterization of the longer term trend".

In 2010 after a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University in Minnesota, Professor John P. Abraham of University of St. Thomas in Minnesota produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims, and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. The university rejected Monckton claims.

Discussion
I happen to prefer the first as stating the exact words of the living person, then giving an example of the controversy about that person. I feel the second, by labeling him a "skeptic" and "denier" sets the ground for a "sledgehammer section" showing just how evil the person is, which I find to be quite in conflict with the strictures of WP:BLP Collect (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be writing and presenting both alternatives here - plenty of folks are saying approx. half size is ok, and now you've written two versions yourself. Recommend either removing this proposal or awaiting Anastrophe's possibly tightened version as alternative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- did you happen to miss my pointing out that this was not limited to two alternatives in the wording for the RfC?  Add one or two if you like to see how people react -- this is the primary simple form for dispute resolution, so the broader the discussion the better.   Cheers.  I could have sworn that I wrote:
 * Two proposals, or a third to be suggested here, if any, would concern the "Climate change" section of this BLP. Which one best fits the strictures of Wikipedia policy?
 * If this was not clear, I trust it is now sufficiently clear. Collect (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way - I did not write both alternatives myself -- Koncorde wrote proposal number two. Collect (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, well make that clear above then and invite to add one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thunked the wording was quite clear - and Anastrophe is a regular denizen on this page. Collect (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't write number 2. I reverted to Number 2 or thereabouts. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For purposes of this discussion, I find that largely irrelevant. You made that edit,  not I.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4a added -- removing "words to avoid", tightening language and using what I consider the more apt link for "discount rate" here. Collect (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support #1 as noted in the discussion above. Collect (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are better options, and other problems with the article - fundamental problem dates back to the point where the Climate Change was turned into a "Political Views" section rather than dealing with his current activities as an extension of his Career (which also then lead somehow to Resurexxi - a business venture - landing itself in his "Political Views". The changes that I have made, unaware of this RFC being drawn up, pretty much handles part of the problem by reducing the "Political Views" down to what it should be. I would say that the dispute with Abraham possibly should be dealt with separately with less detail as part of his career, but also perhaps tackling the responses by the NOAA and NSIDC to his Congressional testimony also. I also am not sure whether his AIDs comments should be part of his political views, or political career - as not sure as whether they are still relevant. Koncorde (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was multiple reverts by a single editor in a two hour period which made this RfC a necessity. The article is under discretionary sanctions, and edit war behaviour is not going to fly, hence using RfC as the proper course here.  And this RfC is about a specific edit which one editor insists be in the BLP, thus is limited to that topic.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Supportt number 1 Of the two, it reads better and seems the best formulation. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. #2 seems to be my own rough version, but all paragraph breaks removed, which makes it nearly unreadable. I'd also already agreed that the first sentence therein needs serious work. Putting these as the only two options, and in this unreadable form, means that this survey is not going to produce anything usable. If it's necessary to reduce to a few options, they should be based on structure (ie, "one paragraph on his views" versus "four paragraphs on his views, the dust-up with Abraham, his speaking tours, and the UN thing"), not specific wording. Homunq (࿓) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one. (Struck out because the options are now readable and there are more options to choose from. New comment below.)

*Reject RfC as per WP:RFC. I've not studied the history here, but the question as posed does not, at first look, seem neutral (I could be mistaken) and is certainly not brief. The wikitext of the different options is difficult to read and match with sources, in the format provided. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made the format more clear and specifically noted that additional proposals would aid in this dispute resolution process. Cheers, but I do not know how this could be any more neutral in wording than it is. Collect (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take another look at the revised version. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still finding it difficult to assess the sources used by 1 and 2. Presumably it's not safe to assume that the citation numbers in the text above are the same as in the article as it stands as of now? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support #3 - as half size of text removed - still has salient points. Hard to summarise Monckton's position in one para. oppose #1 as misrepresents Monckton and Abraham's dispute as just an argument between two academics. oppose #2 similar issues to #1Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WRT 3 The use of "claimed" is generally seen as a "word to avoid", as are "however" and the like.  His Congressional appearance was "testimony" and the inference that he "spoke only to Republicans" is non-neutral.  And the Doha incident is pretty non-notable over all -- it did not get widespread reliable source coverage, and thus hits the WEIGHT barrier.  The first sentence is argumentation -- we can stick with what he actually said without saying in any way that he is a denier or sceptic or "criticized AGW"  - and we should not use sources making such claims per WP:BLP.  If we remove the first sentence, the Doha bit, the "Republican" aside, the "claims" and "howevers" we would be closer to policy compliance. Collect (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same segment? It doesn't say "spoke only to Republicans" but "on behalf of..."? Doha incident is notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "On behalf of" is still inapt language - it was testimony in Congress. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support #4 also as Doha material moved elsewhere anyway. Appears to follow facts closely in neutral language. Primary sources are used appropriately to clarify what the people actually say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reject 2, 3, and 4 with 4 duly representative of the most egregious undue weight violations that have already been discussed on this page and virtually identical to the original disputed version. To get a sense of how bad #4 truly is, I will briefly point out several of its glaring shortcomings. 1) it creates a false narrative claiming that Monckton is somehow an authority on this subject rather than acting solely as an advocacy journalist. 2) whether he accepts a greenhouse effect or not is absurd.  That's like saying "Person X accepts the Earth revolves around the Sun".  It is neither notable nor relevant to state this, and it is cited directly to the author, not to secondary sources about the subject. 3) the long quote about the "startling absence of correlation" is nonsensical.  Monckton is not a scientist and therefore, he shouldn't be quoted as one here.  Briefly paraphrasing his fringe theory is acceptable, quoting it as if he's being quoted in a refereed journal is not.  The same goes for framing his "2006 article" as a scholarly work, when it was an opinion piece published by his former employer, a broadsheet newspaper.  Again, we see the false framing narrative at work. 4) we don't need to balance fringe theories with scientific rebuttals and quotes.  That's not NPOV.  What we need to do is simply state the facts per WP:FRINGE and leave it at that.  Further the nonsense at Bethel University is neither notable nor encyclopedic, and has no lasting historical significance.  Again, this is yet another transparent attempt to reframe the narrative and make it seem like Monckton was having a scientific debate when in fact there was no debate. 5) his personal tour of the world is relevant and should remain, however, he did not talk about climate change, after all, he isn't an expert on the subject.  He simply spouted off on his fringe theory.  Again, we see the reframing narrative at work—his "talks regarding climate change" are not equivalent to actual scientific discourse and the peer reviewed literature. 6) that he was invited by climate denialists in Washington to speak is hardly noteworthy, nor is his address before the press club in Australia, which is open to the public. Again, we see the false framing narrative and false balance being promoted, as if Monckton was an actual expert on climate change 7) his ejection from the UN is relevant and significant. 8) all in all, the sources offered for this monstrosity are atrocious: 16 total, of which 9 are written by Monckton himself, 3 are to opinion pieces published on news blogs, 1 is to a newspaper article, 1 is a response from NOAA to Monckton's fringe theories (which should be used as the primary rebuttal), 1 is a self-published rebuttal linked to a university website, and 1 is a non-notable, unreliable personal blog.  This is totally unacceptable for GA/FA level articles and should not be acceptable here.  There are reliable sources on Monckton's views, and they can be summed up thusly: Monckton's position and his most significant work to promote this position (articles, tour, documentary) and the established scientific consensus on Monckton's work.  That's it, and all it requires is one paragraph.  The amount of hand waving, cherry picking, synthesis, and undue weight being given to this material is shocking. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "however, he did not talk about climate change, after all, he isn't an expert on the subject. He simply spouted off on his fringe theory. Again, we see the reframing narrative at work—his 'talks regarding climate change' are not equivalent to actual scientific discourse and the peer reviewed literature. " False equivalences. This article is not about climate change, it is about Christopher Monckton. Attempting to reframe the narrative and subject of the article as being climate change, then insisting that all mention of climate change by Monckton must be scrubbed because he isn't an expert, is misdirected. A great many people have spoken about global warming - think Al Gore, who is not an expert on the matter, has no formal schooling in climatology, is not a professor, has not submitted a single peer-reviewed article on climate change. By this yardstick, not a single mention of Mr. Gore's significant advocacy, speeches, writings, on global warming is allowed in Mr. Gore's article, because he has no actual credentials. Please. This holds no water at all. There isn't a single word in any of these versions that suggests, implies, alludes, or otherwise portrays Monckton as an expert in the field, nor is any of it 'promoting' his position. It is describing his position, and his activities, which are notable within the context of Christopher Monckton. Anastrophe (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a cherry picked, reframed POV narrative of his position based solely on editorial interpretation of self-published sources, opinion pieces, primary sources, unreliable blogs and personal websites. It intentionally juxtaposes a false balance between a non-scientist and the scientific consensus on climate change in violation of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE.  It's not acceptable in any form.  As we say in the states, it's lipstick on a pig.  We have plenty of reliable secondary sources on the subject, none of which you have chosen to use.  I suggest you read our policies and guidelines because you do not seem to be familiar with them.  There are only three important ideas that need to be conveyed here, Monckton's fringe theory on climate change (one sentence), his work and promotion in this regard (two or three sentences) and the mainstream scientific response to his work and promotion. (two sentences).  One paragraph to state the obvious; no more is necessary due to fringe and weight considerations.  All attempts to keep turning this into a eight paragraph treatise on Monckton's fringe theory ignore the fact that 1) he has not contributed anything of historical lasting significance to the climate change discourse, and 2) that the reliable sources show only self-published work, personal tours, and a variety of personal attacks on climate change scientists.  All of this is easy to state in one paragraph, and there is no need for anything larger at this time. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's just it - surely better to hammer out a clear cut sequence of his claims and their rebuttal than to remove/minimise and have it added in an ad hoc fashion later (which it will be). Where are the personal attacks? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I've outlined how to do this correctly, according to our policies and guidelines, which I'm afraid Anastrophe isn't interested in following. As for the personal attacks, I'm surprised you asked this; did you read any of the proposed changes or even the older version?  Monckton's entire premise is based on his argument that "the scientists, politicians, and media behind ‘global warming'" are not honest.  This amounts to a fringe conspiracy theory.  Monckton maintains that the climate scientists are lying to the world.  His attacks on Abraham is one of dozens.  Perhaps you are not familiar with the "game" called climate denial—it's all about attacking scientists, not the science.  That's why Scholars & Rogues calls Monckton a "climate disruption denier"—by attacking people, he generates (or manufactures) controversy where none actually exists, in an attempt to spread the meme of climate denial throughout the media.  It's essentially a proven propaganda technique.  Sensationalism sells. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "We have plenty of reliable secondary sources on the subject, none of which you have chosen to use." - pray tell! This article is about Christopher Monckton. You have many reliable secondary sources on Christopher Monckton, which are missing from this BLP of Christopher Monckton? Please share them then, rather than withholding them. WP:Fringe doesn't even come into play - I'll repeat for about the 99th time, this is a BLP about Christopher Monckton, not an article about climate change. The content is relevant and notable to Monckton. You are throwing out as many possible policies as you can find hoping one will stick, when most of the policies you are listing are not relevant to this, Monckton's BLP. Here again, it seems that one editor is insisting that ONLY one small paragraph is appropriate, while other editors are suggesting that something in between your one and the original eight might be appropriate. How about working with your fellow editors to find a balanced middle ground? Anastrophe (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources have already been discussed in this thread, are you having difficulty paying attention? Up above at 21:42, 19 April 2014, I mentioned The Inquisition of Climate Science (2013), which Casliber originally linked to in his search string.  It's possible you missed it because you were busy constructing flaccid straw men, arguing ad hominem, appealing to hypocrisy, and preparing stinky red herrings.  BLP's, especially this BLP about Monckton discusses fringe theories, and is subject to WP:FRINGEBLP and BLP.  You would know that if you bothered to read the policies and guidelines for the first time.  I haven't insisted only one paragraph is appropriate; the consensus is that eight paragraphs is far too much and undue.  As for proposing one paragraph, I can't imagine using reliable secondary sources to say anything more important or significant in balance with BLP and FRINGE.  Again, you have the burden of proof to show how this material is encyclopedic, not me.  I can provide example after example after example of the problems with the content you want to add, but I don't have the burden, you do.  And while you utterly failed to support or substantiate a single line of prose, I've debunked the vast majority of it, and I'll keep doing it again.  Starting with the first paragraph in your proposal, "Since the mid-2000's Monckton has been engaged in the public criticism of Anthropogenic Climate Change"; this entire paragraph is sourced not to reliable secondary sources about the views of the subject, but to cherry picked statements and editorial interpretations of Monckton's work.  That's not a valid addition.  You need to use reliable secondary sources that determine the notability of his views.  As an editor, you can't do that job.  Then on to the second paragraph, "In a 2006 article he questioned the appropriateness of using a near-zero discount rate in the Stern Review"; this paragraph is once again, sourced only to Monckton, not a reliable secondary source noting the signficance of this view.  We can't use that.  We rely on sources to tell us what is important, not editorial interpretation of primary work written by the subject alone. Now, on to the third paragraph, beginning with "In 2008 Monckton penned an open letter to Senator John McCain"; once again, sourced only to Monckton, based on an editorial interpretation of what's significant determined by a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable secondary source.  And then we have the fourth paragraph, starting with, "Following Moncktons testimony in front of Congress in 2009;" this is a primary source rebutting Monckton's testimony.  We can use primary sources carefully in conjunction with secondary sources that guide us.  And finally we have the fifth paragraph, "In 2010 after a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University in Minnesota, Professor John P. Abraham of University of St. Thomas in Minnesota produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims"; this entire manufactured controversy is sourced to a personal website self-published by Abraham, an opinion piece by Abraham, an opinion piece by Monbiot, an essay by Monckton [self] published by the front group Science and Public Policy Institute of which Monckton is directly connected as chief policy adviser, a blog posting by Monckton, private, self-published correspondence by Monckton, another opinion piece by Monbiot, a non-notable blog/personal website, and finally an article in the MinnPost that covered the local manufactured controversy between Abraham and Monckton at the University of St. Thomas.  That article specifically mentions that the dispute received almost no press coverage except for this local paper.  And this is precisely why Scholars & Rogues calls Monckton a "climate disruption denier"—by attacking people, he generates (or manufactures) controversy where none actually exists, in an attempt to spread his viral meme of climate denial in the media.  He apparently failed with the Abraham dispute as it was all but ignored except by the local paper indicating little to no historical importance.  So once again, I've debunked all five paragraphs you've proposed due to your continued refusal to follow a single policy or guideline when it comes to writing articles.  Find a good reliable secondary source (I just gave you one above) and then get back to me.  Until then, stop wasting my time with cherry picked, editorial interpretations of primary source material, opinion pieces, blogs, and personal websites. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote from a previous installment of bickering with editors, "Nice wall of text".
 * "stop wasting my time" - Wikipedia is a volunteer endeavor. If editor Viriditas feels their time is wasted working with its peers, then I'd recommend finding another avocation. Peer Viriditas is free to choose to waste its time; since user Viriditas has no formal obligations here, it is only Viriditas who is responsible for such wasting. As to the repeated personal attacks (which, make no mistake, I'm replying to in kind, no high ground here) - I'd recommend to my peer Viriditas to get over yourself. Viriditas seems to believe it has more authority than other editors. Sadly, that's a delusion. Again, wikipedia is a volunteer, collaborative effort. Either work with your peers to find an acceptable version - rather than stomping about insisting that no version is acceptable but your own - or walk away. Of course - it's all entirely editor Viriditas's choice. Continue wasting your time, no skin off my nose. With that, I'm done engaging with peer Viriditas; I'd much rather work with editors who understand the most fundamental guideline of wikipedia: collaborate with your peers.Anastrophe (talk)


 * 1) Support the first two paragraphs of 2. I feel the stronger first paragraph is needed and the second one is included in both anyway. The other paragraphs don't really add a lot. AIR corn (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) #2, but with the topic sentence from #3. The #2 topic sentence veers away from NPOV language and #3 is better, but otherwise #2 maintains an appropriate level of summary and focus on Monckton's own actions. Also, with phrases like "produced a rebuttal", #3 fails NPOV. #4 is even worse than #3 for NPOV, and #1 fails to convey how much Monckton has travelled and spoken on this issue. Homunq (࿓) 13:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
 * In what way are his "travels" of actual significance in the BLP? I do not find any source asserting that his "travels" are a major part of his general notability at all.  I would also note that "skeptic" and "denier" are generally viewed as "pejorative terms" and that the Climate Change arbitration case stated:  Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.   Collect (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On "travels": we have many sources which discuss things he did or speeches he made in country X. Do you expect all such sources to begin with "Monckton got on a plane and flew to X, a significant action without which the following events which increase his notability would not have happened"?
 * On "pejorative": I think we basically agree here. I'm supporting the topic sentence in 3 which avoids those terms over the one in 2 which doesn't. Though I'm not entirely sure "skeptic" (or in this case, in a Brit biography, "sceptic") is pejorative.
 * In general: as a wise person once said, this is a "request for comment", not a "request for agreement". Homunq (࿓) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the proposal at which works with the sentence you prefer? Collect (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't like it overall. Too short; no sense of how much he's done on this issue. As for the phrasing of what it does cover, it's not bad. Homunq (࿓) 15:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't support the hatchet job in #1. Agree his touring should be mentioned. There seems to be a misunderstanding in some of the comments here that one should only talk about the major things a person is known for. This is not true. Notability only determines if an article should be written, it does not restrict the content. The content is restricted by weight and reliable sources. I would consider #1 as too short in relation to the rest of the article and the others about right. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3 The fullest presentation is the clearest, and is not undue weight. The wording here seems neutral. Describing that he accepts the CO2 level increase & the greenhouse effect is necessary in order to place him among the spectrum of people with similar views--denying the connection is less absurd than denying the plain facts. (I see  no reason for even the strongest supporters of the scientific hypothesis to deny that the opposition exists; it is, rather, important that people with very prominent public positions have their positions made clear. To misunderstand the extent of support in the political world for the non-scientific positions  can lead to disaster.  DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the cites are still borked in #3, and need improvement. Anastrophe (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for 4 In fairness, any of them could serve, but despite the issues a pair of editors have with #4, I actually find it reads as neutrally as any of the others, it just takes its time making the same presentation of the subject's apparent perspectives, and reads a little better for it.  I'm going to say I don't see the weight issue here so much; unless genuine synthesis is involved, a healthy coverage of the man's words are relevant in the article which concerns him.  For that reason I would also add the section from #2 and #3 concerning his actions at the U.N. climate change conference; that incident contributes meaningful information about the subject of the article.  It gives the reader insight into his respect for those institutions and processes.  It tells us that he is willing to impersonate a delegate at a meeting of a geopolitical body in order to tell a bunch of professionals that they are idiots to their faces.   People can draw their own conclusions from his actions; so long as we're presenting a reliable source that these are his words and actions of actual record, we don't have to comment on them at all, nor should we want, given policy -- except as warranted by the observations of secondary sources.  It's not undue weight to give a man's own words a certain degree of presence when discussing his view in a biographical article. But again, any of them would do, I think even the shortest is still clear enough about Monckton's general stance.  I just don't see the use of forgoing useful sourced content, not when 3-5 shortish paragraphs is a more than reasonable amount of time to be spending on the subject of the man's advocacy. Maybe I'm missing something? From what I've observed, no one is saying any of the claims presented in any of the above drafts are non-verifiable, right?  Just that the low number of RS's suggests restraint?  I've looked at a handful of sources and they all seemed decent enough to me as regards WP:V, both in terms of the quality of the outlet and the consistency of the claim made with the source, putting the numbers matter aside.  Snow (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for beginning of 3, then mix of versions For better or worse, this guy has achieved notability for his climate views, so I think a bit more in the article is ok. I think a good general approach for controversial people is to describe them in their own words, then introduce the controversy/criticisms.  Start with stuff like "He started speaking about climate change.  He accepts some things but rejects others.  He has toured around making his case, etc."  Then go into the "he's labelled a 'denier' by opponents" stuff and bring up all the criticism: the Abraham stuff, getting kicked out of the UN, etc.  That's how I'd construct it.  Useitorloseit (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * #2 seems to be a good balance; 1 is a bit lean, and 3 & 4 are preachy. The subject obviously holds controversial views, but outside of comic books, people aren't defined solely by their controversies. Brevity and conciseness are values to treasure here. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like any of them. They're all terrible for different reasons.  If I had to choose one of them, it might be #3, which I would personally edit down to the size of #1.  There's no need to be so verbose or preachy.  #1 is clean, grammatically correct, and concise, which really appeals to me, but it also minimizes the controversy.  I could probably support #1 if another sentence or two were added to it that made it a bit more even-handed, such as being permanently banned from UN climate talks.  These are contentious views that go against the mainstream scientific consensus, and to minimize that fact is biased.  That said, there's no reason to write a TL;DR multi-paragraph rant about his skepticism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose #1 which formulates this in a highly misleading "he said/she said" format with Monckton opposed by only a single randomly-chosen scientist, and with no evaluation of how mainstream each of the two opposing views are. We should be clearly reporting that Monckton's views are well outside the scientific mainstream, and describing how they differ. The other three choices all look ok in this respect to me, but framing this as a personal debate between two people is the wrong way to approach this. I prefer #4 as (per WP:BALANCE) it gives greater weight to an evaluation of Monckton's overall views and actions, and less weight to the specifics of his conflict with one particular critic, but #2 or #3 would also be much more acceptable than #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe the RfC supported #4
The summary at the top of the RfC said the weight seemed to support 4 for the climate change section but that has not been implemented that I can see. I'm not sure if that is the original 4 or the amended 4a - I'll assume the amended on and will substitute that in. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a very odd reading of the discussion and should have been challenged at the time of the close. There was no clear balance of support in favor of any of the options. Two individuals supported option 4, but a third regarded it as "duly representative of the most egregious undue weight violations." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

, how did you arrive at a finding of consensus for #4, when it appears that only 3 of ~10 editors expressed support for it? Tarc (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the top summary by the closing editor. Also many editors expressed themselves as disagreeing with the others. I think at the very least there was a definite preponderance against the minimalist version in number 1 which corresponds most closely with what is in the article. The article had a lot of that section removed and an RfC was set up to decide if that was right - and then the RfC seems to have been ignored. Or does anyone here really think option 1 had the preponderance of weight for it? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit broke references to some extent, and more significantly introduced an opening sentence completely at odds with the source cited, purportedly supporting that sentence. Due weight isn't achieved by presenting what the source calls climate change denial and "confusing the facts about climate change" as though it was mere "criticizing". The RFC was over a year ago, and appears stale. Please discuss fully before implementing changes. . . dave souza, talk 14:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the RfC was over a year ago, it should be expected that significant changes may have occurred since it was closed. Blindly implementing the RfC (that probably should have been closed "no consensus") probably isn't the right step forward. What is wrong with the current section that we are trying to fix?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think due weight is achieved with it looking as the only thing he has done is clash with Abraham? Or should it say something about his trips and other stuff he has done as is in the cites in the other options in the RfC? That is what the RfC was about.Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point about covering his trips and other stuff. From the first source, for example, alone we should note that "The Heartland Institute sent him to crash the 2007 UN climate talks in Bali", his position as "chief policy adviser" to SEPPI, and his expressed fears of the global warming movement creating "a one-world government". . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support moving forward from and fixing the current text rather than re-interpreting the RfC. Hugh (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If the close of the RfC is disputed, then the proper course is to hold a new and concise RfC with the proposed changes. Collect (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Collect Yes, that would have been reasonable to do a year ago. I don't see a benefit to doing that now.
 * @Dmcq We can fix the weight of Abraham without replacing the entire section, including parts unrelated to Abraham. It doesn't intuitively strike me as proper weight now, but I'd have to investigate the sources more extensively to see if my suspicions were correct. I have no objection to including more sourced content; what did you have in mind?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hah, I for one completely missed that all that was from last year ago. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To expand, I don't see a problem with including the 4 final paragraphs in this edit. I have some concerns they are representing Monckton's views uncontested, but we can fix that if need be. I do have a problem with the first paragraph. Why don't we add the 4a version to our existing content, instead of replacing it?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it clearly misrepresents at least one source, I don't think we can just add the 4a version, but as commented above, there's merit in going through the sources and adding what they cover. For example, NOAA responds to his fairly early global warming hiatus claim, and other points from his 25 March 2009 testimony. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, this is a biography and not a primary article on global climate - we should be careful not to give undue weight to a single issue here.  There are plenty of Wikipedia articles which have a lot of discourse on the scientific issues and models, and thus there is little need to have extended material here. Collect (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dave, yea, that's what I had in mind. That looks like a good step forward to me. Thanks!
 * @Collect yes and no. Since Monckton is a widely known figure in the climate change denial movement, a reader would expect more than cursory coverage of his involvement, and we need to respect WP:FRINGE in that coverage. We're only talking about a few paragraphs, so I don't think extended material is something to be too worried about.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that people have been asking how I arrived at the conclusion - with the best of respects, this is well over a year ago now, and unfortuantely, I can't really remember. It seems a new RfC may be the best course of action here. Mdann52 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN
There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages, including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.


 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you want to change, specifically? It appears to be included in several articles after long debate. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See comment by User:Peter Gulutzan at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter is a climate denial apologist. We are entitled to ignore his kvetching. The source is just fine, it summarises the facts well enough and the reader can safely be left to judge any slant it might have. This is, after all, not a political left/right issue, it's a facts v. ideology issue - the fact that MJ is left-leaning and the ideologues are mainly from the far right is not actually relevant in this case because the science is neither left-leaning nor right-leaning. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy: insults and lies about me do not belong on this talk page, which is supposed to be about Monckton. Try defending the fact that you have repeatedly called Monckton a "swivel-eyed loon" on Wikipedia pages, rather than attacking other editors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will bear that in mind if I am ever tempted to use them. I already defended the comment that Monckton is a swivel-eyed loon, multiple times, you might try rmemoving your fingers form your ears and stopping the chant of "laa laa laa I can't hear you" while you read this again :-) As I said last time, the term swivel-eyed loon is in common enough currency over here to describe a certain subset of right-wing politicians who espouse homophobia, europhobia and various other forms of nonsense, and it is reported to have originated within the conservative party itself. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I've read some silly things, but the argument that increase CO2 causes cooling knocks it out of the park. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Monckton was criticized for saying CO2 causes some warming, and by someone who thinks it causes cooling. Blog posts are worthless in BLPs and Guy shouldn't be pretending this one is evidence of something, but if it were, any cherry-picker could use it to show that Monckton is a global cooling denier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whereas he is, ion fact, a climate change denier, as the sources say. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think the term "swivel-eyed loon" should be avoided in this case (even in talk page discussions) because of the fact that Monckton actually is swivel-eyed, due to his medical condition. It muddies the water too much when there's a danger of straying from mere rhetorical comment to the disparagement of someone's personal appearance which, in this case at least, is absolutely not the fault of the man himself. Prioryman (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be fair to indicate that the discussions about the Mother Jones editorial (in the guise of a "special report") are inconclusive. I've provided the minimum attribution necessary to indicate context, but I'm still not sure it belongs, even if the editorial were accurate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic states that the Mother Jones list is helpful in identifying climate change deniers. That should eliminate most concerns of importance.
 * Given all that's available from reliable, independent sources in Monckton, it does seem undue to include so much detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But the question posed is, is the MJ source suitable? And the reason the question has been asked is because a number of people, probably including the OP, want to purge all mention of the d-word form articles on climate denialists. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's suitable for The Atlantic. It's suitable for the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "the Mother Jones editorial" The source is clearly not an editorial, it is clearly a feature article. I'm sorry you are not happy with what the source says. Hugh (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"A 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine said Monckton as among the most prominent climate change deniers."

The only way this content can fail verification is if a 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine did NOT say Monckton was among the most prominent climate change deniers. I'm sorry you are not happy with this content. Your tagging is disruptive. Hugh (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you cannot understand basic English, stop editing Wikipedia. Because it is opinion, we cannot paraphrase without being very careful.  Your quote said "loudest components of the climate disinformation machine".  That, in itself would not imply anything similar to what we're saying.  A rational person could not conclude from that that any of the named entities were actually "deniers".  There may be a better quote which supports the material.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, the personal attack ("basic english," really?) is uncalled for, and you are being pretty ridiculously pedantic here. Of course a reasonable person would conclude from the article that the people listed are deniers. Heck, the title of the article is "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial." It would require willful blindness for a reader to reach any conclusion other than that the people listed are, in fact, climate change deniers. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Titles of articles are generally considered opinion of copyeditors, are not considered reliable.
 * In the mobile version, there is absolutely no content to the MJ article. I'll have to check whether the URL should be removed if there is no content accessible from the desktop version.
 * As Hugh has made claims about statements in articles which no rational person with a basic understanding of English could honestly make, I don't see any reason not to call him on it now. I don't think I should speculate as to which of the three assumptions fails.
 * As I mentioned above, Hugh's quote leans against the added text.
 * This is a living person, so we should be very careful to avoid implying anything not actually in the source. (As I haven't seen the actual source yet, I'm not sure what's there.)
 * If you (not Hugh) can supply a quote which supports the text, I could agree with it, although I'm not sure it adds anything to the better sources that he is a raving loon. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think Monckton is indeed a climate change denier, as documented by multiple reliable sources cited in the article. What I don't believe, is that the "dirty dozen" article deserves any WP:WEIGHT, and I certainly don't believe that it is acceptable to call any person or organization a climate change denier if the "dirty dozen" article is the only source you can find. Believe it or not, it is possible to agree with the scientific consensus on global warming without accepting every highly-biased and inflammatory opinion piece that agrees with the scientific consensus. --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Top "Promulagator of Disinformation"
An editor haas added an opinion piece (Top 12 list) that describes the subject as a top "promulagtor of disinformation". I think this is a BLP violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In 2009 Mother Jones magazine included Monckton among the twelve most prominent promulgators of climate disinformation."
 * The source is not "an opinion piece," it is not a list, it is not an editorial. The source is a feature article spanning 13 web pages. The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine), not an editor. The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed by Mother Jones (magazine) under "Top stories." The added content is a noteworthy, significant point of view and inclusion is required as per WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. The content added is not a WP:BLP violation, it is not in Wikipedia voice, it is perfectly verifiable WP:VER, and attributed in-text as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We understand you do not like the source. Thank you for not deleting the contribution. Thank you for your engagement on this article talk page. Hugh (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is not "an opinion piece," it is not a list, it is not an editorial. The source is a feature article spanning 13 web pages. The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine), not an editor. The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed by Mother Jones (magazine) under "Top stories." The added content is a noteworthy, significant point of view and inclusion is required as per WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. The content added is not a WP:BLP violation, it is not in Wikipedia voice, it is perfectly verifiable WP:VER, and attributed in-text as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We understand you do not like the source. Thank you for not deleting the contribution. Thank you for your engagement on this article talk page. Hugh (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In case you did not realise it - listing anyone as "one of the top promulgators of anything" is intrinsically an opinion and is not a fact as people use the word "fact."  Did this elide your notice or did you think it is a "fact" in the nature of "gravity pulls things together" is a fact?   "Pount of view" is tha same as "opinion" as far as most people are concerned.  Collect (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Any "top 10", "top 12", "top 100", etc., list is an opinion piece unless objective criteria are used and the "universe" of all entities considered is also objective. Perhaps we need to set up a centralized discussion for 's insistence on using an opinion column for a source of information about living people.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The material was clearly attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. My understanding is that opinions may be included so long as they are attributed as such. The question then is whether Mother Jones's opinion is sufficiently important to merit inclusion. I don't think it is, but that's just one man's opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup - we include opinion about living people all that time - (e.g. Ronald Reagan was "An icon among Republicans, he ranks favorably in public and critical opinion of U.S. Presidents, and his tenure constituted a realignment toward conservative policies in the United States") The question is whether such opinions are significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One question here is whether the biased opinion is significant. WP:GOSSIP comes to mind. Another question is whether we must explicitly note that it is an opinion, not an "article".
 * Proposed text (to deal with the s3 conditions concern only, as significance is still in question):
 * In 2009, Mother Jones opined that Monckton was among the most prominent "promulgators of climate disinformation".
 * Seems the minimum required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, although significance is still in question. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is commentary about one of the things which Monckton is most notable for 'gossip'? He has expressed his opinions regarding climate change, and others have responded. 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The person with the opinion appears (by-line) to be "Josh Harkinson" who is the person to whom the opinion ought to be attributed. As I do not find any reason to find him notably competent to adjudge such matters, we ought to at least give his name.  Collect (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your basis in policy for including a red-linked author? The author is not notable in and of himself in Wikipedia terms. The source for Wikipedia purposes is a feature article, a special report, a top story in Mother Jones and clearly attributed in-text. This is not a blog post or letter to the editors. Of course a article in a magazine has one or more authors. Think of our readers, your inclusion of a read link author in-text would only needlessly distract our readers WP:RF. Do you favor including a red-linked author in-text whenever we reference an opinion from The New York Times? Do you favor a red-link author as a sort of red flag for this content? Hugh (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't try to oversell the ref, the article is an opinion piece. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is entirely adequate to support the contended content, a significant point of view that requires inclusion as per WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV, with in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I understand you do not like it. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in a Biography article, a BLP. This "significant point of view" accuses this living person of being a top global promulgator of disinformation. "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false." So the addition of this material says not that this person disagrees with the consensus on global warming but that he intentionally lies about it. This is most certainly undue, and a fringe view of this subject. Yes, we have plenty of other refs about dissenting opinion and denial etc. This is the only one the goes to the gutter with personal disparagement. It has no place in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The contended content does not accuse anyone of anything. The proposed content reports what a magazine said. The proposed content does not mention any gutter. It is entirely conformant with policy including WP:BLP. I understand you think Mother Jones (magazine) is fringe. I understand you don't like it. I'm sorry you don't like it. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think it's a particularly "fringe" opinion that Monckton is deliberately misrepresenting the facts among people familiar with the issue. Peter Hadfield, ex-science reporter for the BBC has had a long running challenge to Monckton about the inconsistencies in his arguments and posted extensive commentaries and open letters on the subject. While he doesn't explicitly say that Monckton is deceiving, he strongly implies is through the use of rhetorical questions and challenges to Monckton. Mother Jones is not off on a tangent on this point. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Mother Jones piece is simply stating the facts, as the author has determined them. This view is not controversial in the UK (Monckton is British, after all), and is only "controversial" to denialists within the context of the global warming manufactroversy. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(od) The issue at hand is whether the material is an opinion - which must be stated and ascribed as such to the person stating it - or a matter of "fact". The issue is not whether the opinion is "fringe" or "widely held" - only whether it is, indeed, opinion. Collect (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The content is appropriate with attribution. It is, as noted above, a proper article in a proper source, and it is entirely in line with the facts as documented - Monckton has indeed been a prominent figure in the climate denial machine. Monckton may dispute the obvious fact that he promulgates disinformation, but there is overwhelming evidence that he does just that, my only quibble with the source is that I don't think he is a leading promulgator any more, I think that by now he is a figure of ridicule after exposes on the BBC and elsewhere and most denialists who want to retain some illusion of credibility probably won't go near him. We fix that by attribution. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think it is ok to allow someone to be described as an intentionally deceptive liar? But only quibble that he's no longer one of the biggest 12 liars on the planet. And that's not a BLP violation because its a properly attributed opinion, and its not Undue to call him deceiving because while the BBC "doesn't explicitly say that Monckton is deceiving" one of their writers has (in your opinion) implied it. This is entirely improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this opinion (top 12 global disinformationist) to be an exceptional claim, one that is designed only to disparage the subject of this BLP article. It is one that is not supported elsewhere. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article includes, in the lede, "In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to his advocacy of climate change denial," with four (4) references, please see. I understand you do not like the contended content. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC) The contended content is important because it supports a claim in our lede. Hugh (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is that an accusation of "disinformation" (by definition intentional lying and deception) from an opinion piece somehow supports the well-ref'd "advocacy of climate change denial" in some sort of important way. I disagree finding it to be a BLP violation, as apparently do other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my assertion. Seems to me something of finesse to claim that that a source that says one of the most significant voices in climate disinformation does not support other refs that say noteworthy advocate for climate change denial. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it is such an exceptional claim to say that Mother Jones claims that he is one of the most prominent "promulgators of climate disinformation." He has been a prominent climate skeptic for at least a decade, and has generated a fair amount of publicity and fact checking that has found his work deeply flawed. What specifically his ranking is, among the other "promulgators" isn't the point so much, as the fact that he is one of the most prominent, as determined by a largely reliable publication. There are other sources making largely the same claims about his unreliablity, ie the Guardian "The results of Abraham's investigation are astonishing: not one of the claims he looks into withstands scrutiny. He exposes a repeated pattern of misinformation, distortion and manipulation, as he explains in the article he has written for the Guardian.".."Monckton has already been exposed for falsely claiming that he is a member of the House of Lords (the UK's upper legislative body). Now that his claims about the science have been exposed to such withering scrutiny, it's hard to see how he can bounce back in the eyes of anyone other than his ardent disciples." I don't think we should shy away from including such claims where they appear to be backed up, as is very much the case here. Counter arguments can of course be included, but omitting this seems to run contrary to NPOV policy. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: not in a Biography article, a BLP. Your point about "misinformation" proves why this shouldn't be included. This opinion accuses a living person of being a top global promulgator of disinformation. "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false." So the addition of this material says not that this person disagrees with the consensus on global warming and denies it but that he intentionally lies about it. This is most certainly undue, and is not a common view of this subject. Yes, we have plenty of other critical refs about denial etc, no one except this ref says he doesn't believe what he says and is being intentionally deceptive. This is the only one the goes to personal disparagement. It has no place in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither "misinformation" nor "disinformation" nor "promulgator" is in the well-referenced, neutral, noteworthy contribution you deleted. Please WP:FOC. There is no BLP violation here; the claim is not in Wikipedia voice, it is attributed in text and verifiable. We understand you do not like the contribution. Please cite policy or guideline in support of your objection to this well-referenced, neutral, noteworthy contribution. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is not a BLP violation, although it probably would be if we linked "climate change denial". However, the MJ source is am opinion piece, and legitimate sources are preferred.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The piece calls him a promulgator of disinformation, because that is what he is. WP:BLP does not require us to whitewash facts that the subject wishes were not true. That is not the same as calling hima liar (though he is, as the House of Lords letters prove). He could be a "useful idiot" who sincerely believes the claptrap he promotes. Admittedly that would require wilful fact-blindness, but there's a good deal of evidence supporting exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 cents that the source is valid and reliable, to source the content that is contended, and the content is relevant to the subject of the article, and is not inflammatory or attacking or any other quality that is prohibited by the good WP:BLP guidelines. This is a basic widely-held assessment of Lord Monckton from a reputable enough source. Mother Jones of course has a decidedly progressive point of view, but it's a solid and reputed source, and the content attributes the reckoning to the source properly. Therefore, i lend my voice to support its inclusion, and i'm sorry that a few people don't like it. SageRad (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Mother Jones source
Should the Mother Jones article "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" be included?


 * No, omit altogether.
 * 1) Yes, in the format In 2009, Josh Harkinson, writing in Mother Jones magazine, said Monckton was among the most vocal climate change deniers.
 * 2) Yes, in an equivalent format but attributing to Mother Jones, as the publisher of this feature, rather than Josh Harkinson.
 * 3) Yes, in a form other than as specified in 2 or 3. [Note: this option added after original RfC]

Hugh (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinions
rfs, only if its reliable should it stay Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 (first preference); 2 (second preference). Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 (first preference); 2 (second preference) . Source is noteworthy for its commitment to coverage of our environment. Content is a noteworthy significant viewpoint WP:YESPOV. Source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones magazine. Source is used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. Author is not particularly notable in and of himself in Wikipedia terms. Hugh (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:NPOV violation as already discussed on WP:NPOVN. I wonder how many simultaneous discussions we need for this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. In fact, I see more support for including it than excluding it there, with the caveat that it would have to be properly attributed (as this RFC suggests). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that that RfC is stepping on the two current discussions of this exact citation, the NPOV discussion above and the RS discussion here . HughD is aware of both discussions yet decided to add the RfC here as well.  Second, I have added a 4th option to the original 3.  The original RfC basically offered only two, prescribed ways to add the reference.  Other ways other than to leave the reference out exist and thus the RfC should not be inherently limiting.  This suggests the RfC was not neutral in it's original presentation.  Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify: HughD did not start this RFC - Guy (JzG) did. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing, Peter, I never would have guessed that you would reject a source identifying someone as a climate change denier, just like you always do n:-) Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 19:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 3 (prefer) or 2 - as I noted in the discussion at NPOVN, this source is referenced and treated as reliable/notable by some very high quality RS.  It's a notable opinion, and should be included.  Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 4 or 1. Given the large number of sources that suggest the subject of the article has promoted climate change misinformation/denial I don't know that this particular reference is notable enough to be included.  That topic should be decided in the above mentioned RS noticeboard discussion.  However, assuming it is, I don't see why this wouldn't be grouped with other similar references with a sentence such as "... has been identified as a source of climate change misinformation by a number of sources [citations here].  Given other more neutral sources stating the same thing I'm not sure why MJ would warrant special mention vs acting as a backup source.  Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, numerous reliable sources and our article identify the subject of this article as a climate change denier. The content proposed by this RfC is new content - it identifies the subject of this article as among the most vocal climate change deniers. The content proposed by this RfC is not redundant with any content already in the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So rather than using the article to support the claim that the subject is a denier, the factual content of the article, you are claiming the notable part is that MJ think the subject is "among the most vocal". In that case we would need to consult the RS noticeboard discussion because we are no longer using the MJ article as a factual reference but instead we are reporting the opinion of the MJ editorial staff/article author.  That also opens up the question of [WP:WEIGHT].  Even if we decide the MJ article is reliable, is their opinion worthy of inclusion?  Has the "dirty dozen list" become in and of itself notable the way say the FBI's top ten list is widely cited? Springee (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's reliable and due. The only question is how strongly it should be presented given all the similar info we have. --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to the extent that if MJ says the subject is a source of misinformation then I think that is reliable. However, we have plenty of sources that claim that.  This one could be added to the list.  I'm not convinced that MJ should get any special mention.  I think the fact that MJ put them on a list of "the worst" is subjective and should be left off.  MJ is not that rock solid a source on climate change reporting that we would take that opinion at face value with no other supporting evidence.  Unfortunately the MJ article was long on hyperbole but short on rock hard facts.  This is why I think we should just include it as a cited reference but not include any additional text. Springee (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 3 (preferred) or 2. Source is at least as reliable as many other frequently used on wikipedia; I have seen no concrete, valid reason that it should be excluded out of hand. As long as labelled and presented as opinion this should not be controversial. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NOT (3). I'm not entirely happy with my choice of (2); phrasing clearly indicating that it is an opinion published in MJ, whether or not it is an opinion of MJ, seems preferable.  In general, I find the "most vocal" phrase an unimportant opinion, so I lean against inclusion of that phrase in any form, but I could be convinced otherwise. If about a living person, the question of whether it is WP:GOSSIP also needs to be considered.  I would need to see the details of an option (4) to see whether it would be acceptable.  A phrasing indicating clearly that it is an opinion would be acceptable, without naming the author, even though we cannot be sure it represents MJ's (editorial) opinion.  If there are other sources, without an obvious bias, I see no reason why MJ's opinion, even if not just an opinion published in MJ, should be considered helpful to understanding the subject.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, if "most vocal" ("most significant" in some articles), and "denial" is used rather than "disinformation", it might be acceptable without attributing to the author, if we use the word "opinion". It is An opinion piece, regardless of what MJ calls it, and MJ apparently does not use "disinformation", but uses other words and phrases.  I don't have specific wording yet.  However, I would prefer nothing to the misinformation we are promulgating here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is a feature article, not an editorial or a guest editorial. The proposed content is a reasonable paraphrase. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (After finally finding a browser which would display the article)
 * Whether or not it's called a "feature article", it's pure advocacy. It should be treated as if it were an editorial.  Any potentially falsifiable fact has probably been verified, and we could use it.  "Disinformation", and "Climate change denial", however, are not "fact"s.  That being said, it may be a notable opinion, but probably that of the author, rather than that of MJ. — Arthur Rubin  (talk)


 * YES and happy for 2 or 3 really. Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says, "Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you." Despite the polemical writing style it is a statement of fact:  he is a leading climate change denier/sceptic.  The article should say that, since it is part of what makes Monckton notable, and in fact it already does.  So in-text attribution is wrong.  TFD (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (i.e. not 1). I don't see any strong justification for removing it. 3 seems fine, but I don't have a strong preference.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a separate consensus at WP:RSN that "most prominent", "most vocal" is unnecessary opinion.  Regardless of the fact that my opinion on this RfC seems not to be consensus, further editing is required.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you link to it, please? "Is a scholar" and "is among the most prominent/referenced scholars" seem to be fairly different statements. I don't see why this would be different, but I'd like to read the RSN discussion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197. Your characterization of the consensus is unfounded. Hugh (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Please start a new thread for your concerns and do not disrupt this request for comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Arthur, I'm aware of that link Hugh provided. But consensus of that discussion doesn't seem to match your summary at all: I don't even see a mention of "most prominent" or "most vocal". Were you referring to another discussion somewhere else?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me to recheck. It's Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55, where no unrefuted arguments for inclusion were presented.  There were a couple of arguments presented for inclusion, but none for lists.  I recall no reasonable arguments on the question of whether "top 10" (or "bottom 12") lists.  I would consider "among the most prominent" allowable if we explicitly noted that it is an opinion, regardless of whether it is in an "article".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your creative interpretation of a NPOVN discussion as supporting your preferred edit is also unfounded. Hugh (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, option 3 or 2, per Hugh and Fyddlestix. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 then 2 I am unconvinced that the depiction of living persons as being part  of a "Dirty Dozen"  is encyclopedic in the first place, and if it is used it perforce must be ascribed as an opinion to the person holding that opinion. Collect (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 (first preference); 2 (second preference), as per many above me. SageRad (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, option 3 and then 2 —Мандичка YO 😜 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 first or 2 as a second preference. Here from Legobot's notification. Attribution is fine here as content not needing it gets tricky when dealing with BLPs as opposed to facts. No attribution being acceptable should probably be handled elsewhere. Also per WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY the source is perfectly acceptable for describing a fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

!vote summary (1st choices)

 * 1) Peter Collect
 * 2) Arthur Koncorde
 * 3) Guy Hugh Fyddlestix Peregrine981 Jess Squiddy SageRad Wikimandia Kingofaces43
 * 4) Springee TFD

Hugh (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively - noting many of the !votes are inclusive of two choices:

1 has 4 !votes 2 has 9 3 has 8 4 has 1

Making the "popular vote" being edged toward proposal 2. That noted, there is no "clear consensus" at this point, and the closer should examine all policy-based arguments, and note also that categorization of anyone as a "climate change denier" per WP:BLP as discussed on WP:BLP/N is pretty universally considered a "contentious claim about a living person" which requires strong sourcing. Which would appear to heavily weigh against choice 3, and be weighed to some extent for any inclusion at all. Collect (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you give equal weight to 2nd choices, and are thus willing to discount the distinction between 1st and 2nd choices, and thereby give some of your colleagues 2 votes and others 1, and are willing to discount the expressed opinions of your colleagues who did not express a 2nd choice, you can almost make it seem like there is no consensus here. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you insist that a vote for "either of two choices" means the person !voted specifically for the first one in the phrase - but that is not the case here. People who say "either" should be interpreted to mean "either" and if the person who bullet-voted for one choice is not forced to vote for a second, that is fine by me.   The proposal with the broadest overall support is 2,  and I suspect any closer will also note the policy-based objections to number 3.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The important thing is that there is consensus for inclusion. So someone be bold and do it, then we can argue about the exact phrasing. Koncorde (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * put in the version he has insisted on  along with an extended "quote" to boot, not even suggested in the RfC. I changed back to what appears to have the most support per the RfC, bearing in mind that the RfC has not yet closed. Collect (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also that the "source" dwells extensively on the Kochs - connecting them expressly to 5 of the "dirty dozen". Collect (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be no justification for treating first and second choices as the same. There is clear consensus for inclusion. There is less clear consensus whether Josh Harkinson should be mentioned, however, a significant number of editors clearly indicated they'd prefer he not be. I guess we should go with that for now; there's nothing baring additional discussion to clarify consensus in the future. The content is in the article now, and clearly attributed. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? The one rule is that opinions must be cited as opinions - and I find no consensus saying that this is not true.  Sorry - I find this insertion of the Koch-related material here to be improper, and the fact is the RfC has not been closed.   Is there any real reason to not mention the person whose opinion has been cited?  Collect (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to mention the author? He's not notable, write a notable article on him and then maybe we can wl from here. The red-linked author name, not used elsewhere in this article, is completely unnecessary and distracting to our readers WP:READERSFIRST; maybe that's the point, to diminish the source as one man's opinion in order to facilitate removal of the content and source at some later date. The source is Mother Jones, a real feature article from a real magazine with a real editorial board. Citation to Mother Jones is adequate and fully compliant with all policies and guidelines. We do not routinely include in-text the names of staff writers from sources of similar strength. Your opinion on the proper inclusion of this source is noted above and tallied above, thank you; I'm sorry you do not like the source, I'm sorry you do not like the the proposed content, I'm sorry this RfC did not go your way; please do not disrupt this RfC. Hugh (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He is the author of the article.  Opinions expressed in what he writes are perforce his opinions.  And yes - Wikipedia does name authors even if they are not notable if we are citing their opinions.   The source is being used for a statement of opinion, and not a source of objective fact.  The fact is that the source is heavily about the Kochs and I think that is not quite in your sphere at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The author is a long-time staff writer for Mother Jones (magazine). The source is cleary a feature article, and clearly not an editorial or guest editorial or op ed or invited submission. I understand you do not like the content and you do not like the source proposed by this RfC, but it is time for you to acknowledge the consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IOW you assert that the article is strictly a compilation of fact, and therefore does not even require treatment as opinion? Sorry, but that does not meet the Clorox test.    And whether I like the material or not is totally irrelevant here - and verges on a personal attack.  I have no horse in this race at all, though I fear others might.   Anyone who does not find a list of a "Dirty Dozen" to be editorial in nature must not use Chambers Dictionary.  Collect (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an objective, verifiable fact that in 2009 Mother Jones magazine said Monckton was among the most vocal climate change deniers. Hugh (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What the eff -- you know, of course, that because a source states an opinion that does not turn such opinions into facts.  Is that actually clear? Collect (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * HughD, there were two recent noticeboard discussions related to this article. The closest thing we have to a consensus view is that the factual material presented can be used as RS.  Thus there is consensus it can be used to say X promoted climate change denial.  There was not consensus that the opinion aspects of the article could be included as reliable information (mention of a MJ's list, the ranking on the list, phrasing that implies a rank or list such as "most", inflammatory terms such as "dirty dozen").  Collect is correct to bring up this issue of proper use.  Relevant discussions: ,
 * Your interpretation of the discussions as supporting your preferred edit are unfounded. Your opinion on this RfC is noted and tallied above, thank you. I'm sorry the consensus of this RfC did not go your way. Please do not disrupt this RfC. 22:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think my summary of what did and did not gain consensus is inaccurate please offer your own summary. I read perhaps one person who said the material could only be treated as an opinion.  Most agreed that the facts presented (dates, actions etc) were RS but there was perhaps a 50/50 split on those who said the opinion aspects of the article were RS.  Can you show I'm wrong?  Accusing me of disrupting the RFC is assuming bad faith.  Springee (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions to the previous related discussions at NPOVN and RSN. Your interpretation of the consensus of those discussions is indistinguishable from your expressed positions in those discussions. The consensus of this RfC is clear. Please desist in disrupting this RfC. Hugh (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Raising a point about a relevant NPOVN and RSN discussion is not disrupting but your comments do not suggest you are assuming good faith. You have not told us what you think the outcome of the noticeboard discussion was.  I have stated simply what was and was not concluded.  Do you feel that there was consensus that the opinion aspects of the MJ article could be used as RS'ed material vs opinion material?  I'm not asking if you think that conclusion is right or wrong, only do you think those relevant noticeboard discussions reached that consensus?  You may argue that a lack of consensus regarding the inclusion of the opinion aspects does not equal consensus that the opinions should not be used.  I'm simply stating that the only true consensus was that the facts of the article were agreed to be reliable.  You are free to show otherwise.  Springee (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The following is a rough summary of the views expressed in the relevant noticeboard discussions.
 * RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the article as only opinion: CPB, Fds, Kon, Col, AR
 * RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the article as reliable fact with editorial grouping: SBHB, Spr, TFD, Rnz
 * RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the full contents of the article as reliable: Bin, Guy, HgD
 * So that's 3 that say treat all aspects as reliable and 9 that say the editorial aspects must be cited as opinions.


 * NPOV, opinion only: CPB, Fds, Blu, BrG, AR, Cap
 * NPOV, reliable fact, editorial grouping: Kon, PeG, Dkn (this one might belong in fully reliable), Spr, Ron, TFD, Mng
 * NPOV, fully reliable: Guy, Bin, MaC
 * That is 3 (or 4) who are for treating it as fully reliable and 13 (or 12) 12 (or 11) who at least see the list aspect as MJ editorializing. Thus I would say there is a consensus that at least the parts where MJ is editorializing should be treated as opinion (perhaps a reliable opinion).  I don't see enough support for the 100% opinion view to support that treatment.  As a disclaimer, it is sometimes hard to conclusively judge the camp that people fit in and I tried to err on the side of allowing use of the source.  If you disagree with a specific grouping please say so. Springee (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the NPOV grouping. I'm not sure what all the abbreviations mean, but I think that some opinion (e.g. mine) is not reflected in the above listing, and I would say there was no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I roughly grouped the responding editors into groups that seemed to support calling the full content of the article an opinion, those who seemed to feel that the article contained both reliable facts and some opinion and thus could be treated as a RS for the facts but an opinion article for the subjective grouping, ranking etc. Finally, I listed those who seemed to feel the entire article could be treated as a RS.  As I said it wasn't always easy to fully guess the views of the editors.  The abbreviations just indicate which editor was in each group.  I put you (PeG) in the reliable fact, editorial grouping category.  Please feel free to change it if you disagree with where I placed you.  I think the important point is that those discussions resulted in a strong majority feeling that the articles were at least partially editorial in nature.  Springee (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe to the view attributed to "PeG"; I don't see a grouping for "it's not proper for NPOV". If you want to suggest a consensus of the NPOV thread, can't you do so on the NPOV thread? I'm suggesting -- subject to comment about whether it's compatible with guidelines -- you should be able to undo the archiving bot's edit then ask for an uninvolved closer if you think it's important. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I had to infer editor's views based on their comments. I generally feel the NPOV discussion was a harder one because it seemed the real question was not if the article was NPOV but if it was reliable.  I posted my summary of the two discussions because it seemed relevant given the discussion about the use of the MJ article in this WP article.  This is especially true since there seems to be a disagreement about how the article should be used here.  Again, please feel free to modify what I have written to make it better reflect your views (or remove yourself if that is the best reflection).  Springee (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't change another editor's talk page post. I've said it's incorrect about what I wrote, and I'm done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did a strike through of my original "vote" for you. Would you like me to put you in the opinion only group or just leave you off the list entirely?  Please understand I'm not trying to be confrontational hence why I said I was open to changing things based on input from others.  Springee (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the venue for your attempted involved editor closure of a noticeboard discussion is the noticeboard, where noticeboard discussion contributors might have a chance of agreeing or disagreeing with your characterization and tally of their expressed position. The consensus of this RfC is clear. Please stop disrupting this RfC with your off-topic wall of text. You are respectfully reminded this article is under discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * HughD, reporting my view of a related RSN and NPOVN discussion in this RfC is on topic. If you feel it is a disruption then you are welcome to file an ANI but accusing others of disruption is basically an accusation that they are acting in bad faith.  If there is a guideline which says that topically relevant noticeboard discussions should not be mentioned please cite it.  You have suggested that my summary of the discussions was incorrect.  As I mentioned before, you are welcome to offer your own summary of the noticeboard discussions.  Springee (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning the previous noticeboard discussions. Thank you for your contributions to developing the consensus at this RfC. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have suggested that my summary of the relevant noticeboard discussions as they relate to this RfC are incorrect please suggest the errors you feel I made and/or provide your own summary. Springee (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928081117/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/ to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227220848/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)