Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 26 May 2010

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class

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).

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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". 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. - 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 . -- 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 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 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 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 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, you're unwilling to every admit error. Everyone gets it, now. You can walk away with the last word below, unless, of course, the fact that I added this episode to your GSCC report means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

We seem to be mentioning that he's a Catholic all the time. We might need it once, but repeatedly makes it look like it's being used as a slur. Secretlondon (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Press Complaints Commission

This PCC ruling relates to an article about Monckton written by George Monbiot on his Guardian blog. The Guardian admitted fault on some points and offered corrections. After taking into account the Guardian's offer, the Commission rejected the remainder of the complaint.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjQwMg Of some general interest is the statement of the Commission that it expects the same editorial standards of such blogs as it does of articles appearing in print editions. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya i saw that slimvirgin had posted that on the bishop hill talk page, we can now put to rest the constant arguements over delingpole being a reliable source :) mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Delingpole's column is a reliable source for his opinion alone. Mere publication in a newspaper or on a newspaper blog does not make a statement a verifiable fact, otherwise we'd be writing articles containing all manner of nonsense dressed up as fact. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Member of the House of Lords

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

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

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

salon.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Low-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles