Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Qualifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member of the House of Lords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

salon.com

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

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

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

Your right, it`s not an op-ed it`s a blog. [1] Did you revert a blog back into a BLP hipocrite? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps this would be a better source for this? Although it is an op-ed it is in the Washington Times [2] almosr certainly better than a blog in salon, i`ll see what else i can find mark nutley (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Debunking by John Abraham

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

Please feel free to have a run at it. The responses have already started to appear [4]Santamoly (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Claims of winning a Nobel prize

I couldn't find any reference to his supposedly winning a Nobel prize in the article. Is it true that he was awarded the prize, as he claims in this letter to John McCain. [5]Hectorguinness (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Deleted Telegragh blog

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

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

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

Monckton debunked , but still an unduly positive wikipedia profile

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

It is followed by the statement "However, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, defended Monckton's views, commenting: "I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill 'is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world'",[33] and nationally syndicated U.S. radio commentator Michael Savage praised Monckton's tour, saying: "it is very rare we get someone as succinct, and as literate, and as passionate ... as Lord Christopher Monckton."[34]

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

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

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

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

Monckton curing AIDS

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

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

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

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

Two thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IP Guy

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

Monckton gave Abraham a month to reply privately to a letter pointing out that the Professor had misrepresented Lord Monckton's talk, had passed the misrepresentations to scientists said to have been cited by Monckton, and had then included their adverse comments in his rebuttal of Monckton's talk. Abraham said he stood by his position, so Monckton published his letter to Abraham, described by James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph as "classic, funny, lacerating, forensic, magisterial".[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, the IP address geolocates to the Glasgow area, which is of course not far from Monckton's estate.[7] I do wish the owner of the IP would own up to his identity. Hiding behind an IP isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Scientific credentials

Is Christopher Monckton a scientist? There are several references that say he is not. But the man himself repeatedly gives the opposite impression. Quote: "As we scientists put it: shit happens." [8] (5:54) Monckton clearly identifies himself in this video as a "scientist". What gives? Wikispan (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

JA?

MN reverted [9] but, characteristically, didn't trouble to justify himself on talk. I've looked; i can't see the consensus he claims is here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Assistant Professor[10], and from what i can determine a published expert on the topic that he is speaking about. Heat transfer and radiative forcing. So it is not as clear-cut as you describe it, since it is not being used for BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, all from WP:BLP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Monctkton has threatened that university with a libal suit

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

(edit conflict)Are you stating this from a reliable source - or are you just repeating what you found in various blogs? Abrahams is still hosting the stuff - so even if correct we can await a libel suit. (not the first time that Monckton has threatened with such when he couldn't accept critique). [here btw. is Lucia's blog about it[11]] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, are you seriously making the claim that this isn't contentious? [12] ATren (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of blogs in your google search. Are you focusing on some of them in specific? [there is hardly anything that isn't contentious on blogs] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Note

I've raised this issue on the arb case talk pages: [13]