Monckton again

Naturally enough, there is a wiki article [[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley]]. And of course what to say about his views on GW is a source of controversy: being wiki, it can't just say he is talkin' tosh, it has to be more polite.

Unlike certain anons, who make comments like Removed POV contributions by a failed Green Party candidate in the pay of a convicted internet-gaming fraudster and money-launderer who now spends his time rewriting "deniers'" Wiki-biogs - my my, who could that be and who could he have in mind? Its a complete mystery [update: well maybe not so complete; its now clear who the anon has in mind].

Whoever it is is clearly rather sensitive about M not getting a seat in the Lords elections: the anon added the bold bit to this sentence: Monckton was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 [[by-election]] caused by the death of [[Charles Stourton, 26th Baron Mowbray|Lord Mowbray and Stourton]]. Not being a Freemason, he received no votes in the election (source of results here if you're interested). And he has written an awful lot on the talk page. Some suspect that the anon might be M himself, though I consider it unlikely that such a man would hide behind an anonymous address. M (or someone claiming to be him) edited briefly as {{User:Mofb}} but ended up blocked for making legal threats. That was months ago; if the lawyers papers ever turned up, nothing happened to them.

On the science-y side, there isn't any real science but there is a fight about whether M's APS piece was peer reviewed. It wasn't, of course (best details of the actual errors at RC), but the anon is keen for wiki to say that it was, adding Monckton's paper was meticulously reviewed before publication by Professor Alvin Saperstein, the review editor of Physics and Society, who concluded that the paper would make "an important contribution to the literature". However, political pressure on the editors led them to announce that the paper had not been peer-reviewed, when in fact it had.

Curious co-incidence: I know (or knew, from my Go playing days) the person who won the Eternity puzzle money.


More like this

Is that the RIPE Network Coordination Centre?

[Wiki thinks its Energis -W]

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 12 Dec 2008 #permalink

OK, so Monckton couldn't get into the House of Lords because he wasn't a Freemason. And the APS disclaimed the "peer-reviewed" status of his article because of "political pressure".

So, can I take it that the global warming theory is actually a Freemason plot?

A search for "monckton wikipedia" on The Google throws up the 2007 classic from our friend Monbiot, "Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Wikipedia page?"

Not that I'm saying there's a pattern here, or anything.

So has Moncktons alterations been altered back to what they should be, with less wibble and confabulation?

Theres a few articles on wikipedia I'm thinking of improving, and editing MOnckton might be a start.

[Its a good idea to start with something non-controversial... but seriously, his article is a battleground and could do with some neutral copy-editing. But if you're starting on wiki, do some truely non-controversial stuff to get your hand in -W]

Actually, it was a team of two people who won the Eternity money. I take it it's Alex (4-dan) rather than Oliver that you have in mind.

[Thanks for the correct. And yes you're correct -W]

Elections to the Lords? I assume this the silly constitutional fiddle that let a small number of hereditary peers stay, elected amongst themselves. So for "not being a Freemason" we can safely read "being considered a bit of arse by his colleagues".

Wm I was at best a 5 kyu but does it net me extra cachet that that was in the Nihon Ki-in?

[Just playing there does -W]

The Freemasons kept me from being rated higher.

[:-) -W]

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 13 Dec 2008 #permalink

A mere 4-dan solved the puzzle? Scandalous.

[I think he was 2d at the time -W]

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 13 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hey, I see that some of "anon"'s edits concerned me, how thoughtful of him! Thanks for putting it back the way it was, but while you're editing wikipedia, perhaps a link to the arxiv paper I recently posted as a more formal response would be appropriate too (though that, alas, has also not been "peer reviewed"):

[And the reason you can't edit wiki is...? -W]

By Arthur Smith (not verified) on 13 Dec 2008 #permalink

Aye, good points W. On my holidays maybe I'll start with the stuff I have a strong amateur knowledge in, like Scottish castles, and siege engines. The chemistry articles I've seen so far seem to be ok.

Stoat, I think Smith is just mindful of the wikilaw saying that one shouldn't add links to stuff written by oneself into articles.

Bi - yes, thanks I didn't think such a change was allowed to be made by a subject of it. Though honestly, I've never edited wikipedia at all up to this point, though I have contributed to many other wikis, and I was a supporter of the concept back when we were calling it the Interpredia... So I was mulling taking this as an invitation!

[Take it as an invitation, except you're too late, I've added it. On the general theme, you're *allowed* to add stuff you've created, but the COI rules then make it easy for people who don't like it to take it away again. If it was, say, a paper in Nature then there would be no problem at all. Grey stuff like arXiv... I'm not sure what status it has. I suspect there are graduations within it, but I don't know how to assess those -W]

By Arthur Smith (not verified) on 15 Dec 2008 #permalink