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 Collect and Viriditas proposes one while Anastrophe proposes eight, and JzG (=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 <g>. 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, [1] 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 | 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 | 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". ^[1]

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. ^[2]

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)

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]

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, ^[3] 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". ^[4] 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". ^[5]

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, ^[6] and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". ^{[7] [8] [7]} Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. ^{[9] [10] [11] [12]} The university rejected Monckton claims. ^{[13] [14] [15]}

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). ^[16] 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". ^[1] 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. ^[17]

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. ^[18]

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. ^[1] While Monckton accepts that there is a greenhouse effect, ^[2] and that CO₂ contributes to it, he claims that "there is little or no causative link between the two" ^[3] and has framed CO₂ as "a harmless and beneficial trace gas". ^[4] 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". ^[5]

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". ^[6]

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. ^[1] 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." ^[7]

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". ^[8]

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, ^[9] and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". ^{[10] [11] [10]} Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. ^{[12] [13] [14] [15]} The university rejected Monckton claims. ^{[16] [17] [18]}

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. ^[1] Monckton says there is a greenhouse effect, ^[2] and that CO₂ contributes to it, ^[3] but that it is primarily "a harmless and beneficial trace gas". ^[4] 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". ^[5]

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". ^[6]

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. ^[1] 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." ^[7]

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". ^[8]

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, ^[9] and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science". ^{[10] [11] [10]} Monckton then produced an extensive response, questioning the accuracy of Abraham's rebuttal; whether academic integrity had been compromised; and requesting an investigation. ^{[12] [13] [14] [15]} The university rejected Monckton claims. ^{[16] [17] [18]}

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 @ Anastrophe: 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#Statement should be neutral and brief. 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 #1 Cas 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 Wikipedia:BLP#Balance. 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. AIRcorn  (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 [2] 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.