Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

answer of the house of lords

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 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)

I'm afraid that source (a blog) is no good. I have however added a reliably sourced update here. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resurrexi pharmaceutical

Apparently this is his new project. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RS: [1] --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also here, from Monckton's own CV on the UKIP website: "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." [2] Given that he highlights this in his own CV, I'd say it's significant enough to include in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely significant. Strong evidence that he is delusional, untruthful or a genius. No third party reliable source determines which. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an exhaustive list. It would be interesting to know if anybody has been pursuaded to invest money in this enterprise. --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 25 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. Minor4th 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an RS per WP:NEWSBLOG and the UKIP website is also an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Evaluate the sources individually. Monbiot is not a reliable source on Monckton's mental state or his opinions about Monckton's personality,etc. any more than Lawrence Solomon is a reliable source about William Connolley. He is an adversary and this is an opinion attacking his opponent. BLP policy requires that negative information be impeccably sourced, and this fails. Minor4th 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestion is that this source be used to comment on Monckton's personality, just his involvement in the company named and the nature of the work it carries out. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the article is still protected, so the discussion is pretty much a non-starter at this point. I would say his involvement in the company in any event is not yet notable with such thin sourcing. Perhaps it's too recent. Let's let it develop and see if it becomes notable as time goes on. Minor4th 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I actually agree with Monbiot's assessment of Monckton, and I think he's a bit of a nutter and in some instances is less than helpful to the cause that he supports -- nevertheless, that's not the kind of thing that belongs in a BLP article unless there's excellent sourcing that's broader than his adversary's opinion blog. Minor4th 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be problematic to cite Monbiot's personal website (www.georgemonbiot.com). Fortunately, we don't have to, since the sources being discussed here are an opinion piece in a mainstream newspaper and Monckton's own CV - which is certainly under his editorial control and very likely self-written - on the UKIP website. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 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)

Monckton Collection

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)

A lot of those look like basically blog posts, though. I'm not saying they all are, but I think noting, from a primary source, how many times someone has blogged on a particular site does not make for something sufficiently interesting or notable to be included in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement is probably still accurate, as it refers to articles. Things like "Testimony of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Before Congress, 6 May 2010" and "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My Recent Testimony" are obviously not articles. It seems to be an index of Monckton's output in general - letters, blog posts, articles, etc., which for some reason the SPPI seems to think is worth hosting on its website. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think DLH's proposal is probably a better and more neutral way to describe it. Change "articles" to "writings" or "written works". Minor4th 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've amended it here per the discussion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's SPPI positions

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 theSPPI Monthly CO2 Report.

---

DLH (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues

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. Minor4th 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the contentious history of this article I strongly advise you to take a collaborative approach. Please post your proposed changes here first and work with other editors to obtain consensus. Making major unilateral changes is only going to lead to more conflict - it would be better to collaborate rather than impose. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I have some BLP concerns too, which I'll be bringing here for discussion later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry ChrisO, I'm not going to be doing anything other than removing blatant BLP violations with improper sourcing. Minor4th 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As we've already seen, there are conflicting views on what constitutes BLP violations. I very strongly advise you to collaborate and discuss what changes you would like to make before you make them. Wikipedia is supposed to work on the basis of collaboration. We've had some success that way on this talk page - why not continue that approach? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

please collaborate, don't try to impose your views on everyone else That`s a funny edit summary given your recent conduct on Christopher Bookers article. You know were i removed the undue crap you added and you reverted back in without going to the talk page. Were`s collaboration when you need it mark nutley (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let me make this clear so there is no reason for an uproar before I even get started. The ONLY thing I will remove is negative content that is either unsourced or sourced to a self published source or is pure commentary from an opinion/editorial from an ideological opponent of Monckton. This is straight BLP policy enforcement. There should be no controversy over this - policy mandates that such content be removed immediately, not wait for consensus. This is simple stuff, it's not controversial. The article has some serious problems and we dont want to slander a BLP or expose Wiki to that kind of liability. Minor4th 17:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  You have some misunderstandings about what BLP actually requires. Please do not remove any material without first getting a consensus for it here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  Please clarify (r.e. ideological opponent). Christopher Monckton has described every single person on this planet who believes in Global Warming as a "bed wetter" or a "Communist". Therefore, ideologically speaking, that will automatically disqualify a large amount of perfectly reasonable criticism. What guideline permits such a thing? Wikispan (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  This is exactly what I was referring to above. Commentators have, from time to time, criticised things that Monckton has said and done. This is entirely normal. We do not remove criticism or praise from BLPs simply because they come from opponents or supporters. That's a fundamental violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific BLP issues

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.

1) Under "Entrepreneurship"

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.

2) Under "Political views"

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.

3) Under "Social and economic policy"

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)