Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:32, 1 September 2007 editUgen64 (talk \| contribs)15,266 edits →House sale ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:32, 1 September 2007 edit undoUgen64 (talk \| contribs)15,266 editsm →House sale Next edit →
Line 115:		Line 115:
	:*'' Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize.''		:*'' Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize.''
	:How is that unsatisfactory? ]] ] 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)		:How is that unsatisfactory? ]] ] 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	:"Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize." The wording is somewhat confusing. To me, the meaning of this statement is "Monckton said that he was forced to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize. Also, it was a publicity stunt", i.e. it implies that the claim was true (or, at least, doesn't say it was false). In reality the sentence should specifically reflect the fact that this claim was actually false. Even rearranging the words, something like "~~As a publicity stunt,~~ Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize; he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt" or something. ] 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)		:"Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize." The wording is somewhat confusing. To me, the meaning of this statement is "Monckton said that he was forced to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize. Also, it was a publicity stunt", i.e. it implies that the claim was true (or, at least, doesn't say it was false). In reality the sentence should specifically reflect the fact that this claim was actually false. Even rearranging the words, something like "Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize; he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt" or something. ] 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:32, 1 September 2007

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility Start‑class

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

Recommended removal of entire section on philosophical and political views

In what is supposed to be a short, straightforward biographical entry, the inclusion of so large a section on "philosophical and political views" seems inappropriate, both because the subject has published articles on a wide range of political and religious topics, not just on climate change, and, particularly, because one editor who apparently bears a grudge against the subject keeps inserting material that has been challenged as libelous and that has led to a correction being printed in at least one national newspaper that had inaccurately attacked the subject's work on climate change. We recommend deletion of the entire section on philosophical views. Misplaced Pages ought to approach the subject to ask if he would oppose such a deletion. That would be the quickest and most reliable way to resolve this matter permanently.

I disagree. Rather than deleting this section, it should be expanded to include the subject's views on other matters, where notable.Craticula 11:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Did Christopher Monckton sell his house? Yes.

The material related to Monckton's nov daily telegraph article is totally inappropriate. I will remove the following statement.

"It is worth pointing out that this trait of underestimating likelihoods and mathematics persists despite similar failures with the Eternity Puzzle."

No it is not worth pointing this out. This is some snarky attack that has no place in the article. How is Monckton's article a failure? It is 2 days old. --Josh Quinnell 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious, if one reads the article, that it is incompetent. Do need someone to tell you that? 71.132.131.162 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that the article refers to two articles in the "Telegraph", though the second is not scheduled for publication for another 5 days. It doesn't seem worth changing this, though. Groogle 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear example of unmitigated bias that should have no place in a supposedly impartial encyclopaedia: "The first criteria, that a consensus implies all practitioners are in complete agreement, is ignorant of the meaning of consensus. Furthermore, Monckton offers only rough probability estimates of the likelihood of other criteria." It cannot possibly be argued that to say that the first criteria is "ignorant" or that Monkton offers only "rough probability estimates" conforms to the "neutral point of view" policy; they are clear, tendentious expressions of opinion. I have therefore deleted them.

Venerable Order of Saint John

PJTraill 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) It seems likely that the link should be to Venerable Order of Saint John, rather than to a disambiguation page Order of St. John, but I see no definitive proof.

Yes, it should direct to the VOSJ. He was made an Esquire in 1969 and an Officer in 1973. Craigy (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions?

Could someone explain to me what happened to the page? The front page and this discussion is not the same as yesterdays - and there is no indication in the history that anything happened to the page at all. Did history just get rewritten? --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) In fact looking at the top discussion about text about a Telegraph article from November, cannot be found on the front page - so i know i'm not hallucinating. Is this some administrative "erasure" of material that is under conflict? If so i have a hard time understanding why not even a note is left of it..... --Kim D. Petersen 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Acting on a complaint the article has been restored to an earlier version. There should be an official notice to this effect tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why was the content of the article which was documented (ie had references) also deleted? I have no vested interest in this page - but it seems to me that this kind of thing is bordering on revisionism - does this happen frequently? I mean is it enough to threaten with a law-suit and everything gets purged? Don't take this wrong, but i'm simply shocked that it is that easy to remove information. And finally another question - is this documented somewhere? --Kim D. Petersen 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, there was an edit war between two anons. One (possibly Monckton himself) kept deleting the entire controversy section, and posting vague edit summaries about libel proceedings against WP. The other kept restoring the deletions, including a rather contentious (but sourced to Private Eye) statement that suggested Monckton was homophobic. Given that the source was Private Eye, a satirical newspaper, I'd be inclined not to view it as an entirely reputable source (without seeing the actual source itself). Anyway, to my mind, this contentious piece (and possibly a very out-of-date piece on AIDS, which was sourced to, essentially, a blog) were the only portions that could justifiably be deleted. The section on Monckton's crazy attempts to discredit climate change, for instance, should certainly be retained (as it was published very recently in the Sunday Telegraph, a mainstream UK broadsheet). Also, edits to other sections, including an expanded references section, should be restored (although I say that as someone who worked on that). Looking forwards to seeing the details of the case in this official notice. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The later revisions cannot be restored as is. I'll perform another selective restore later today. To answer the question above, this is extremely uncommon, it does happen in exceptional cases, especially where WP:BLP comes into play. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's where we are. Those revisions which did not contain potentially libellous information have been restored. Unfortunately that does turn the clock back a few months but there's simply no way round it without breaking GFDL compliance. The previous article gave undue weight to controversial episodes in Monckton's life without providing adequate sourcing. This isn't acceptable on biographies of living persons. Moving on, the article is unprotected and freely editable. So long as everyone keeps the above in mind there shouldn't be a problem. Thank your for time, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Monckton's (non)qualifications

I noticed an earlier edit (by another user) that mentioned that Monckton does not have a degree in climate sicence has since been removed. I think this is valuable information that should be included in this article (for example, if someone recommends a medical procedure, but is not a doctor, this should be noted in a biography that discuses said recommendation.) I thought I'd post the idea here before going through with it since this article seems to be rather toxic at the moment. I'd suggest starting the paragraph on Monckton's CC articles with "Although he has no formal training in climate science..." although a seperate 'graph might work.SeaAndSand 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an Observer interview with him a while back which said (if I remember rightly) his degree is in the classics and that he has no scientific training at all. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- ChrisO 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I found it, so I'll go ahead and add it in. SeaAndSand 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Just one thing though, "claims" is a word to avoid - I'd suggest changing this to "says". -- ChrisO 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical and/or political views

The section on "Philosophical and/or political views" has several problems. 1 The statement that Monckton "pointed out errors" in the IPCC report is not NPOV, as it presupposes that he is correct. It would be better to write that he "asserted" that there were "errors". A citation should be given for these alleged errors being corrected - and ideally that it was Monckton that uncovered them. 2 A citation for the alleged libel damages of £50000 must be given. 3 The reference to the New Law Journal is insufficient. There are five issues of this periodical published in June 2007, which is the relevant one? 4 Dr Gray should not be described as an "official reviewer" for the IPCC, but an "expert reviewer". 5 Dr Schmidt rebutal of Monckton's work should have a citation. The text should not allege that this rebutal is mostly ad hominem; this is original research. 6 Is it notable that Monckton has challanged Al Gore to a debate? Every sceptic and his dog has done this.80.202.243.223 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your critique. The article has been locked because the editor who inserted this has threatened WP with a lawsuit . Unfortunatly noone has really looked critically at this section - but have merely locked the page. There is no reference that i can find in any of the New Law Journal indexes that i can find that mentions such a suit.. Another trouble here that i can find, is that the journal 'UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin' - is ambiguous - i haven't been able to locate this one. --Kim D. Petersen 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a "QUARTERLY ECONOMIC BULLETIN- LIVERPOOL RESEARCH GROUP IN MACROECONOMICS" which seems like the most likely candidate. This journal has little web presence, and I cannot find a table of contents. It may well be peer-reviewed, but it's not a high impact journal. I don't think that publication there is notable, and think reference to it should be deleted.Craticula 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. After looking over the site, the journal is associated with the Cardiff Business School and Liverpool University. Interestingly, one of the main views of this group is that the UK should not join the Euro. I think Misplaced Pages readers will find it interesting that Monckton is associated with this group.RonCram 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I just read the section referring to Quarterly Economic Bulletin and do not see how it could have published a peer-reviewed paper on climate sensitivity of CO2. This is not an Earth Science journal. If Monckton has written something on climate sensitivity that has been peer-reviewed, it should be listed. But this looks bogus to me. I agree with most of the numbered points above, except #6. I think it is notable that Monckton has challenged him to a debate and continues to do so. RonCram 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In Monckton's latest article, Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming? Monckton's bibliography refers to a paper he submitted to GRL.

MONCKTON and Ahlbeck. 2007. Quantification of climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters .

Perhaps this is the intended reference? RonCram 12:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it notable that he's challenged Gore to a debate? Al Gore is obviously an extremely notable figure and household name. Monckton is... well, I think most people's reaction on hearing his name would be "who?". That was certainly my reaction. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing the headline "Former US Vice-President doesn't respond to challenge from minor British global warming sceptic" any time soon. -- ChrisO 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton is a former advisor to Thatcher and a respected journalist. He is very well known in the UK and becoming better known in the U.S. The fact he challenged Gore to a debate may not make the Global warming controversy article but it is a notable enough for the article on Monckton himself. RonCram 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In what respect is he "very well known in the UK"? I'm very familiar with the UK press and he certainly doesn't have a high profile as a journalist. A Lexis-Nexis search shows barely a couple of dozen articles which mention him, mostly in relation to his recent advocacy of global warming denialism or his Eternity Puzzle. He only just appears to satisfy Misplaced Pages's own notability criteria in relation to his own personal notability. Quite honestly, his "challenge" doesn't seem to me to be any more notable than any random creationist's challenge to debate evolution with a prominent scientist (such challenges are two a penny). -- ChrisO 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't read Private Eye :o) Guy (Help!) 16:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much, and it's not really a reliable source anyway. :-) However, I have to take back what I wrote above, having looked up Monckton in a bit more depth over the past couple of days. He does seem to have had some media and political prominence in the 1980s, though maybe not so much now that he's apparently retired. -- ChrisO 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's latest on global warming

The article should mention Monckton's latest paper on global warming. The web page has a link to a pdf. As much as I would like to see it, I doubt that Al Gore will ever agree to debate Monckton though. RonCram 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? That looks like just another astroturfing group publishing anything that challenges the scientific consensus. What's its standing in the scientific community? Is there any objective assessment of the quality of this paper? In mainstream journals, dissenting opinion will attract correspondence, which is usually published even if it disagrees with the editorial line. Is this journal likely to publish challenges from those who dispute Monckton's interpretation? Or would those scientists even read it? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a scientific journal or other independent venue. It's not even notable in the context of expressing Mr. Monckton's views; as far as I can tell it's received no third-party coverage that I can find. Raymond Arritt 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:AN/I

I've raised the issue of this article's continued protection at WP:AN/I#Anonymous legal threats create an impasse. Comments are invited there. -- ChrisO 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have changed the protection level to semi-protected and removed some of the most obvious POV material. But the article as a whole could use some work, so I've tagged it as such. ugen64 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder of editing principles

I'd like to remind all editors of this article that material added to it must be verifiable, reliably sourced and neutrally phrased, as well as compliant with our policy on biographies of living persons. Any material that doesn't comply with these non-negotiable policies will be removed. And for our anonymous contributor, I'd like to point out that editors should not make legal threats - if you're concerned about material you consider libelous, please see Misplaced Pages:Libel. Issues of concern can and should be discussed here on this talk page. -- ChrisO 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Damned nobility screw everything up, don't they? Luckily, the U.S doesn't have nobility. I'd also like to state though, that Misplaced Pages:Libel doesn't mean anything in the real world. Sure, it could get you blocked from editing Misplaced Pages, but that's a very small price to pay to be awarded damages in libel suits. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.191.238 (talk • contribs)

The French had a creative solution. :-) -- ChrisO 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

it wasn't that effective in the long term...Napoleon recreated a whole bunch of titles, the royals came back into power for like 30 to 40 years and then all of then got dethroned again and look at the present...three families are now fighting over who gets an defunct and non-existent french throne... nat 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Monckton and The Guardian

I asked George Monbiot about the anonymous contributor's assertion that " won £50,000 libel damages from The Guardian regarding an article by George Monbiot, which alleged that Monckton had incorrectly treated the Earth as a blackbody in his calculations." According to Monbiot, "this is untrue. He has not won any damages from me or the Guardian, and despite numerous threats and demands ... he has not sued me or the Guardian." I had a strong suspicion that the claim was untrue, if only because the Monbiot article is still in The Guardian's online archives. Articles judged libellous are invariably removed from online archives due to the liabilities incurred under the UK's very strict libel laws. -- ChrisO 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I might add that since this claim has proven false, we should view with scepticism anything else that the anonymous contributor has added. I've removed a line that named a number of scientists who have either supported or opposed Monckton's claims, per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note Request for Arbitration

The subject of this article has filed a Request for Arbitration which alleges libel in the article. Sam Blacketer 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is at WP:RFAr#Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. There is also an OTRS ticket on this matter (#2007082810012738). -- ChrisO 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

House sale

I've removed a line about Monckton being forced to sell his house. I'm not happy with the wording, and I'm not sure it gets the facts right. I'll have a look at a newspaper archive to which I have access to see if I can provide a more satisfactory version. -- ChrisO 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source provided? "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales" It opens:

- A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.

Our text said:

Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize.

How is that unsatisfactory? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, as a publicity stunt, to pay the prize." The wording is somewhat confusing. To me, the meaning of this statement is "Monckton said that he was forced to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize. Also, it was a publicity stunt", i.e. it implies that the claim was true (or, at least, doesn't say it was false). In reality the sentence should specifically reflect the fact that this claim was actually false. Even rearranging the words, something like "Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize; he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt" or something. ugen64 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: