Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Comment

I would like to say here that I am frankly disgusted that Wikipedia administrators have (1) in the first instance found this picture clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton; (2) that other Wikipedia admins have then lacked the guts to do anything about it. I first discovered this picture when I was discussing an incident where Lord Monckton was pushed to the ground by a Danish policeman at Copenhagen with a friend on IM who is not a Wikipedian, and who is also not a climate change skeptic. He looked up Lord Monckton on Google and was directed immediately to this image. He then said to me, it looks like Wikipedia is taking the piss out of Lord Monckton, and he was quite amused. I asked why? and he then posted me this link. Climate change probation my foot. The Admins involved should be immediately put on warning. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your view, but I don't see how admins can be faulted in this case. I don't recall it ever being found that the picture clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton - this has consistently been a minority view in dicussions as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is clearly intended to ridicule Lord Monckton, but you're quite right; there is no way of proving that statement. But let's defer to William M. Connolley's view here, at his blog, where he writes, If you like these kind of disputes, this one is quite amusing. The problem, of course, is that the picture makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko (see endless debate on the talk page). It's very funny, isn't it, the abuse of Wikipedia to take the piss out of people you don't like. A lot of William's readers have also written in to admire this abuse of Wikipedia. Indeed, scroll to the very bottom, and you'll find that one his most mature readers has made the hilarious observation that the picture makes Lord Monckton look like an elephant. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet elephant. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweeter Donkey, Kittybrewster. It was never a "minority" opinion. The opinion was split roughly 50/50, but the editors who troll this article most are the ones most fervently dedicated to keeping other images away. I did my best (speaking for myself) to find alternative images, but each was found to be in violation of image policy, and legitimately, even if said policy is about as restrictive as any I've ever seen. Alex, don't castigate all editors. Particularly when some have the "seniority" to ban others. If you take the time to carefully review this article, you can see many, many individual attempts were made to correct this. The entrenched wiki establishment is few but powerful. Jlschlesinger (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on article

The intro/lead says he is a "British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer." Is it redundant to say politician and hereditary peer? Is a politician apart from being a hereditary peer? Also, why isn't his peership/ political work mention in the infobox? And finally, would it be better to use "writer" in the infobox instead of journalist as a broader and more inclusive word? I'm not sure if journalist is quite right and it seems to exclude columnist and writing books (does he do that?) etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A politician is noting like an hereditary peer. Even before labour changed around the upper house they were not politicians. Because of their hereditary position it was assumed they would look closely at all proposed legislation as they would do what was best for the country and not for a political party. Even though Lord Monckton does not sit in the House Of Lords he is still a hereditary peer, it is title which gives him that distinction, not weather he sits in the house of lords. He has written one book i know of (some soduko thingy) and done intro`s on a few. His political work was being science advisor to Lady Thatcher which is mentioned in the article i believe. Hope this helps mark nutley (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He was an economics advisor according to the Daily Telegraph, not a science advisor, although I suspect that in practice (as usually happens in such cases) he had a fairly broad portfolio. Interestingly enough, Thatcher - who is a former chemist - was one of the first world leaders to raise the alarm about global warming, way back in 1990. I wonder if he regards her as part of the communist world government conspiracy that he now claims? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An advisor isn't the same as being a politician either though is it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. He is certainly a "political activist" and a "former political advisor" though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that what the reliable sources call him? UnitAnode 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect sources will confirm those descriptions, yes, although I have none to offer. It seems pretty clear that they are accurate. "Politician" is probably going to be hard to find a source for. He doesn't ever appear to have stood in a General or local election or held a House of Lords seat, which would mean he is not one, within the UK, at least. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If sources do confirm it, then the descriptors should stay. Otherwise, it's simply original research, and needs to be removed, until confirmed. UnitAnode 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Partly agree, but it seems so clear that he has never been a politician that any source that describes him as such must surely be poorly fact-checked and therefore unusable. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point. I don't know where the "politician" description came from, but Monckton has certainly never held any elected office. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

problems with the article

I've read through the article carefully and I have the following objections to various parts of the text:

1) Lead, A scion of a famous Tory family, his sister is Rosa Monckton, who was a friend of Diana, Princess of Wales. -- why do we care that his sister was a mere friend of Princess Diana? More interesting would be, what is the famous Tory family he is descended from? And finally, isn't his own actual blood relationship to the Royal family for more relevant to his biography than his sister's friendship with Princess Diana?

2) Personal life, "Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords.[3]" This appears POV, and perhaps an excuse to link in an article about global warming. I can't see any reason to be filling up words in his biography about things that he is not. For instance, he's not the prime minister, he is not the King, so why do we care that he is not a member of the House of Lords? A more neutral way of writing this would be to discuss somewhere else in the article his unsucessful attempt at election to the House of Lords. From this brief description of the process, it does sound like a bizarre system, 47 electors, 43 candidates, so I'm not likewise not convinced that receiving no votes has any relevance either. Looking further at the sourcing, it appears to be someone's original analysis of primary source material, and shouldn't be included.

3) Subheadings -- the distinction between "Personal life" and "Career" seems to make no sense at all. His failed attempt at gaining a seat in the House of Lords is surely a part of his career.

4) Political views, section "Climate change". Thus begins the usual climate change WP:COATRACK. As with all climate change skeptics, a long section refuting Monckton's irresponsible views on climate change appears, and this is presumably intended to convince the reader that Monckton is a crank and must be ignored. Unfortunately, due to the blatant bias of the article, the neutral reader comes away simply convinced that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Monckton's views on climate change, and then goes off to read Monckton himself in the original. And let's face it guys, if it comes to a war fought on prose, Monckton's very persuasive, aristocratic grasp of rhetoric simply wipes the floor with anything the volunteers can put up in Wikipedia. So why do we do this?

-- so why do we care about what Richard Littlemore has said?

-- why the controversy about whether he was Thatcher's science advisers? If some sources have got this wrong, why are we repeating wrong information in the Wikipedia and then refuting it? If he was the economics adviser, just say he was the economics adviser, end of story.

-- why do we then care about what Wikipedia's other patron saint George Monbiot said?

5) View on AIDS, this appears to be given hugely undue weight given that the article apparently has him at the end changing his mind. Again, it seems to be saying far more about what Wikipedians care about than what the reader is likely to care about. I am doubtful that this section is accurate, or fair, and the sentence This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult") is not sourced to anything. (Is it original research? I don't know.)

I'm sure I'd see more problems if I knew more about Monckton but this is a start. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy way is to change what you don`t think should be in here, try for reliable sources to back stuff up. E-mail Lord Monckton and ask him just what job did he have from Lady Thatcher (or i will if you want) I dunno why monbiot is in there, he seems to be in every sceptic article as a reliable source on how stupid and crazy AGW sceptics are. Look at what you would like changed, writ it up here first to help prevent argument and then insert the new material (or remove if that is the case) mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you both go chasing around please read #Recent IP comments above. These issues have all been dealt with before. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok he was a spa with lady thatcher`s government, with a focus on the sciences, i know this is original research as it is an e-mail to me but i will try to find some references online to back it up. mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, afraid I'm not familiar with your dialect; what does "spa" mean here? ;-) Also, would it be possible to write to a third party, say the British government itself, in order to find out and obtain reliable sources for exactly what he did? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Spa = special advisor. his focus was on the sciences. He told me this himself btw so nope not a WP:RS :) I`m unsure whom to ask in the uk government about this, i suppose i could e-mail dave cameron again, ghcq would have those records i think. --mark nutley (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That too would be original unpublished research. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few sources which say he was Lady Thatchers science advisor.

• World Net Daily A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
• Thai Indian News Ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor
• The Gaurdian He was a special adviser to Margaret Thatcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

For the nth time, please stop quoting WND as a source. It's unusable, as you've been told many times before.

Now, as for the capacity in which Monckton was employed by Thatcher, the best place to look is in contemporary book sources, particularly those relating to the history of the Thatcher government. You can see some relevant sources here: [1] The bottom line is that Monckton was a member of the Downing Street Policy Unit and is invariably described as a policy adviser. His biography on the Science and Public Policy Institute website calls him "Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986" and says that he "gave policy advice on technical issues". You will note that the only reference to Monckton as a science advisor is from a book which debunks that claim.[2] So in summary, we have a number of contemporary or near-contemporary sources which describe him as a policy advisor, and WorldNutDaily describing him as a science advisor. I think reputable contemporary sources are likely to be much more reliable than a notorious modern crank outlet. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There were six members in the advisory group chris, Lord Monckton`s portfolio was the science`s. However you want a more reliable source.

• CBS News Radio 7 he was Science adviser to Britain's former prime minister Margaret Thatcher

Mark, well done. Despite what these people are saying, a response from the British government giving documentary proof of Lord Monckton's role in the Thatcher government would likely lead to a resolution to this particular point based on irrefutably reliable sourcing. It would certainly trump anything appearing in the news media. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get your claim that there were "six members" from? That's false, as far as I know. The Civil Service Yearbook lists three members of the Downing Street Policy Unit - its head, Monckton and one other person. Contemporary sources all refer to him as a "policy advisor"; he only seems to have called himself a "science advisor" in the last couple of years. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok to finaly put at end to this speculation i have done an FOI to the office of the prime minister, we gotta wait about 20 days before a reply probably :) Hopfully it`ll be a bit quicker. mark nutley (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me? That's the second time Wikipedia has made me laugh within a week (see Lawrence Solomon's talk page). ;-) That's hilarious. "Wikipedia requests the exact role of Lord Christopher Monckton from the British prime minister per FOI Act." I wonder if Anthony Watts will do a post on this. (Are you a British citizen or can anyone do this?) :-D

I`m irish but live in england, any uk resident can make foi requests, I used my name not wikipedia :) mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish, I should have guessed; I had you picked as another Australian! How ironic, an Australian & Irishman defending the right of an eccentric British peer to a fair Wikipedia biography. Anyhow, your FOI request to the prime minister has made my day; thank you. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, weird hey :) I have had a response from the PM`s office btw Dear M Nutley,

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received on 01/02/2010 and is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Thats all so far :) mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad news I`m afraid, the pm`s office does not hold any information on his position in Lady Thatchers government [3] I`ll try the house of parliment next mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis?

"He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar."

This implies that Mr Moncktons views and Ms Thatcher's views on Climate Change were similar. This was not the case at all. Some note should be made to show that this was not the case. 4wy1327 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No it does not. Advisers only give advice. You don't have to agree with them.130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely synthesis, but as mentioned, there really shouldn't be Wikipedia generated controversies in the first place. He was either science adviser, or he was economics adviser. Presently, the article presents an argument between two groups of Wikipedians, which is unfortunately all too typical of our BLPs. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This just looks like an error in the source. It's clear from other sources that he was an economics advisor (EDIT - didn't see the above discussion - yes he is one or the other, or possibly a researcher, but he is not a weird amalgam of these things settled on as a compromise). Whilst "world-renowned scholar" is a bit subjective, he did his first degree in classics but does not appear to have written significantly on classics since. His Masters is in journalism. He may be very well-read on any number of subjects, but this doesn't really make him a "world-renowned scholar". --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA conspiracy

Christopher Monckton recently implied that NASA sabotaged a Taurus rocket in order to prevent the Orbiting Carbon Observatory from reaching space: "Not greatly to my surprise—indeed I predicted it—the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data".^[4] Might we consider adding this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikispan (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsure really, I don`t think the age is a wp:rs especially when it come`s to lord monckton, they are very pro agw and will misquote him at any given chance. Are there any other sources for this story? mark nutley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not included, I'm also surprised his wacky views on DDT, 'new world order'/one government and other things aren't included in the article. It makes it seem more of a puff piece.118.208.155.129 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of sources. [5] - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kitty, but in those two pages from google not one is a wp:rs for a blp mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Age meets criteria. Wikispan (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know that Wikispan, but as they appear to be the only wp:rs reporting this then it falls under wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so, it's also in the Sydney Morning Herald [6]. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, SMH and The Age are sister papers in Australia -- The Age is the Melbourne equivalent and much of the content is identical. This is one such example. StuartH (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would video and his personal blogs etc be evidince of some of the wacky things he believes in/has said? He seems to think he's invented a drug that's the best yet for AIDS, Cancer etc, he thinks there's a secret organisation that's going to create a one world government/NWO looney type thing and a wholeeee lot more crazy ideas. 118.208.51.118 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's notability that's the issue here, not verifiability. It's certainly verifiable that Monckton has said these things. The question is how notable it is. People say crazy things all the time (admittedly Monckton seems to have a higher than average batting rate in that regard) but notability derives from how widely something is reported. If it's only been reported in one newspaper (thanks StuartH for that clarification) then it may not be particularly notable. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications

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

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

Publicity Stunt?

I click through to the source and read, "Monckton, the son of a viscount, denies conning the public. He says selling his home is not a PR stunt to boost sales of Eternity. He also denies his claims about the game are a clever ploy to promote the sale of Crimonmogate, expected to fetch between #2.5 to #5m." This seems rather clear. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, you clicked through to the first source and found that? The source titled "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." How many times are you going to misrepresent sources, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you've already been warned regarding civility in your interactions with me. Would you please strike your personal attack? The text I quoted is directly from one of the sources already in the article, where he specifically denies the allegation. I didn't read the other initially, but now that I did, I still don't see "publicity stunt".. and even the world "stunt" itself is only in the title...and (as KDP, who reverted my changes has often pointed out) an article headline is dicey material for trying to source a claim.

Still, I won't quibble about the language, but I'm honestly confused by the contradiction in the sources. One says he admits something, one says he denies it utterly. Which one is correct? If there's a contradiction and verifiability issue, we need to capture that in a BLP. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, perhaps the timeline would make things more clear to you? One story was from when he was lying about what he was doing to make money, the other was from after he came clean. That you are embarassed you have yet again either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented sources is not a personal attack, no matter how bad it makes you feel. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like synthesis. I don't see your interpretation in the source. Could you quote the relevant passage explaining the dichotomy? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You can't understand why a story from 24 January 2007 says that something was a PR stunt when a story from 1999 seems to take the stunt seriously? You know what - no. I won't explain it to you. Misrepresent another source and I won't go to toothless GSCC, I'll just arbcom it. Misrepresenting sources due to either malice or carelessness is worse than vandalism, and you've done it twice in two days. If you lack the intellectual capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned to protect the encyclopedia. If you're just playing, stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

HC, I remind you that one source specifically refutes what is in the text, and the other source says it was a "story cooked up by PR people", not "a publicity stunt". Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)