This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I updated the lede according to the discussion on this talk page. Now that full protection is lifted, I would like to propose additional changes, although I note that there have been some edits today without corresponding discussion on the talk page.
1. In the section on Monckton on global warming, I have trouble with this paragraph:
Some right-wing media commentators interpreted the publication of his paper as a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change. [1] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." [2] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." The American Physical Society, however, was later compelled to remove the portions of its disclaimer about the opinions of the world scientific community and of its own Council, which had not in fact taken a position on Monckton's paper. [3] In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". [4]
First of all, the only source cited for the first sentence is The Washington Times, not "some right-wing media commentators." Second, the Washington Times piece does not say that Monckton's paper as a sign that the APS abandoned its earlier support for scientific consensus. I'm not sure why this is cited here. What it does say is "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," Jeffrey Marque, editor of a forum of the physicists' society, says." That is what should be cited to the Washington Times, not a general statement about APS. The rest of the commentary about the APS is just coatrack to get in opposing views. A statement that APS affirmed its views and did not adopt Marque's views is sufficient. I will return with a proposed revision to this section. Minor 4th 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Proposed revision:
In response to Monckton's paper, Jeffrey Marque, editor of the APS forum, stated "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," [5] The APS pointed out that it does not endorse the opinions of its individual members. [6]
Minor 4th 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
2. lede revisited -- I had made a proposed revision of the lede and incorporated any changes that were discussed, but somehow we have ended up with an entirely different lede which adds some details but also leaves out some of the changes from the last agreed proposal. It reads:
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and worked for Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. He also worked forThe Universe, The Sunday Telegraph, Today andEvening Standard newspapers. He became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1]In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming.[2]
Proposed revision
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and served as a policy advisor for Margaret Thatcher's in her Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. Monckton was a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph, consulting editor of The Universe, consulting editor of The Sunday Telegraph and Today , and an editor of the Evening Standard.
Monckton became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1] I Monckfort's Eternity puzzle was voted Puzzle of the Year in Australian in 1998 by the Australian Games Association. ""AGA Award Winners"". Australian Games Association. 1998. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
In recent years Monckton has come to public attention for his outspoken scepticism about the scope and impact of anthropogenic global warming.[2]
Minor 4th 02:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
An interesting development: [8]. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can some admin take a break from the war and disambiguate the link from University of St. Thomas to [[University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)|University of St. Thomas]]? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 22:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is what the lead says and it is technically true, but it seems to me that his notability in this area is much greater in the US than in the UK. In the US, he has been invited onto significant TV shows and even to the US Congress, whereas he has had no similar invites (as far as I am aware) in the UK. Should the article not reflect his notability in the US, instead of the UK? -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Curiously, it sounds like Monckton is calling for a return to the Medieval Period of human history, with the Church in control and where people are kept in slavery as serfs. Is this true? Viriditas ( talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That's an entirely unencyclopedic, uninfo rmative quote, only used as a blatant and gratuitous attack on scientists who have already been cleared in multiple investigations. There has been no distortion of temperature data. Why is this quote in this article? I recommend removal as it imparts no encyclopedic content. Viriditas ( talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
i would insert the next paragraph about Monckton's supposed membership of the House of Lords :
August 5, 2010 the information of the House of Lords wrote a letter [7] saying :
The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.
[]
The reference citing: "Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15)" has an erroneous data "2020". Correct to "2010". Needs link to the original source quoted. DLH ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this is his new project. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Monbiot's blog is not a reliable source. It's not significant enough to put in the article until it's reported in multiple reliable sources. Minor 4th 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and added RESURREXI, cited to this press release on the UKIP website, which incorporates Monckton's CV and was issued along with the announcement of his appointment as UKIP deputy leader. That source is, I hope Minor4th will agree, "excellent". It's not at all a recent development, by the way - his involvement with RESURREXI started in 2008 according to the CV. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The following statement under "Published works" regarding Monckton's articles is erroneous: "The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published nine non peer-reviewed articles by Monckton on climate-change science.[65]" The supposed link to Monckton's articles at SPPI is incorrect. The statement of 9 articles is incorrect. SPPI's Monckton Collection has 24 pages of article abstracts, at about 4 abstracts per page.
Propose correcting this statement to:
The Science and Public Policy Institute maintains the Monckton Collection containing about 100 of Monckton's articles (August 2010).
DLH ( talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is loaded with BLP violations and poor sourcing. Over the next few days, I am going to be cleaning up the BLP mess, removing negative, controversial and poorly sourced information. Before restoring negative BLP information, please discuss here and get a consensus or take it to the BLP noticeboard. Do not unilaterally restore negative, controversial content that is sourced to a blog or self published source, or negative information that is op-ed material from Monckton's ideological opponents. Minor 4th 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
In re-reading this article earlier today, I noticed a few issues which I think might represent undue weight or trivia, which we could probably lose. They were not added by myself but appear to have been added to the article fairly recently. I've not taken them out myself but am bringing them here for discussion so that we can find a consensus on what to do about them. If other editors have issues of concern, please post them below so that we can address them too.
Monckton and his wife opened Monckton's, a high-end shirt shop in King's Road, Chelsea, in 1995'.
While this is reliably sourced it looks very trivial and I've not seen any mention of it anywhere else. I suggest leaving this out.
Monckton's CV [32] as Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) claims that "the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats... earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate." In January 2010, Monckton voiced this claim on an Australian radio broadcast. When later questioned about this by reporters [33], Monckton conceded that his claim to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was "a joke". As of 6 June 2010, the claim that Monckton is a Nobel Peace Laureate has not been removed from the SPPI web site
This strikes me as a relatively trivial issue and I suggest that this is undue weight. The last sentence of it is clearly unsourced and appears to be original research. At the very least, WP:BLP requires that to be removed.
Criticizing the campaign to save the Ravenscraig ironworks, Monckton wrote, "The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like crumpled bagpipes and waiting for a fix of English taxpayers' money."
In 1997, Monckton criticized works at the Fotofeis (the Scottish International Festival of Photography) and Sensation as "feeble-minded, cheap, pitiable, exploitative sensationalism perpetrated by the talent-free and perpetuated by over-funded, useless, muddle-headed, middle-aged, pot-bellied, brewer's-droopy quangoes which a courageous Government would forthwith cease to subsidise with your money and mine."
Again this seems to me to be undue weight on comments which lack any context and appear to have been selected to make Monckton look bad. There is no indication of wider significance; it looks very much like cherry-picking. Suggest removal of both of these bits.
I hope these would be fairly uncontentious amendments but I'd appreciate it if editors could indicate whether they agree. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I spent some time looking through LexisNexis to see if I could verify this content. I found the relevant article, though it took me quite some time to find as it was not titled as such because "Persuaded to act otherwise" was the subtitle of the actual title – Diary. Here it is:
WHAT of the Conservative Family Campaign, the tireless crusaders against homosexuals, abortionists and those who'd like to open their shops on Sunday? This election time the CFC is circulating a long list of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, including Neil Kinnock and Sir David Steel, that it claims have supported the child sex movement or homosexual rights. On inspection, supporting paedophiles appears to mean having met lobby groups to discuss the age of consent. Meanwhile, the CFC's chairman, Stephen Green, tells us he's nearly raised the pounds 11,000 he needs to publish a book on homosexuals titled (provisionally) Emotional Orphans. It will, inter alia, explain how homosexuals may achieve heterosexuality - a painfully difficult process, according to Green, who has, none the less, met many recovered homosexuals. Perhaps wisely, many of the campaign's MP friends severed links last year, but an interesting list of CFC sponsors remains on the notepaper. There's the London Evening Standard's leader writer, Christopher Monckton, and the Duke of Norfolk. The 20 Tory sponsors range from David Amess and Bill Cash through to Teddy Taylor and Ann Winterton by way of the candidate for Sutton and Cheam, Lady Olga Maitland.
— "Diary: Persuaded to Act Otherwise". The Independent. London. April 3, 1992. p. 25.
I don't believe that the two are the same, but I am not familiar enough with either.
NW (
Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor 4th 23:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How is this a BLP violation? NW ( Talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed to see this need to be protected for a third time, and while the arbcase is ongoing - in the PD phase to boot. And yes, many of the same parties are involved in this most recent edit war as before. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
discussion of editing behaviour, unrelated to content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm sure the arbs are paying attention Chris. As Scott Mac told you on the BLP noticeboard when you tried to raise the same issue, we don't wait for consensus on blatant BLP violations. We remove and then discuss. After 7 years, you shouldn't need a reminder.
Minor
4th 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Before this article was protected (again) I made a number of edits based on previous discussions and agreements. I note that Minor4th did not attempt to roll back any of them, so I'm assuming that he did not object - hopefully they should not be contentious.
Scott Mac has restored my deletion of a BLP-violating boxout quotation, so thanks for that.
Other proposed changes:
1) Under "Political career", add the following to update the material on Monckton's relationship with the House of Lords, sourced to an article that appeared in the print version of the UK Guardian newspaper:
Previous talk page discussion: [12]
2) Under "Entrepreneurship", add the following, sourced to Monckton's profile in the UK Independence Party's announcement of his appointment as deputy leader:
Previous talk page discussion: [13]
3) Under "Published works", amend the last para as follows:
Previous talk page discussion: [14]
Could editors please indicate whether they have any objections to these changes? -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, why don't you just hold off for a bit, or make some revisions in userspace or something. There is a proposal being discussed by a BLP editor/admin about editing through protection and stubbing the CC content until the case is over and discussion can resume. Please note that Scot Mac, who focuses on BLP violations, has noted that the article is bad and has BLP violations that should not remain protected. It sounded like he was going to perhaps round up an uninvolved BLP task force to work on the article. His proposal was that anyone editing prior to yesterday be banned from the article while they do their work, and I am in favor of that proposal. Minor 4th 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this section. I'm not getting involved in the content, but there is obviously a serious dispute here and questions as to its neutrality, weighting, and use of sources. With BLP material, we err heavily on the side of non-inclusion of material until we are clear that it is fair to the subject. I do not wish to get involved in the CC controversy, in which I have no interest, so I'm utterly "uninvolved" and see myself as enforcing our usual BLP caution in a contentious article.
The material should IMO remain out of the article until a) the Arbcom case is concluded and b) there is a consensus on the talk page as to the weighting and neutrality. If the parties previously waring over this cannot agree, I strongly suggest appealing for more disinterested eyes. Perhaps an RFC.-- Scott Mac 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Full disclosure, there was discussion here leading to User:Scott MacDonald's deletion of the CC material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The introduction has old but not recent positions. Propose adding the following summary:
Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute and Editor for the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report.
DLH ( talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There being no objection, I recommend an editor implement this.{{editprotected}} DLH ( talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Add parameter expiry=06:16, 29 November 2010
to {{
pp-dispute}}
. Delete {{
pp-full}}
.
--
Bsherr (
talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Now in the press [15] so presumably can be re-added William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We definitely do need to mention the Congressional testimony, and also the tours of Australia and the United States (he may also have toured other countries). Also missing (in a brief skimming) seems to be Monckton's dispute with the House of Lords over his claim to be an honorary member of the House, which most recently drew an intervention from Buckingham Palace over his alleged unauthorized use of an insignia.
Why is the recent response significant to Monckton, you ask? Because it is almost unknown for so many experts in any field to go out of their way to refute the claims of a layman in any field of science. This is a big deal, and it pertains directly and solely to statements by Monckton and no other party. It belongs in this biography because it pertains to Monckton's principal occupation in recent years. I can't think of anywhere else it might be relevant. It really is just Monckton versus the House of Lords, the Palace, and the entire field of climatology. Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about Abraham. Monckton gave testimony to Congress on the science of global warming. We have unimpeachable sources for that. A score of highly qualified scientists have taken it upon themselves to publish a purported refutation of his testimony. We have unimpeachable sources for that, too. This concerns material that was read into the Congressional record, it's not just some daft nonsense somebody said on a late night radio talk show.
On the question of "attacks", it seems to me that some people equate robust criticism of scientific claims with personal attacks. That isn't how it works. Everything Monckton says could be wrong and it wouldn't make him a lesser man (I think we'd all rather live in the rosy world painted by Monckton than that predicted by the IPCC!). These 20 climate experts aren't attacking the viscount's person, they're attacking his arguments, his assumptions, his interpretation of sources and his conclusions. And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. Tasty monster (= TS ) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be editing this article, but as a disinterested person who saw fit to stub the Climate Change section, perhaps I can offer a view on how this should be re-written. Principally:
With that in mind, I'd suggest the following outline.
The point is to inform the reader always about Monkton, and not about CC or its arguments.
I hope this helps. At any rate, I'd suggest agreeing some outline before re-writing. That way you don't get bogged down on the details of whether this or that particular quote or comment can be justified, whilst ignoring the "overall balance", and I suspect the concern is more with the balance than with any one item.-- Scott Mac 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a challenge to describe Monckton's opinions without sounding like a satirist. On climate change, although there is a veneer of pseudo-science or at best fringe science, the general thrust of his message appears to be that global warming is a massive United Nations conspiracy to bring about world government. It would be difficult to say that of anybody in his biography without making him sound unhinged. It's a perennial problem for Wikipedia: how to write about somebody whose ideas have achieved some notoriety. Getting the balance right is not easy.
In an earlier discussion I made the point that I think it's more important that we record his giving evidence before a Congressional committee than it is either to characterize that evidence or even to note that a score of climate scientists, many of them eminent in the field, subsequently produced a rebuttal. Indeed if anything I think in a bio the latter would tend to magnify his political influence. Write about that, more than his ideas. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, but in this instance I would say that we'd only want to mention the subject on which he testified and probably the fact that it drew a rebuttal from many experts. In scientific circles Monckton's ideas have no impact but he is quite influential in the political sphere, and has a strong ally in the Senate in Jim Inhofe. I would tend to avoid an exposition of his ideas for reasons I've already outlined. They don't matter any more than a detailed description of Rep. Markey's views on the effects of the carbon economy on the global surface temperature, though in both cases they are factors in the actions and influence of the two respective politicians. Tasty monster (= TS ) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
From the cited source, which also includes extensive replies from Monckton himself: 'Monckton has been among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the "largest fraud of all time" and arguing that it is being used to establish a "new world government."'
Now if we wrote something like that, we would be painting Monckton with the brush he has carefully fashioned for himself, but we would be over-emphasizing the opinions, both in their extreme nature and in their relevance to the dialog. To draw a close parallel, the fact that so many candidates in the approaching mid-term elections espouse a cross section of extreme social conservative and libertarian views does not mean that we should devote significant effort to describing those ideas and various rebuttals in the biographies of the candidates. Tasty monster (= TS ) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I'll give it a go. This is about what I think we should say:
Climate science
I think that's about all we need to write. Possibly we could get away with less. Possibly repeating his most unorthodox view, that it's all a big lie, isn't appropriate, but I'm still thinking about it. There is an important nuance, really: he accepts that temperatures have risen, but he claims that temperatures aren't rising within projections and that evidence for the influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is faked or exaggerated (mostly the former). And he can be quite scathing about the idea that carbon dioxide has anything to do with ocean acidification. -- TS 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I also intend that we should give appropriate citations for the facts (mainly the Grauniad article which provides an excellent summary). What do you think on content? -- TS 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Warns", I think, lends more credence to his extreme views on conspiracy than are merited. I'll have to look at the articles on Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz and the like to see how we handle people's extreme fringe views. My instincts are that we'd omit detail if we can't get it right (see my comments above). Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be careful of the quote, which appears to be a paraphrase by an AAP journalist in your first source above. Also unless I'm mistaken the phrase "that would be democratically accountable to no one" doesn't seem to be attributable directly to Monckton. I'd prefer to see attributable quotes if that's possible. -- TS 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this summary. To begin with, what evidence is there that the third source, EducationNews.org is a BLP-appropriate source? The "About us" link is broken, and I can't find any reliable sources attesting to its reliability. A website that calls itself an "authoritative" news source, but doesn't even list an editorial board or a physical address almost certainly isn't. But more to the point, using two newspaper articles to provide a complete summary of Monckton's views, when the articles themselves don't purport to do so, is problematic. Anything, looking the two apparently reliable sources
The Australian (?) [22]
The Guardian [23]
Comparing that with the proposed text:
To begin with, we don't use titles to refer to people. So it wouldn't be "Lord". More to the point, "strongly opposes" just doesn't convey his all-out rejection of the entire field of study.
In the first article he (a) rejects human influence of climate, (b) says warming isn't happening, (c) says if there is warming, it's due to increased solar activity, (d) rejects the evidence, and (e) rejects the premise that anyone could predict future climate. In the second article he (appears to) accept warming, blaming it on "global brightening" and saying there's "nothing unusual" about recent warming. So we have two contradictory positions being seamlessly merged.
Can't find the "democratically accountable to no one" bit
The main problem here is why mention this particular testimony. What - other than recentism - makes this bit especially important? It's not clear to me. Is this the only time he has spoken to legislators? Guettarda ( talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The current draft is still recognisably based on my first draft, which was based on the Guardian article about the recently published rebuttal. On checking other sources I saw that Monckton was making the "world government" claim in this context in his own writings as long ago as 2006 and that it now forms the core of his message which is informed by deep suspicion of government regulation. In that respect he appears to be a political first cousin of the John Birch Society.
The Congressional testimony, and the extraordinary step of an unsolicited rebuttal, speak to the success of Monckton's advocacy. He is well connected and influential within the Congressional Republicans.
There are certainly other ways of summarizing Monckton's climate advocacy, and some of them might be superior to this. Perhaps somebody would like to produce a separate clean-sheet draft. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, I'm a bit flummoxed by that last comment. Was it addressed to any person in particular? At this point in drafting I hope to solicit drafts for comment and wouldn't want to deter anybody from giving it a go. It's not as if we'd end up all agreeing to put unacceptable material into the article, is it? Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is my proposal after being involved in the discussion. I think most of the reliable sources indicated above can be slapped on at the end as references:
Monckton has made statements that contradict much of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He believes that the ecological, scientific, and political concern over global warming is part of a conspiracy to defraud the global community in an attempt to impose a world government.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The statistics of small turn-out elections are well-understood to favor niche political causes as that portion of the electorate is far more likely to vote when the rest of the electorate does not. This is basic political science fact. It is irresponsible to claim that the European elections show evidence of greater support in the populace for this group than the general elections, and there are no reliable secondary sources I've seen presented which indicate that. The conjecture of JN that this somehow represents a greater popular trust in UKIP for European politics is bald original research and flatly contradicted by a simple understanding of how such low-turnout elections work. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen466 that Monckton's views and fringe claims about global warming can be viewed as coming from his Euro-skepticism which in turn is a kind of Little Englander tendency quite common on the political right in the UK.
Monckton has taken this further than others, while in recent years the Conservative Party has moved towards the center and its leadership has embraced a general view formerly more common on the left of the Labour Party and the old Liberal Party, especially on the environment. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a side point, but one needs to take care about how we use terms like "fringe". It's relative. The fringe of what - and how "far out" is any particular fringe. For instance, in an article on Climate Change, Monkton's views are pretty fringe and merit a passing mention (if at all). However, in an article on Monkton, his views are in fact extremely pertinent (if his involvement with Climate Change is a significant part of his C.V.). Indeed, in such an article, I'd see the response to his views by mainstream scientists to be "fringe" at best to the article. As for UKIP, the notion that they are "fringe" to UK politics is nonsense. Even ignoring the EU election as untypical, any party polling 3% nationally is not fringe - elections are often won and lost on less that 3% of the vote, and UKIP's presence certainly had the potential to severely damage the Conservative party. Once could not have an article on any recent UK general election (particularly 1997 and 2001) and ignore UKIP - 920,000 people voted for them. The media regularly interview their spokespeople, and their anti-European platform has (I suspect) an even larger support among the populace. Having said that, UKIP's views on climate change (I've no idea what they are) are probably "fringe" to any understanding of why people support them - they are pretty much seen as a single issue anti-EU party.-- Scott Mac 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Should state when he "references" data, articles, papers etc he is lying about what they actually say or he is so ignorant he gets the completely opposite idea to what they actually say. This has been been proven many times and can be easily verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.106.50 ( talk) 04:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Rachman, Gideon (October 29, 2010).
"A night at the Oxford Union". ft.com/rachmanblog. Financial Times. I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases — and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? "Both", he said, "and prions". At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate.
Too recent? Not RS? Needs more sourcing?
RDBrown (
talk) 23:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Morton, Adam (February 2, 2010).
"Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue". Sydney Morning Herald. His interests stretch beyond climate change. He makes the extraordinary claim, one that he admits sounds bonkers, that he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.
Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu, he said.
Lord Monckton's documented claims re inventing a drug are well documented (I added links to the sources for this information) and should be put back in- the current biography has had anything that is factual but unpleasant to Lord Monckton's followers removed- it is a model of PC. His biography should include hist mistakes and missteps as well as his achievements. e.g. his claim of inventing the drug is in his CV at the UK Independence Party (UKIP) where he is the joint deputy leader http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents "2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue". Indulis.b ( talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming seems to be sourced to this article, however in reading it I can see nothing that supports this statement about a) his views being outspoken and b) that he has come to public attention for them. It is an article about a film he is promoting... The other sources appear to be op-ed pieces by him... -- Errant ( chat!) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to his lie he was never her science advisor this should be stated int he article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.106.50 ( talk) 04:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
However he has claimed to have been and there is a common belief that he was. As far as I am aware there is no evidence apart from his word that he was and not much evidence (apart from the lack of positive evidence) that he wasn't. However Thatcher clearly believed that global warming was a problem and set up the Hadley Institute to do research on it. She also had much better scientific qualifications than Monkton.
He also claimed to be a member of the House of Lords - which the relevant authorities deny.
As a the contributor to the top of this page stated there is more to Monkton than his position on climate change and these aspects should be included.
Surely articles on living persons are not meant to be puff peices. Majurawombat ( talk) 04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Fran Kelly: ... But I wonder what impact the climate sceptics, for instance like Lord Monkton from your country, have had on the political response?
John Gummer: Well, Lord Monkton isn't taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come here. Mrs Thatcher used to have the best scientists in the world in and she would nail them to the wall as she argued with them, because she was a scientist. And, like me, she didn't want to believe in climate change, it's the science makes it absolutely impossible not to believe that this is the most likely interpretation of what facts, which are becoming more and more clear.
I have made some changes to the claims regarding resurrexi. I think it is important that we are quite precise about exactly what has been claimed. Partly to avoid any accusation of bias, but also because this is BLP. For that reason, I have replaced;
with
The Monbiot reference is unnecessary here and is used elsewhere in the article anyway. Monckton did not claim that his cure "show[s] considerable promise in curing cases of AIDS" in the CV but does claim that a "HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days" which I think makes the point. If we really want to include the "cures AIDS" claim, I think it would be best to show that as an actual quote.
On a slightly different matter, there is no wiki entry for herpes simplex VI. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this should just redirect to Herpes simplex virus or whether that's something altogether different. Thepm ( talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent careful revisions to this page have been removed en bloc by certain paid climate campaigners whose mission is to try to destroy the reputations of Wikipedia biographees who have questioned the official "global warming" theory. These careful revisions, all of which were appropriately sourced, include correct spellings of the subject's name. We must ask that readers should disregard this page as unreliable, and that the Wikipedia authorities should carefully examine the edits made over the last 24 hours and discipline those who have undone the sensible, fair and proportionate revisions that had been made. (posted to the article by 86.146.176.114 and moved to the talkpage by Off2riorob ( talk) 22:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
A notice has been posted to the BLP notice board. -- Thepm ( talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The American Physical Society drew criticism for its inclusion of a disclaimer on Moncktons article regarding its lack of peer review status, and status as an unofficial newsletter rather than journal, and re-affirming their own stance adopted November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate".
This edit introduced an unsourced claim about the January 2011 ruling, with the summary Accuracy: High Court judge said Monckton was "substantially successful" in his action: previous version, suggesting total failure, was accordingly unfair. The court ruling does not yet appear here, so without another reliable source we can't check this claim. However, the news source was nuanced about the success or otherwise, reporting that "The judge refused the application on the basis that the agreement on which Lord Monckton relied lacked the clarity which he submitted it had. The "balance of justice" also favoured its refusal, he added." I've therefore removed the unsourced claim, but have summarised this nuanced report so the article no longer suggests "total failure". . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I recently reverted a large expansion of the section about Abrahams that was removed yesterday. Strange this section after coming up yesterday has been desired largely expansion by a new user User:ZangaroZen. I have reverted it as some of the cites looked primary and youtube and clearly after recent deletion of the section it should hardly be doubled in size without discussion. Seems to me like any expansion about Abrahams here is looking undue and if anyone wants to enlarge content that appears to be more about that person it belongs on that persons article John_Abraham_(professor) not here. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This ...citation... that was in the desired addition reflects the general position of the addition <ref>{{title=Hate-speech promoter Lord Monckton tries to censor John Abraham}}</ref> - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity does anyone know if his full title should be used for his journalism pieces? I've been just putting in "Christopher Monckton" at the moment, but a few of his Telegraph pieces are tagged under Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. It wouldn't take long to fix them all, but not sure what the usual policy is. Koncorde ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If this claim can be verified it should be added [29]. I have not found it in the London Gazette. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Just asking. The ref added here reads like a blog with the later "update" and the "I plan to write a follow-up post".
On a more general note, I think that this article has way too much guff and is about twice as long as it needs to be. I've taken a vow not to edit any articles even vaguely related to climate change, but someone here might want to consider whether we really need to include the fact that "Sherman asked Monckton to take the minutes at the CPS's study group meetings" for example. -- Thepm ( talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This article being somewhat contentious, it's probably best to explain all changes. I revised the sentence beginning with "Monckton questions the quantum of 'global warming'..." to read "Monckton questions the magnitude of global warming..." First, "quantum" seems an odd word choice, and "questions the quantum" falls oddly on the ear. Second, I see no reason for scare quotes around the common term global warming. I did not intend to make any change in meaning, but if anyone objects they're welcome to change it back. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth ( talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth including, so I'm mentioning it here for discussion: recently, Lord Monckton provoked controversy by comparing the Australian government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, to a Nazi. He was criticised for his comments by Australian politicians such as Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. ( [30]) Any thoughts? Robofish ( talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite episode}}
: Check |episodelink=
value (
help); External link in |episodelink=
(
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help)Where is the information about his Nobel prize? And does anyone know what category it was awarded to him for? I've searched the list of Nobel prize winnders for "Monckton" and I've searched this page for "Nobel", but I can't find anything. SmallEditsForLife ( talk) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
He is not a Nobel laureate. He wears a Nobel pin given to him by an actual scientist, and when called on it he brushes it off as a joke. [31] Matariel ( talk) 05:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This section should be deleted or shortened to make it clear that Monckton is making ridiculous claims that no-one with any scientific or medical knowledge could regard with anything other than derision. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new quack cures, it is not a snake-oil sales emporium. Gordoncph ( talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is an essential indicator of Monckton's character to know that his medical claims amount to quackery. This combined with his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, contrary to what the House of Lords has stated, will allow readers to form an opinion on whether he is to be trusted on other matters, for example global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.91 ( talk) 17:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a very lengthy quote from LCM in there - could the positions of the respective parties be summarised? Marty jar ( talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the neutrality tag from Section 3 as there does not seem to be any active debate on the matter. Should there still be outstanding issues, then feel free to reinstate the tag and then present your concerns here on the discussion page. Manning ( talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference to these. I am not saying they aren't good videos, but that their notability isn't really established. Also, is Hadfield best described as a Guardian journalist?-- 86.169.104.174 ( talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I looking at putting the reference to Hadfield's debunking of Monckton's climate change views and statements as: (1) 'notability' in wikipedia guidelines, as far as I can see, is required in the article topic (ie Monckton himself) but not the content or criticism's of the article subject; (2) though wikipedia 'notability' guidelines refer to the article topic specifically I can understand that you wouldn't necessarily include every small thing with has little relevance and is only put in because of some direct link to Monckton (eg what type of sandwich Monckton had for lunch on June 30th 2001). However, Hadfield's criticism of Monckton's climate change arguments/stance is particularly extensive, knowledgeable, and above all - sourced. Arguably far more intensive research and comprehension of the scientific material has been demonstrated by Hadfield than by Monckton himself and frankly I would suggest that what makes Monckton at all notable is his high visibility in the climate change public debate arena as a climate change denier or 'sceptic'; and (3) the topic of climate change is such a broad and important one that where a notable person's stance on the topic (such as Monckton) is shown (as Hadfield has done) to be filled with error, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, it is important that such (extensively researched and sourced) criticism be presented so as to provide a balanced and neutral perspective of the article topic to the passing reader. Otherwise a passing reader could presume that no (or limited) informed criticism of Monckton's viewpoints. Without Hadfield's videos, or at least the equivalent of their content being included in wikipedia, the reader is considerably less informed.
Note that it's not only Hadfield, but there are others who have extensively criticised Monckton, one particular exhaustive one was done by a scientist whom I can't remember the name of at the moment, but as soon as I can recollect the name I'll include the scientist exhaustive debunking of Monckton as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtamtyrant ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to add a link to the claim, widely re-reported, that Lord Monckton is a fictional creation of Sacha Baron Cohen. It's hard to tell who's had whom in the ensuing ball of coverage — prima facia, it appears to be a prank by "The Hamster Wheel" — but since it did generate media attention, it seemed noteworthy. However, two different editors have summarily removed the edit. Their explanations, "not a notable part of CM's life" and "hell, no, don't be foolish," seem insufficient by way of explanation. I'm taking this to the talk page in the hopes that we can figure out what the criteria are for a something being a "notable part" of a person's life. !melquiades ( talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a prank and that's all it is. It seems to have got a bit of coverage but I think it's probably better to set it in context: Monckton's tour of Australia a couple of years ago got a bit of traction there--good for him. His most recent tour didn't do so well. We can write about that. I do think we should write about the facts as we can discern them. -- TS 07:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I agree it is definitely a hoax (that's the joke) there is scope for a cultural impact section here I think, I think the main argument for the cultural impact section though is his impact on climate change denialist culture. There are also other examples of parody including RAP NEWS 3: Lord Monckton rap-battles Al Gore on Climate Change [11] it has over 160,000 views so is definitely noteable. There are many people who are not entertainers etc with cultural impact section that reference works of fiction e.g Markus Wolf Mrjohncummings ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The Anon-IP user who has been editing this article recently has been attempting to include a reference to the UK Patent Office indicating that Lord Monckton has filed patents for "Therapeutic Treatments". Lord Monckton appears to apply for patents under this heading serially. The application is applied and terminated after a calendar year (presumable expired without follow-up to the initial application). Then re-applied and terminated again 1 year later. This appears to have been going on since 2008. With the latest patents applied for in September 2011 upon the expiry of the ones applied for in 2010. See http://bluegrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/moncktons-patents-2010-edition/ JAC Esquire ( talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a section on patents is required only after a patent has been granted. Until then, is this section necessary?
The statements appear somewhat Messianic: should they not be supported by medical evidence? A political party is hardly a reliable source for medical claims, credible or not. I suggest this section should be removed unless evidence - medical rather than political - is produced of any cures. Historikeren ( talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(Moved to end of page shellac ( talk) 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
The history shows repeated and apparently prejudiced removal of a sourced reference to the existence of a legal opinion by Hugh O'Donoghue, listed as a barrister at Carmelite Chambers, London, stating that Lord Monckton is indeed a member of the House. The Opinion concludes that Lord Monckton "is fully entitled to say so". Why has this reference been deleted and the page then locked down? Lord Monckton would have good grounds for suing Wikipedia for libel if its "editors" insist on only giving one side of this story. We suggest to whoever has locked the page down that this repeated bias against the subject should be corrected either by inserting a reference to the Opinion or by removing the reference to the letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which seems partisan and - in the light of the Opinion - more than a little foolish. One must give both sides or neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.116 ( talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth Mr Hugh O'Donoghue's specialism is listed on the chambers' site as follows: " ...in International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals." - This does not make him 'a leading constitutional lawyer' as described on Watt's Up with That. Why his opinion on this matter should warrant any interest is beyond me on the other hand the law on this matter is quite clear. JAC Esquire ( talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked this IP, which has been used both here and at the dispute resolution noticeboard to make threats about libel suits by Monckton. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The M.A. award at Cambridge is available without further study to anyone who holds a B.A. six years after graduation. It is not an earned degree with a course of study. Perhaps this point should be made clearer, or perhaps there should be a link to the university policy? Eli Rabett ( talk) 00:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I was replying to something on Talk:Gina Rinehart and I camer across this [ http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-lord-monckton-and-future-australian-media-robert-manne-4575 Lord Monckton and the Future of Australian Media] which I thought was quite interesting. Also I've seen quite enough reliable secondary sources around to say Monckton has been called a climate change denier but the word isn't mentioned except in the citations titles which is peculiar. Dmcq ( talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[32] Abraham investigated the origins of many of the claims by contacting the authors of those papers Monckton had cited How does a list of Abraham's publications support this? Removed pending clarification here, perhaps I am missing something. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Placing this RS here for reference. 'You're smoking crack', peer who doubted Obama's birth status is told — ThePowerofX 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggest reorganisation for the career section to be more logical. Either by category, chronology or a combination of the two.
Let me know your thoughts. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "Resurrexi Pharmaceutical" section belongs under "Political views". Thoughts? Lukekfreeman ( talk) 05:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking over this lede today, there seems to be some problems with it. Firstly is there evidence that he is a politician? His climate change opinions seem quite mute here in the lede, considering that he is lecturing these days, and not about a puzzle we should think about improving this lede to better reflect the person. I'm putting my thinking cap on, welcome suggestions. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd have though his activities within UKIP made him a politician. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a go at this to keep in line with the Wikipedia:Lead Section guidelines and reflect the comments above.
The missing controversy is his title of "Lord" and this may need to be in the lead, especially if people are redirected from "Lord Monckton" and might find it confusion if that isn't mentioned. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A template was added to the top of the page, claiming that a 'media organization' mentioned this article. The mention is on a personal blog - not a media organization, and it was more than six years ago. It is normally used to tag the article, not the talk page. What's the rationale here? Anastrophe ( talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jinkinson: The above question refers to | your edit. I too would like to know the answer. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has eight large paragraphs devoted to discussing the discredited, fringe climate denialist views of the subject. At most, it only requires one paragraph. I suspect that climate denialists are using this biography to promote their fringe POV. Per our policies and guidelines, these fringe views should be trimmed and briefly discussed. This article should not, however be used as a platform for promoting these views, as it is currently. Viriditas ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"Nice wall of text". This is not civil. I have not 'missed the mark' at all, you are warping claims of policy violation apparently purely due to parti pris. Monckton is notable for his claims about climate science - this is all sourced in the article. I certainly understand policy, and policy prohibits one editor removing a significant amount of well-sourced material without adequate justification. Again, it is *irrelevant* whether Monckton has had impact on climate science, it is *irrelevant* that he is not a climate scientist - those are not the subject of this article, Christopher Monckton is. You removed a large amount of properly sourced material by fiat, with no finding of actual violation. I do not have the burden here - you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument. "You've simply cherry picked meaningless material that has no encyclopedic value other than to puff up Monckton" - again, you appear to be addressing me - I did not add any of this material to this article - please don't attack me. And gosh, forgive me for improperly using the term 'blanking'. You removed an entire section of properly sourced material, without any specifics offered in support, only blanket claims. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I will repeat for the record here: you have not, by any means, "shown" that the article violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. You have merely made the claim that this is the case, without providing specific evidence beyond registering your dislike of the material. You have not shown that the material is not relevant to Monckton, nor that it is undue relevant to Monckton, nor that it is a coatrack. Please provide specific evidence to back up your claims, rather than generic statements, before blanking a large portion of reliably-sourced information from the article, again. Thank you. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please allow other editors to discuss this matter before you remove this material by fiat again. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please let others participate. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP we should fairly describe his views. The extensive "other stuff" which gets added, adds nothing to what readers expect from an encyclopedia article, and it is not our task to "show how evil he is" in any BLP. If we stick with what he says, we have a nice concise section, and if we start adding "balancing" material, we readily hit UNDUE with a sledgehammer. I suggest we leave it at his own words, and let the rest alone. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I updated the lede according to the discussion on this talk page. Now that full protection is lifted, I would like to propose additional changes, although I note that there have been some edits today without corresponding discussion on the talk page.
1. In the section on Monckton on global warming, I have trouble with this paragraph:
Some right-wing media commentators interpreted the publication of his paper as a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change. [1] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." [2] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." The American Physical Society, however, was later compelled to remove the portions of its disclaimer about the opinions of the world scientific community and of its own Council, which had not in fact taken a position on Monckton's paper. [3] In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". [4]
First of all, the only source cited for the first sentence is The Washington Times, not "some right-wing media commentators." Second, the Washington Times piece does not say that Monckton's paper as a sign that the APS abandoned its earlier support for scientific consensus. I'm not sure why this is cited here. What it does say is "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," Jeffrey Marque, editor of a forum of the physicists' society, says." That is what should be cited to the Washington Times, not a general statement about APS. The rest of the commentary about the APS is just coatrack to get in opposing views. A statement that APS affirmed its views and did not adopt Marque's views is sufficient. I will return with a proposed revision to this section. Minor 4th 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Proposed revision:
In response to Monckton's paper, Jeffrey Marque, editor of the APS forum, stated "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," [5] The APS pointed out that it does not endorse the opinions of its individual members. [6]
Minor 4th 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
2. lede revisited -- I had made a proposed revision of the lede and incorporated any changes that were discussed, but somehow we have ended up with an entirely different lede which adds some details but also leaves out some of the changes from the last agreed proposal. It reads:
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and worked for Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. He also worked forThe Universe, The Sunday Telegraph, Today andEvening Standard newspapers. He became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1]In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming.[2]
Proposed revision
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010. He served in Conservative Central Office and served as a policy advisor for Margaret Thatcher's in her Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. Monckton was a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph, consulting editor of The Universe, consulting editor of The Sunday Telegraph and Today , and an editor of the Evening Standard.
Monckton became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the person who could solve it within four years.[1] I Monckfort's Eternity puzzle was voted Puzzle of the Year in Australian in 1998 by the Australian Games Association. ""AGA Award Winners"". Australian Games Association. 1998. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
In recent years Monckton has come to public attention for his outspoken scepticism about the scope and impact of anthropogenic global warming.[2]
Minor 4th 02:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
An interesting development: [8]. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can some admin take a break from the war and disambiguate the link from University of St. Thomas to [[University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)|University of St. Thomas]]? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 22:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is what the lead says and it is technically true, but it seems to me that his notability in this area is much greater in the US than in the UK. In the US, he has been invited onto significant TV shows and even to the US Congress, whereas he has had no similar invites (as far as I am aware) in the UK. Should the article not reflect his notability in the US, instead of the UK? -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Curiously, it sounds like Monckton is calling for a return to the Medieval Period of human history, with the Church in control and where people are kept in slavery as serfs. Is this true? Viriditas ( talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That's an entirely unencyclopedic, uninfo rmative quote, only used as a blatant and gratuitous attack on scientists who have already been cleared in multiple investigations. There has been no distortion of temperature data. Why is this quote in this article? I recommend removal as it imparts no encyclopedic content. Viriditas ( talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
i would insert the next paragraph about Monckton's supposed membership of the House of Lords :
August 5, 2010 the information of the House of Lords wrote a letter [7] saying :
The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.
[]
The reference citing: "Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15)" has an erroneous data "2020". Correct to "2010". Needs link to the original source quoted. DLH ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this is his new project. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Monbiot's blog is not a reliable source. It's not significant enough to put in the article until it's reported in multiple reliable sources. Minor 4th 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and added RESURREXI, cited to this press release on the UKIP website, which incorporates Monckton's CV and was issued along with the announcement of his appointment as UKIP deputy leader. That source is, I hope Minor4th will agree, "excellent". It's not at all a recent development, by the way - his involvement with RESURREXI started in 2008 according to the CV. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The following statement under "Published works" regarding Monckton's articles is erroneous: "The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published nine non peer-reviewed articles by Monckton on climate-change science.[65]" The supposed link to Monckton's articles at SPPI is incorrect. The statement of 9 articles is incorrect. SPPI's Monckton Collection has 24 pages of article abstracts, at about 4 abstracts per page.
Propose correcting this statement to:
The Science and Public Policy Institute maintains the Monckton Collection containing about 100 of Monckton's articles (August 2010).
DLH ( talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is loaded with BLP violations and poor sourcing. Over the next few days, I am going to be cleaning up the BLP mess, removing negative, controversial and poorly sourced information. Before restoring negative BLP information, please discuss here and get a consensus or take it to the BLP noticeboard. Do not unilaterally restore negative, controversial content that is sourced to a blog or self published source, or negative information that is op-ed material from Monckton's ideological opponents. Minor 4th 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
In re-reading this article earlier today, I noticed a few issues which I think might represent undue weight or trivia, which we could probably lose. They were not added by myself but appear to have been added to the article fairly recently. I've not taken them out myself but am bringing them here for discussion so that we can find a consensus on what to do about them. If other editors have issues of concern, please post them below so that we can address them too.
Monckton and his wife opened Monckton's, a high-end shirt shop in King's Road, Chelsea, in 1995'.
While this is reliably sourced it looks very trivial and I've not seen any mention of it anywhere else. I suggest leaving this out.
Monckton's CV [32] as Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) claims that "the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats... earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate." In January 2010, Monckton voiced this claim on an Australian radio broadcast. When later questioned about this by reporters [33], Monckton conceded that his claim to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was "a joke". As of 6 June 2010, the claim that Monckton is a Nobel Peace Laureate has not been removed from the SPPI web site
This strikes me as a relatively trivial issue and I suggest that this is undue weight. The last sentence of it is clearly unsourced and appears to be original research. At the very least, WP:BLP requires that to be removed.
Criticizing the campaign to save the Ravenscraig ironworks, Monckton wrote, "The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like crumpled bagpipes and waiting for a fix of English taxpayers' money."
In 1997, Monckton criticized works at the Fotofeis (the Scottish International Festival of Photography) and Sensation as "feeble-minded, cheap, pitiable, exploitative sensationalism perpetrated by the talent-free and perpetuated by over-funded, useless, muddle-headed, middle-aged, pot-bellied, brewer's-droopy quangoes which a courageous Government would forthwith cease to subsidise with your money and mine."
Again this seems to me to be undue weight on comments which lack any context and appear to have been selected to make Monckton look bad. There is no indication of wider significance; it looks very much like cherry-picking. Suggest removal of both of these bits.
I hope these would be fairly uncontentious amendments but I'd appreciate it if editors could indicate whether they agree. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I spent some time looking through LexisNexis to see if I could verify this content. I found the relevant article, though it took me quite some time to find as it was not titled as such because "Persuaded to act otherwise" was the subtitle of the actual title – Diary. Here it is:
WHAT of the Conservative Family Campaign, the tireless crusaders against homosexuals, abortionists and those who'd like to open their shops on Sunday? This election time the CFC is circulating a long list of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, including Neil Kinnock and Sir David Steel, that it claims have supported the child sex movement or homosexual rights. On inspection, supporting paedophiles appears to mean having met lobby groups to discuss the age of consent. Meanwhile, the CFC's chairman, Stephen Green, tells us he's nearly raised the pounds 11,000 he needs to publish a book on homosexuals titled (provisionally) Emotional Orphans. It will, inter alia, explain how homosexuals may achieve heterosexuality - a painfully difficult process, according to Green, who has, none the less, met many recovered homosexuals. Perhaps wisely, many of the campaign's MP friends severed links last year, but an interesting list of CFC sponsors remains on the notepaper. There's the London Evening Standard's leader writer, Christopher Monckton, and the Duke of Norfolk. The 20 Tory sponsors range from David Amess and Bill Cash through to Teddy Taylor and Ann Winterton by way of the candidate for Sutton and Cheam, Lady Olga Maitland.
— "Diary: Persuaded to Act Otherwise". The Independent. London. April 3, 1992. p. 25.
I don't believe that the two are the same, but I am not familiar enough with either.
NW (
Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor 4th 23:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How is this a BLP violation? NW ( Talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed to see this need to be protected for a third time, and while the arbcase is ongoing - in the PD phase to boot. And yes, many of the same parties are involved in this most recent edit war as before. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
discussion of editing behaviour, unrelated to content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm sure the arbs are paying attention Chris. As Scott Mac told you on the BLP noticeboard when you tried to raise the same issue, we don't wait for consensus on blatant BLP violations. We remove and then discuss. After 7 years, you shouldn't need a reminder.
Minor
4th 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Before this article was protected (again) I made a number of edits based on previous discussions and agreements. I note that Minor4th did not attempt to roll back any of them, so I'm assuming that he did not object - hopefully they should not be contentious.
Scott Mac has restored my deletion of a BLP-violating boxout quotation, so thanks for that.
Other proposed changes:
1) Under "Political career", add the following to update the material on Monckton's relationship with the House of Lords, sourced to an article that appeared in the print version of the UK Guardian newspaper:
Previous talk page discussion: [12]
2) Under "Entrepreneurship", add the following, sourced to Monckton's profile in the UK Independence Party's announcement of his appointment as deputy leader:
Previous talk page discussion: [13]
3) Under "Published works", amend the last para as follows:
Previous talk page discussion: [14]
Could editors please indicate whether they have any objections to these changes? -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, why don't you just hold off for a bit, or make some revisions in userspace or something. There is a proposal being discussed by a BLP editor/admin about editing through protection and stubbing the CC content until the case is over and discussion can resume. Please note that Scot Mac, who focuses on BLP violations, has noted that the article is bad and has BLP violations that should not remain protected. It sounded like he was going to perhaps round up an uninvolved BLP task force to work on the article. His proposal was that anyone editing prior to yesterday be banned from the article while they do their work, and I am in favor of that proposal. Minor 4th 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this section. I'm not getting involved in the content, but there is obviously a serious dispute here and questions as to its neutrality, weighting, and use of sources. With BLP material, we err heavily on the side of non-inclusion of material until we are clear that it is fair to the subject. I do not wish to get involved in the CC controversy, in which I have no interest, so I'm utterly "uninvolved" and see myself as enforcing our usual BLP caution in a contentious article.
The material should IMO remain out of the article until a) the Arbcom case is concluded and b) there is a consensus on the talk page as to the weighting and neutrality. If the parties previously waring over this cannot agree, I strongly suggest appealing for more disinterested eyes. Perhaps an RFC.-- Scott Mac 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Full disclosure, there was discussion here leading to User:Scott MacDonald's deletion of the CC material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The introduction has old but not recent positions. Propose adding the following summary:
Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute and Editor for the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report.
DLH ( talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There being no objection, I recommend an editor implement this.{{editprotected}} DLH ( talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Add parameter expiry=06:16, 29 November 2010
to {{
pp-dispute}}
. Delete {{
pp-full}}
.
--
Bsherr (
talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Now in the press [15] so presumably can be re-added William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We definitely do need to mention the Congressional testimony, and also the tours of Australia and the United States (he may also have toured other countries). Also missing (in a brief skimming) seems to be Monckton's dispute with the House of Lords over his claim to be an honorary member of the House, which most recently drew an intervention from Buckingham Palace over his alleged unauthorized use of an insignia.
Why is the recent response significant to Monckton, you ask? Because it is almost unknown for so many experts in any field to go out of their way to refute the claims of a layman in any field of science. This is a big deal, and it pertains directly and solely to statements by Monckton and no other party. It belongs in this biography because it pertains to Monckton's principal occupation in recent years. I can't think of anywhere else it might be relevant. It really is just Monckton versus the House of Lords, the Palace, and the entire field of climatology. Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about Abraham. Monckton gave testimony to Congress on the science of global warming. We have unimpeachable sources for that. A score of highly qualified scientists have taken it upon themselves to publish a purported refutation of his testimony. We have unimpeachable sources for that, too. This concerns material that was read into the Congressional record, it's not just some daft nonsense somebody said on a late night radio talk show.
On the question of "attacks", it seems to me that some people equate robust criticism of scientific claims with personal attacks. That isn't how it works. Everything Monckton says could be wrong and it wouldn't make him a lesser man (I think we'd all rather live in the rosy world painted by Monckton than that predicted by the IPCC!). These 20 climate experts aren't attacking the viscount's person, they're attacking his arguments, his assumptions, his interpretation of sources and his conclusions. And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. Tasty monster (= TS ) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be editing this article, but as a disinterested person who saw fit to stub the Climate Change section, perhaps I can offer a view on how this should be re-written. Principally:
With that in mind, I'd suggest the following outline.
The point is to inform the reader always about Monkton, and not about CC or its arguments.
I hope this helps. At any rate, I'd suggest agreeing some outline before re-writing. That way you don't get bogged down on the details of whether this or that particular quote or comment can be justified, whilst ignoring the "overall balance", and I suspect the concern is more with the balance than with any one item.-- Scott Mac 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a challenge to describe Monckton's opinions without sounding like a satirist. On climate change, although there is a veneer of pseudo-science or at best fringe science, the general thrust of his message appears to be that global warming is a massive United Nations conspiracy to bring about world government. It would be difficult to say that of anybody in his biography without making him sound unhinged. It's a perennial problem for Wikipedia: how to write about somebody whose ideas have achieved some notoriety. Getting the balance right is not easy.
In an earlier discussion I made the point that I think it's more important that we record his giving evidence before a Congressional committee than it is either to characterize that evidence or even to note that a score of climate scientists, many of them eminent in the field, subsequently produced a rebuttal. Indeed if anything I think in a bio the latter would tend to magnify his political influence. Write about that, more than his ideas. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, but in this instance I would say that we'd only want to mention the subject on which he testified and probably the fact that it drew a rebuttal from many experts. In scientific circles Monckton's ideas have no impact but he is quite influential in the political sphere, and has a strong ally in the Senate in Jim Inhofe. I would tend to avoid an exposition of his ideas for reasons I've already outlined. They don't matter any more than a detailed description of Rep. Markey's views on the effects of the carbon economy on the global surface temperature, though in both cases they are factors in the actions and influence of the two respective politicians. Tasty monster (= TS ) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
From the cited source, which also includes extensive replies from Monckton himself: 'Monckton has been among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the "largest fraud of all time" and arguing that it is being used to establish a "new world government."'
Now if we wrote something like that, we would be painting Monckton with the brush he has carefully fashioned for himself, but we would be over-emphasizing the opinions, both in their extreme nature and in their relevance to the dialog. To draw a close parallel, the fact that so many candidates in the approaching mid-term elections espouse a cross section of extreme social conservative and libertarian views does not mean that we should devote significant effort to describing those ideas and various rebuttals in the biographies of the candidates. Tasty monster (= TS ) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I'll give it a go. This is about what I think we should say:
Climate science
I think that's about all we need to write. Possibly we could get away with less. Possibly repeating his most unorthodox view, that it's all a big lie, isn't appropriate, but I'm still thinking about it. There is an important nuance, really: he accepts that temperatures have risen, but he claims that temperatures aren't rising within projections and that evidence for the influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is faked or exaggerated (mostly the former). And he can be quite scathing about the idea that carbon dioxide has anything to do with ocean acidification. -- TS 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I also intend that we should give appropriate citations for the facts (mainly the Grauniad article which provides an excellent summary). What do you think on content? -- TS 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Warns", I think, lends more credence to his extreme views on conspiracy than are merited. I'll have to look at the articles on Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz and the like to see how we handle people's extreme fringe views. My instincts are that we'd omit detail if we can't get it right (see my comments above). Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be careful of the quote, which appears to be a paraphrase by an AAP journalist in your first source above. Also unless I'm mistaken the phrase "that would be democratically accountable to no one" doesn't seem to be attributable directly to Monckton. I'd prefer to see attributable quotes if that's possible. -- TS 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this summary. To begin with, what evidence is there that the third source, EducationNews.org is a BLP-appropriate source? The "About us" link is broken, and I can't find any reliable sources attesting to its reliability. A website that calls itself an "authoritative" news source, but doesn't even list an editorial board or a physical address almost certainly isn't. But more to the point, using two newspaper articles to provide a complete summary of Monckton's views, when the articles themselves don't purport to do so, is problematic. Anything, looking the two apparently reliable sources
The Australian (?) [22]
The Guardian [23]
Comparing that with the proposed text:
To begin with, we don't use titles to refer to people. So it wouldn't be "Lord". More to the point, "strongly opposes" just doesn't convey his all-out rejection of the entire field of study.
In the first article he (a) rejects human influence of climate, (b) says warming isn't happening, (c) says if there is warming, it's due to increased solar activity, (d) rejects the evidence, and (e) rejects the premise that anyone could predict future climate. In the second article he (appears to) accept warming, blaming it on "global brightening" and saying there's "nothing unusual" about recent warming. So we have two contradictory positions being seamlessly merged.
Can't find the "democratically accountable to no one" bit
The main problem here is why mention this particular testimony. What - other than recentism - makes this bit especially important? It's not clear to me. Is this the only time he has spoken to legislators? Guettarda ( talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The current draft is still recognisably based on my first draft, which was based on the Guardian article about the recently published rebuttal. On checking other sources I saw that Monckton was making the "world government" claim in this context in his own writings as long ago as 2006 and that it now forms the core of his message which is informed by deep suspicion of government regulation. In that respect he appears to be a political first cousin of the John Birch Society.
The Congressional testimony, and the extraordinary step of an unsolicited rebuttal, speak to the success of Monckton's advocacy. He is well connected and influential within the Congressional Republicans.
There are certainly other ways of summarizing Monckton's climate advocacy, and some of them might be superior to this. Perhaps somebody would like to produce a separate clean-sheet draft. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, I'm a bit flummoxed by that last comment. Was it addressed to any person in particular? At this point in drafting I hope to solicit drafts for comment and wouldn't want to deter anybody from giving it a go. It's not as if we'd end up all agreeing to put unacceptable material into the article, is it? Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is my proposal after being involved in the discussion. I think most of the reliable sources indicated above can be slapped on at the end as references:
Monckton has made statements that contradict much of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He believes that the ecological, scientific, and political concern over global warming is part of a conspiracy to defraud the global community in an attempt to impose a world government.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The statistics of small turn-out elections are well-understood to favor niche political causes as that portion of the electorate is far more likely to vote when the rest of the electorate does not. This is basic political science fact. It is irresponsible to claim that the European elections show evidence of greater support in the populace for this group than the general elections, and there are no reliable secondary sources I've seen presented which indicate that. The conjecture of JN that this somehow represents a greater popular trust in UKIP for European politics is bald original research and flatly contradicted by a simple understanding of how such low-turnout elections work. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen466 that Monckton's views and fringe claims about global warming can be viewed as coming from his Euro-skepticism which in turn is a kind of Little Englander tendency quite common on the political right in the UK.
Monckton has taken this further than others, while in recent years the Conservative Party has moved towards the center and its leadership has embraced a general view formerly more common on the left of the Labour Party and the old Liberal Party, especially on the environment. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a side point, but one needs to take care about how we use terms like "fringe". It's relative. The fringe of what - and how "far out" is any particular fringe. For instance, in an article on Climate Change, Monkton's views are pretty fringe and merit a passing mention (if at all). However, in an article on Monkton, his views are in fact extremely pertinent (if his involvement with Climate Change is a significant part of his C.V.). Indeed, in such an article, I'd see the response to his views by mainstream scientists to be "fringe" at best to the article. As for UKIP, the notion that they are "fringe" to UK politics is nonsense. Even ignoring the EU election as untypical, any party polling 3% nationally is not fringe - elections are often won and lost on less that 3% of the vote, and UKIP's presence certainly had the potential to severely damage the Conservative party. Once could not have an article on any recent UK general election (particularly 1997 and 2001) and ignore UKIP - 920,000 people voted for them. The media regularly interview their spokespeople, and their anti-European platform has (I suspect) an even larger support among the populace. Having said that, UKIP's views on climate change (I've no idea what they are) are probably "fringe" to any understanding of why people support them - they are pretty much seen as a single issue anti-EU party.-- Scott Mac 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Should state when he "references" data, articles, papers etc he is lying about what they actually say or he is so ignorant he gets the completely opposite idea to what they actually say. This has been been proven many times and can be easily verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.106.50 ( talk) 04:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Rachman, Gideon (October 29, 2010).
"A night at the Oxford Union". ft.com/rachmanblog. Financial Times. I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases — and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? "Both", he said, "and prions". At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate.
Too recent? Not RS? Needs more sourcing?
RDBrown (
talk) 23:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Morton, Adam (February 2, 2010).
"Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue". Sydney Morning Herald. His interests stretch beyond climate change. He makes the extraordinary claim, one that he admits sounds bonkers, that he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.
Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu, he said.
Lord Monckton's documented claims re inventing a drug are well documented (I added links to the sources for this information) and should be put back in- the current biography has had anything that is factual but unpleasant to Lord Monckton's followers removed- it is a model of PC. His biography should include hist mistakes and missteps as well as his achievements. e.g. his claim of inventing the drug is in his CV at the UK Independence Party (UKIP) where he is the joint deputy leader http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents "2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue". Indulis.b ( talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In recent years he has come to public attention in the UK and elsewhere for his outspoken scepticism about anthropogenic global warming seems to be sourced to this article, however in reading it I can see nothing that supports this statement about a) his views being outspoken and b) that he has come to public attention for them. It is an article about a film he is promoting... The other sources appear to be op-ed pieces by him... -- Errant ( chat!) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to his lie he was never her science advisor this should be stated int he article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.106.50 ( talk) 04:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
However he has claimed to have been and there is a common belief that he was. As far as I am aware there is no evidence apart from his word that he was and not much evidence (apart from the lack of positive evidence) that he wasn't. However Thatcher clearly believed that global warming was a problem and set up the Hadley Institute to do research on it. She also had much better scientific qualifications than Monkton.
He also claimed to be a member of the House of Lords - which the relevant authorities deny.
As a the contributor to the top of this page stated there is more to Monkton than his position on climate change and these aspects should be included.
Surely articles on living persons are not meant to be puff peices. Majurawombat ( talk) 04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Fran Kelly: ... But I wonder what impact the climate sceptics, for instance like Lord Monkton from your country, have had on the political response?
John Gummer: Well, Lord Monkton isn't taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come here. Mrs Thatcher used to have the best scientists in the world in and she would nail them to the wall as she argued with them, because she was a scientist. And, like me, she didn't want to believe in climate change, it's the science makes it absolutely impossible not to believe that this is the most likely interpretation of what facts, which are becoming more and more clear.
I have made some changes to the claims regarding resurrexi. I think it is important that we are quite precise about exactly what has been claimed. Partly to avoid any accusation of bias, but also because this is BLP. For that reason, I have replaced;
with
The Monbiot reference is unnecessary here and is used elsewhere in the article anyway. Monckton did not claim that his cure "show[s] considerable promise in curing cases of AIDS" in the CV but does claim that a "HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days" which I think makes the point. If we really want to include the "cures AIDS" claim, I think it would be best to show that as an actual quote.
On a slightly different matter, there is no wiki entry for herpes simplex VI. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this should just redirect to Herpes simplex virus or whether that's something altogether different. Thepm ( talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent careful revisions to this page have been removed en bloc by certain paid climate campaigners whose mission is to try to destroy the reputations of Wikipedia biographees who have questioned the official "global warming" theory. These careful revisions, all of which were appropriately sourced, include correct spellings of the subject's name. We must ask that readers should disregard this page as unreliable, and that the Wikipedia authorities should carefully examine the edits made over the last 24 hours and discipline those who have undone the sensible, fair and proportionate revisions that had been made. (posted to the article by 86.146.176.114 and moved to the talkpage by Off2riorob ( talk) 22:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
A notice has been posted to the BLP notice board. -- Thepm ( talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The American Physical Society drew criticism for its inclusion of a disclaimer on Moncktons article regarding its lack of peer review status, and status as an unofficial newsletter rather than journal, and re-affirming their own stance adopted November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate".
This edit introduced an unsourced claim about the January 2011 ruling, with the summary Accuracy: High Court judge said Monckton was "substantially successful" in his action: previous version, suggesting total failure, was accordingly unfair. The court ruling does not yet appear here, so without another reliable source we can't check this claim. However, the news source was nuanced about the success or otherwise, reporting that "The judge refused the application on the basis that the agreement on which Lord Monckton relied lacked the clarity which he submitted it had. The "balance of justice" also favoured its refusal, he added." I've therefore removed the unsourced claim, but have summarised this nuanced report so the article no longer suggests "total failure". . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I recently reverted a large expansion of the section about Abrahams that was removed yesterday. Strange this section after coming up yesterday has been desired largely expansion by a new user User:ZangaroZen. I have reverted it as some of the cites looked primary and youtube and clearly after recent deletion of the section it should hardly be doubled in size without discussion. Seems to me like any expansion about Abrahams here is looking undue and if anyone wants to enlarge content that appears to be more about that person it belongs on that persons article John_Abraham_(professor) not here. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This ...citation... that was in the desired addition reflects the general position of the addition <ref>{{title=Hate-speech promoter Lord Monckton tries to censor John Abraham}}</ref> - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity does anyone know if his full title should be used for his journalism pieces? I've been just putting in "Christopher Monckton" at the moment, but a few of his Telegraph pieces are tagged under Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. It wouldn't take long to fix them all, but not sure what the usual policy is. Koncorde ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If this claim can be verified it should be added [29]. I have not found it in the London Gazette. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Just asking. The ref added here reads like a blog with the later "update" and the "I plan to write a follow-up post".
On a more general note, I think that this article has way too much guff and is about twice as long as it needs to be. I've taken a vow not to edit any articles even vaguely related to climate change, but someone here might want to consider whether we really need to include the fact that "Sherman asked Monckton to take the minutes at the CPS's study group meetings" for example. -- Thepm ( talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This article being somewhat contentious, it's probably best to explain all changes. I revised the sentence beginning with "Monckton questions the quantum of 'global warming'..." to read "Monckton questions the magnitude of global warming..." First, "quantum" seems an odd word choice, and "questions the quantum" falls oddly on the ear. Second, I see no reason for scare quotes around the common term global warming. I did not intend to make any change in meaning, but if anyone objects they're welcome to change it back. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth ( talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth including, so I'm mentioning it here for discussion: recently, Lord Monckton provoked controversy by comparing the Australian government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, to a Nazi. He was criticised for his comments by Australian politicians such as Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. ( [30]) Any thoughts? Robofish ( talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite episode}}
: Check |episodelink=
value (
help); External link in |episodelink=
(
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help)Where is the information about his Nobel prize? And does anyone know what category it was awarded to him for? I've searched the list of Nobel prize winnders for "Monckton" and I've searched this page for "Nobel", but I can't find anything. SmallEditsForLife ( talk) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
He is not a Nobel laureate. He wears a Nobel pin given to him by an actual scientist, and when called on it he brushes it off as a joke. [31] Matariel ( talk) 05:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This section should be deleted or shortened to make it clear that Monckton is making ridiculous claims that no-one with any scientific or medical knowledge could regard with anything other than derision. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new quack cures, it is not a snake-oil sales emporium. Gordoncph ( talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is an essential indicator of Monckton's character to know that his medical claims amount to quackery. This combined with his claims to be a member of the House of Lords, contrary to what the House of Lords has stated, will allow readers to form an opinion on whether he is to be trusted on other matters, for example global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.91 ( talk) 17:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a very lengthy quote from LCM in there - could the positions of the respective parties be summarised? Marty jar ( talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the neutrality tag from Section 3 as there does not seem to be any active debate on the matter. Should there still be outstanding issues, then feel free to reinstate the tag and then present your concerns here on the discussion page. Manning ( talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference to these. I am not saying they aren't good videos, but that their notability isn't really established. Also, is Hadfield best described as a Guardian journalist?-- 86.169.104.174 ( talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I looking at putting the reference to Hadfield's debunking of Monckton's climate change views and statements as: (1) 'notability' in wikipedia guidelines, as far as I can see, is required in the article topic (ie Monckton himself) but not the content or criticism's of the article subject; (2) though wikipedia 'notability' guidelines refer to the article topic specifically I can understand that you wouldn't necessarily include every small thing with has little relevance and is only put in because of some direct link to Monckton (eg what type of sandwich Monckton had for lunch on June 30th 2001). However, Hadfield's criticism of Monckton's climate change arguments/stance is particularly extensive, knowledgeable, and above all - sourced. Arguably far more intensive research and comprehension of the scientific material has been demonstrated by Hadfield than by Monckton himself and frankly I would suggest that what makes Monckton at all notable is his high visibility in the climate change public debate arena as a climate change denier or 'sceptic'; and (3) the topic of climate change is such a broad and important one that where a notable person's stance on the topic (such as Monckton) is shown (as Hadfield has done) to be filled with error, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, it is important that such (extensively researched and sourced) criticism be presented so as to provide a balanced and neutral perspective of the article topic to the passing reader. Otherwise a passing reader could presume that no (or limited) informed criticism of Monckton's viewpoints. Without Hadfield's videos, or at least the equivalent of their content being included in wikipedia, the reader is considerably less informed.
Note that it's not only Hadfield, but there are others who have extensively criticised Monckton, one particular exhaustive one was done by a scientist whom I can't remember the name of at the moment, but as soon as I can recollect the name I'll include the scientist exhaustive debunking of Monckton as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtamtyrant ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to add a link to the claim, widely re-reported, that Lord Monckton is a fictional creation of Sacha Baron Cohen. It's hard to tell who's had whom in the ensuing ball of coverage — prima facia, it appears to be a prank by "The Hamster Wheel" — but since it did generate media attention, it seemed noteworthy. However, two different editors have summarily removed the edit. Their explanations, "not a notable part of CM's life" and "hell, no, don't be foolish," seem insufficient by way of explanation. I'm taking this to the talk page in the hopes that we can figure out what the criteria are for a something being a "notable part" of a person's life. !melquiades ( talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a prank and that's all it is. It seems to have got a bit of coverage but I think it's probably better to set it in context: Monckton's tour of Australia a couple of years ago got a bit of traction there--good for him. His most recent tour didn't do so well. We can write about that. I do think we should write about the facts as we can discern them. -- TS 07:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I agree it is definitely a hoax (that's the joke) there is scope for a cultural impact section here I think, I think the main argument for the cultural impact section though is his impact on climate change denialist culture. There are also other examples of parody including RAP NEWS 3: Lord Monckton rap-battles Al Gore on Climate Change [11] it has over 160,000 views so is definitely noteable. There are many people who are not entertainers etc with cultural impact section that reference works of fiction e.g Markus Wolf Mrjohncummings ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The Anon-IP user who has been editing this article recently has been attempting to include a reference to the UK Patent Office indicating that Lord Monckton has filed patents for "Therapeutic Treatments". Lord Monckton appears to apply for patents under this heading serially. The application is applied and terminated after a calendar year (presumable expired without follow-up to the initial application). Then re-applied and terminated again 1 year later. This appears to have been going on since 2008. With the latest patents applied for in September 2011 upon the expiry of the ones applied for in 2010. See http://bluegrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/moncktons-patents-2010-edition/ JAC Esquire ( talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a section on patents is required only after a patent has been granted. Until then, is this section necessary?
The statements appear somewhat Messianic: should they not be supported by medical evidence? A political party is hardly a reliable source for medical claims, credible or not. I suggest this section should be removed unless evidence - medical rather than political - is produced of any cures. Historikeren ( talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(Moved to end of page shellac ( talk) 10:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
The history shows repeated and apparently prejudiced removal of a sourced reference to the existence of a legal opinion by Hugh O'Donoghue, listed as a barrister at Carmelite Chambers, London, stating that Lord Monckton is indeed a member of the House. The Opinion concludes that Lord Monckton "is fully entitled to say so". Why has this reference been deleted and the page then locked down? Lord Monckton would have good grounds for suing Wikipedia for libel if its "editors" insist on only giving one side of this story. We suggest to whoever has locked the page down that this repeated bias against the subject should be corrected either by inserting a reference to the Opinion or by removing the reference to the letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which seems partisan and - in the light of the Opinion - more than a little foolish. One must give both sides or neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.116 ( talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth Mr Hugh O'Donoghue's specialism is listed on the chambers' site as follows: " ...in International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals." - This does not make him 'a leading constitutional lawyer' as described on Watt's Up with That. Why his opinion on this matter should warrant any interest is beyond me on the other hand the law on this matter is quite clear. JAC Esquire ( talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked this IP, which has been used both here and at the dispute resolution noticeboard to make threats about libel suits by Monckton. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The M.A. award at Cambridge is available without further study to anyone who holds a B.A. six years after graduation. It is not an earned degree with a course of study. Perhaps this point should be made clearer, or perhaps there should be a link to the university policy? Eli Rabett ( talk) 00:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I was replying to something on Talk:Gina Rinehart and I camer across this [ http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-lord-monckton-and-future-australian-media-robert-manne-4575 Lord Monckton and the Future of Australian Media] which I thought was quite interesting. Also I've seen quite enough reliable secondary sources around to say Monckton has been called a climate change denier but the word isn't mentioned except in the citations titles which is peculiar. Dmcq ( talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[32] Abraham investigated the origins of many of the claims by contacting the authors of those papers Monckton had cited How does a list of Abraham's publications support this? Removed pending clarification here, perhaps I am missing something. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Placing this RS here for reference. 'You're smoking crack', peer who doubted Obama's birth status is told — ThePowerofX 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggest reorganisation for the career section to be more logical. Either by category, chronology or a combination of the two.
Let me know your thoughts. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "Resurrexi Pharmaceutical" section belongs under "Political views". Thoughts? Lukekfreeman ( talk) 05:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking over this lede today, there seems to be some problems with it. Firstly is there evidence that he is a politician? His climate change opinions seem quite mute here in the lede, considering that he is lecturing these days, and not about a puzzle we should think about improving this lede to better reflect the person. I'm putting my thinking cap on, welcome suggestions. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd have though his activities within UKIP made him a politician. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a go at this to keep in line with the Wikipedia:Lead Section guidelines and reflect the comments above.
The missing controversy is his title of "Lord" and this may need to be in the lead, especially if people are redirected from "Lord Monckton" and might find it confusion if that isn't mentioned. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A template was added to the top of the page, claiming that a 'media organization' mentioned this article. The mention is on a personal blog - not a media organization, and it was more than six years ago. It is normally used to tag the article, not the talk page. What's the rationale here? Anastrophe ( talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jinkinson: The above question refers to | your edit. I too would like to know the answer. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has eight large paragraphs devoted to discussing the discredited, fringe climate denialist views of the subject. At most, it only requires one paragraph. I suspect that climate denialists are using this biography to promote their fringe POV. Per our policies and guidelines, these fringe views should be trimmed and briefly discussed. This article should not, however be used as a platform for promoting these views, as it is currently. Viriditas ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"Nice wall of text". This is not civil. I have not 'missed the mark' at all, you are warping claims of policy violation apparently purely due to parti pris. Monckton is notable for his claims about climate science - this is all sourced in the article. I certainly understand policy, and policy prohibits one editor removing a significant amount of well-sourced material without adequate justification. Again, it is *irrelevant* whether Monckton has had impact on climate science, it is *irrelevant* that he is not a climate scientist - those are not the subject of this article, Christopher Monckton is. You removed a large amount of properly sourced material by fiat, with no finding of actual violation. I do not have the burden here - you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument. "You've simply cherry picked meaningless material that has no encyclopedic value other than to puff up Monckton" - again, you appear to be addressing me - I did not add any of this material to this article - please don't attack me. And gosh, forgive me for improperly using the term 'blanking'. You removed an entire section of properly sourced material, without any specifics offered in support, only blanket claims. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I will repeat for the record here: you have not, by any means, "shown" that the article violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. You have merely made the claim that this is the case, without providing specific evidence beyond registering your dislike of the material. You have not shown that the material is not relevant to Monckton, nor that it is undue relevant to Monckton, nor that it is a coatrack. Please provide specific evidence to back up your claims, rather than generic statements, before blanking a large portion of reliably-sourced information from the article, again. Thank you. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please allow other editors to discuss this matter before you remove this material by fiat again. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please let others participate. Anastrophe ( talk) 03:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP we should fairly describe his views. The extensive "other stuff" which gets added, adds nothing to what readers expect from an encyclopedia article, and it is not our task to "show how evil he is" in any BLP. If we stick with what he says, we have a nice concise section, and if we start adding "balancing" material, we readily hit UNDUE with a sledgehammer. I suggest we leave it at his own words, and let the rest alone. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)