Talk:Monday Club/Archive 3

presidency of the club
I know that the 5th and 6th Marquesses of Salisbury were both president of the club, but I do not know exactly when. Could there be a list of presidents and chairmen? VM 07:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone really be interested, though? Apart from a few right-wing nutters that is? I mean, I suppose we could upload the entire text of Mein Kampf to this website, or the collected musing of Donald Rumsfeld, but it would be better not to, surely? --SandyDancer 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to the public at large to include, perhaps in more depth than is already given, a list of notable Presidents. Although a complete list may be slightly too exhaustive, but, then again, maybe not...--Couter-revolutionary 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Couter-Rev, with the greatest respect, I don't think "the public at large" (I find it difficult not to use the speech marks, sorry) would look for that in this article. As it stands, this article is a pet page for supporters of far right politics in Britain - the discussion above proves that. This page should not get out of control. It doesn't comply with NPOV as it is... --SandyDancer 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone with any knowledge of British politics has heard of The Monday Club. It was not far-right. This page has been virtually static for quite a long time until your arrival. Explain to us then how it is suddenly "out of control"? 213.122.76.250 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting action ahead of words I have made some edits to this article, which I think reads like a fan-site. The content is clearly very good - its an interesting and thorough article, with potential to be incredibly good and a credit to wikipedia. Inevitably, articles tend to be written by those interested in the subject. However some of the unsourced claims I have removed had to come out. And although the "far-right" thing might cause controversy - it seems to be correct. --SandyDancer 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

User:SandyDancer from whose User Pages we learn absolutely nothing whatsoever about him/her is very clearly by his edits and comments very left-wing and is taregtting the Monday Club article. The descriptions of the numbers at meetings, which give an indication of the popularity of either the Club or the subject, can all be found in the newspapers and TV broadcasts. The thing is, must every word, every line, be sourced. The ludicrous insertion of some BBC journalist's description of the largest British Conservative pressure group of the 20th century, with numerous members of parliament, as "far-right" is a deliberate insertion which I have removed. I suppose Marx might describe it as that, and doubtless his followers do too. 213.122.76.250 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some of the text of the BBC article used to reference the point about the CMC being "far-right":


 * Tory MPs resign from far-right club
 * Three Conservative MPs have resigned from the right-wing Monday Club on the instructions of new leader Iain Duncan Smith, the BBC has learned.
 * Shadow chancellor Michael Howard has confirmed that Andrew Rosindell, Andrew Hunter and Angela Watkinson have been asked to leave the club.
 * The controversial pressure group, made up of about 3,000 Conservative Party members and supporters, calls for the voluntary repatriation of immigrants.
 * It is possible all Conservatives could be barred from involvement in the club.
 * Mr Howard said: "One thing is absolutely clear. There is no room for extremist views in the Conservative Party."
 * The move comes after John Bercow, appointed shadow chief treasury secretary by Mr Duncan Smith, called for the party to be purged of Monday Club members.
 * BBC correspondent Shaun Ley said Iain Duncan Smith would be trying to make his mark as a leader of a modern and tolerant party at the coming conference.
 * And he said that although the Monday Club was no longer a significant political force, sending a message against it would be a powerful "totem".
 * BBC correspondent Shaun Ley said Iain Duncan Smith would be trying to make his mark as a leader of a modern and tolerant party at the coming conference.
 * And he said that although the Monday Club was no longer a significant political force, sending a message against it would be a powerful "totem".

Does Anon user 213 expect anyone to accept his/her contention that "Anyone with any knowledge of British politics has heard of The Monday Club. It was not far-right." Doers the BBC know nothing about British politics? Ground Zero | t 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the anon above but I live in London and have a very full knowledge and understanding of British politics. The BBC is an established organ of The Left and I would surprised if any seasoned observer questioned that. And the fact that a new left-of-centre leader of the Conservative Party, urged on by someone like Bercow (a believer in same-sex marriages), feels that "the conscience of the Tory party" is something they wish to distance themselves from does not make it "far-right". You stretch your own 'neutral' credibility by trying to say otherwise and I doubt your grasp of the British political scene if what you say is to be regarded as informed comment. There are far more sources, some of them from obvious left-wing writers, who nevertheless only describe the Monday Club as "right-wing". I have therefore corrected the opening paragraph to reflect the academic truth. Chelsea Tory 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even think arguing against what is written above is necessary. Pure nonsense. --SandyDancer 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You clearly regard yourself as, to cite Curzon, a very superior person. Chelsea Tory 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Major problem with this article
...it doesn't state, near the beginning of the article, what the club's objectives and policy positions are. Certain positions are stated, or at least can be deduced from, the body of the article, but it is hardly user friendly. Can we not have a section at the beginning bullet pointing a few of the club's policy positions. Anyone object to that? --SandyDancer 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC).


 * the opening paragraph only really needs to give the most basic information - that this was a Tory right-wing pressure-group etc - and if readers wich to know more they can read the article. Chelsea Tory 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia articles should be accessible - it should not be necessary to read reams of dense text to get a picture of the subject of the article. This article is not accessible. I have tried to correct this by dividing the huge sections of text with appropriate sub-headings. But there still needs to be a "policies and objectives" section. I don't think I am the one to do this, as you have made it clear you will make personal attacks on me if I do so, and suspect me of not being neutral --SandyDancer 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you think its acceptable to put left-wing journalist's description of far-right into the leading opening paragraph as though it is absolute fact? Give us all a break. If you're neutral, I'm a banana. 213.122.40.214 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agenda?
Firstly let me state that I have never been a member of the Monday Club. But I know Tories who have been, and the Club is an old established organisation. The edits to this article show that it has not been 'attacked' by anyone for some considerable time. We now have User:SandyDancer on the scene who appears to have a smear agenda in that he insists a silly ultra-political comment by a journalist be inserted into the opening paragraph of the article. Apart from being a very blatant political action in attempting to smear the Club and all its thousands of members (includes MPs and Peers) before people have even read the article, it is unwise to cite BBC journalists when it comes to anything political, unless you are citing them int he body of the article along with other journalists comments. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a trashy newspaper. Writing articles in Wikipedia which resemble journalists sensational articles should be resisted. Apart from anything else it is not academic in the least and the intention becomes ovbious.

Lastly, with regard to the BBC, the book "Power Without Responsibility - The Press and Broadcasting in Britain" (by James Curran and Jean Seaton, 4th edition reprint 1994) states that "broadcasting has become less accountable" (p.4). It speaks of ITV's original intention to counter "the BBC's 'red' bias" (p.202), and speaks of "broadcasters [being] increasingly vulnerable to detailed [my italics] political interference in the content of programmes" (p.309). It mentions the Conservative Government of the 1980s wanting to rid itself of the "political irritant in the BBC" (p.324). Oleg Gordievsky had a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on 3 August 2005, accusing the BBC of being "The Red Service". He said: Just listen with attention to the ideological nuances on Radio 4, BBC television, and the BBC World Service, and you will realise that communism is not a dying creed.

I hope I have made my point that it is inappropriate to rely upon one single BBC journalist's opinion to quantify what was once the largest and most important Tory pressure group in Britain. Naturally the BBC will try to demonise such groups.Chelsea Tory 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that I have some personal agenda on this page is wrong and it also a breach of Wikipedia etiquette. Please read No personal attacks and stop the ad hominem attacks which are as unedifying for you as they are dull for the rest of us.
 * It is encyclopedic to refer to this club as "far-right" because it is a verifiable fact that it is considered as such. If you want to put in some wording about supporters of the club considering it to be merely "right-wing", please do so, but back up this point with a source or it will be deleted.
 * If you want to sound off about your view that the BBC is biased, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it, but you may be able to make some edits to the article on the BBC dealing with such allegations in a neutral fashion, backed by sources. Here is not the place. If you want to go through the entire of Wikipedia removing BBC sources you will find considerable resistance to your crusade. --SandyDancer 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that the Monday Club was described by the Daily Telegraph as "far-right" on 8 October 2001. Chelsea Tory, is the Telegraph a bastion of communism too? --SandyDancer 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was described several times in the left-wing press as a "fascist". Might I now go to her page and correct it by including that with the sources? Please don't lecture me, or anyone else here. You have behaved most rudely and do not try and turn the tables by citing the very rules that you yourself have broken.

I don't wish to "sound off" about anything. I was attempting to demonstrate that the BBC has a well-known political agenda. It is a pity you are unable to grasp that. I merely wished to put the record straight. You, however, clearly wish to invoke very obvious smears as absolute fact. As I have already said, we can all locate similar smears in source material all over the place. It is the academic approach which you lack in being able to sift clearly overtly political accusations, smears, and hype from a proper encyclopedic format. I put the question agan: is this an encyclopedia or a second rate tabloid newspaper? Chelsea Tory 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an encyclopedia. But you are barking up the wrong tree here. A certain amount of source-criticism is acceptable in discussion, but trying to write off the BBC is pointless. Efforts should be made to correct overall bias in articles by finding some way of balancing up sources, but just gunning for particular things you don't like marks you down as a partisan editor. Charles Matthews 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Matthews: the citations I refer to were already in the main text of the article. No-one is trying to "write off the BBC". That is a very silly remark, if I may so so. What I have attempted to demonstrate is that citing the BBC on the subject of the Monday Club or any other similar group is quite ridiculous because we all know what they will say. My argument was to say that it is both unfair and unwise to place such an extemely biased remark in the opening description of this group. I would argue that anyone deliberately doing this is indeed "a partisan editor". I am sorry you cannot see that. Chelsea Tory 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You write What I have attempted to demonstrate is that citing the BBC on the subject of the Monday Club or any other similar group is quite ridiculous because we all know what they will say.


 * It is not 'ridiculous' to cite the BBC on UK politics. They are certainly held to a neutral position much more than any of the national newspapers.


 * Do 'we all know what they will say'? I don't. 'We all' presumably includes the global readership of Wikipedia, all 150 million of us (according to commercial surveys). You see, you have to have perspective a little broader than the prosperous West End of London, if you intend to generalise in that rather haphazard fashion.


 * The lead sections of articles are subject to what we call 'summary style'. They are not expected to treat matters at the same length as the body of an article. I have seen a number of cases where a great song and dance is made about the content of the lead section, and the questioning of prominence in it. This is all fruitless, to the extent that the lead section will reflect the views of the preponderance of editors. Simply reading down an article and making a fuss about the first thing you object to is really the mark of an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. And that's because the supporting material will occur later on. Rhetorical flourishes don't change that. What is more, the policy we have (Assume good faith) is precisely directed against the type of argumentative style you seem to favour. The working assumption is quite different, that effective editorial work on the article can go on, without calling people silly, misguided and so on. We have our own equivalent of 'unparliamentary language', you see, and unfortunately you show greater mastery of that than of the reasonableness which tends towards consensus editing. (It may come as something of a shock to you that Wikipedia was founded on the assumption that those of different opinions can co-operate by agreeing not to editorialise, but to stick to factual material backed by citations, and let the reader assess the sources.)


 * By the way, if I were you, and if I had wanted to be considered non-partisan, I might have chosen a less provocative user name. Getting on people's nerves is not an ideal way to operate here.


 * Charles Matthews 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At least you have made your political position clear. Anyone who has the audacity to state that the BBC has a neutral political agenda must need a doctor. No surprises there. Chelsea Tory (nothing wrong with that title - presumably you would prefer a more intelligent name like Big Foot or Red Rooster, so common on Wikipdia) has simply stated that the quite recent move of a provocative and erroneous statement to the opening sentences was wrong. Thats all. As for the much vaunted 'assume good faith', it is obvious this is only thrown at editors The Left disapprove of or whom they have provoked into a robust response. "Consensus editing"? Is that meant to be a joke? 81.131.66.35 14:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Its blatantly obvious all these anonymous editors are one and the same person. --SandyDancer 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. However this questioning of good faith is not appropriate, and not smart. The talk page guidelines are referenced at the top of the page, and I shall start to remove comments ignoring those, without further warning. Charles Matthews 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Guinness

 * Why do some people seem to question every edit to this article, and presume all of them to be wrong, unless they are initiated by them, even in cases where edits are clearly correct by Wikipedia standards. Jonathan Guinness is Lord Moyne.  No newspaper etc. would ever refer to him as Jonathan Guinness and this article shouldn't either.  It clearly shows PoV when an editor stops someone being called by their title.  I do hope someone else agrees with me.--Couter-revolutionary 13:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Jonathan Guinness is Lord Moyne. No newspaper etc. would ever refer to him as Jonathan Guinness and this article shouldn't either". Incorrect.
 * Examples of Jonathan Guinness being referred to as Jonathan Guinness in newspapers and elsewhere:
 * New York Times
 * The European
 * Radio National
 * Time Magazine (in an article about the Monday Club, no less, interesting link...
 * Couter-Revolutionary, with respect you are very much a fan of aristocracy and royalty generally and much of your editing revolves around that on Wikipedia. You fly off the handle at any suggestion that people shouldn't be referred to by the most grand honorific available. This is just another example. --SandyDancer 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the publications cited above are from foreign countries, and therefore, not being as used to Titles, may not know when they should be correctly used. My point is that in England one would know who was being referred more easily by using "Lord Moyne" than one would if one was to say "Jonathan Guinness".  --Couter-revolutionary 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply don't think what you say is true, and I don't think you could demonstrate it to be true.
 * And here on Wikipedia were are not "in England" anyway - so your argument fails anyway.
 * And one last thing - all the references to Guinness refer to time before he became a peer anyway. --SandyDancer 13:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Righto, I do accept the internationality of Wikipedia point.--Couter-revolutionary 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent news. --SandyDancer 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long
Some of the info in this incredibly lengthy article doesn't, to my mind, need to be included and could very easily be trimmed. We do not need, for example, full run downs on the club's activities through the years - details of meetings and who spoke etc simply pad the article with none-notable information. I propose a radical trimming of the article to a more manageable size. Opinions? --SandyDancer 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Ground Zero | t 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to try and do this during the course of today. --SandyDancer 14:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is going to be a lot of work. I have concentrated on reorganising the mass of information that has been assembled here into some kind of order suitable for a Wikipedia article. I think then superfluous information can be taken out - I have already removed some info that is only tangenitally relevant, such as speeches or activities by MPs that just happen to be MPs, and blow-by-blow accounts of meetings and speeches. These things are notable enough to be in the article. Basically what I think we want is a structure which is (roughly) - Structure/History/Activities/Controversy. Other people's contributions and views more than welcome - in fact can someone please help...--SandyDancer 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will give it a rest for a while - I think the article is nearing an acceptable size now. I think the new structure is better. --SandyDancer 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Finished. --SandyDancer 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And looking so very much better. Thanks, SD. Ground Zero | t 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is really no need for that Viscount Masereene and Ferrard quote to be in the opening paragraphs. It shows blatant point of view, it is all very well being in his own article but there is no need for it here.--Couter-revolutionary 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I genuinely don't agree. Don't just accuse me of "blatant point of view", whatever that means, without explaining why. --SandyDancer 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the quote, although I do not dispute Viscount Masereene and Ferrard said it, is an attempt to influence those who read this article from the outset. I believe it does not add to the content of the article, especially in the position it is in.  Further if it was not said in his capacity as President of the Conservative Monday Club or at an event &c. it is irrelevant.--Couter-revolutionary 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really wash for me I'm afraid. Surely one of the main points it gets across is that the Monday Club is unashamedly racist? I never understand the right wing tendency to try and hide one's views. If you think something, and say something, don't try and deny it later. --SandyDancer 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of what Viscount Masereene said is that he was not trying to hide it. I am not trying to cover up what he said but this it incorrectly placed in this article.  The CMC as an organisation is not "unashamedly racist", you should read their aims.--Couter-revolutionary 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignore my last comment, I was rambling. I have made an edit to deal with your concern - I have moved the comment into the history section. I absolutely believe the quotation should remain though - if the leader of any other political organisation had made such a comment, whether at an official club event / in an official club publication or not, it would be in the article, and so it should be here. --SandyDancer 10:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Monday Club was never "unashamedly racist". My brother was in it for decades. It never made specific policy statements about other races. What it opposed was immigration into Britain, and already overcrowded island, by what Enoch Powell described as races alien to Britain. This may, of course, be too complex for you to understand. It is easy for any reasonable person to see what your objective was here - to demonise the Monday Club, which had a vast range of policies, not just immigration. Chelsea Tory 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am retired from Wikipedia and will never make an edit in mainspace again. However I do from time to time check back and I noticed you left the comment above about me. What you have written is unfair. A quote appeared in the article previously (now removed, by me I think), attributed to a current officer of the Club which said: "If you say I am a racist, yes I certainly am, and proud of it". That was the specific context in which my discussion above with Counter-Revolutionary took place, and you will note that that discussion resulted in me making edits suggested by him - i.e. removing the quote, which was in the article long before I first looked at it. I did not "demonise" anything when I edited this article substantially last year - I was trying to improve the article. If you didn't like any of the edits, you were free to make further edits yourself, something you chose not to do. You still can - revert it back to how it was months ago, if you wish. I certainly won't intervene, I have no interest in doing so. I wish you well in your "policing" of Wikipedia. You would be more effective if you edited articles you thought were unfair rather than attacking people for things they didn't do. To clear up any confusion, I am not calling anyone or anything racist and I'm not interested in demonising anyone or anything. I just edited an article. --SandyDancer 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"What it opposed was immigration into Britain, and already overcrowded island, by what Enoch Powell described as races alien to Britain." Except Jews presumably, as that would have led to the repatriation of the Sorefs, the Josephs, Goldsmiths etc.

Illegal material
I notice that somebody has inserted an illegal passage into this article concerning the activites of an individual now covered by the British Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Rest assured that the appropriate authorities will be informed and the scum responsible brought to book. These Marxists who think they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity (ie Chilvers) are in for a nasty shock--81.144.199.140 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit as I am confident that the material in question is well within the law.--86.140.119.130 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Refer:WP:BLP and WP:NPA Chelsea Tory 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include this information? The article is about the Club, not the individual in question. If it's going to cause so much bother, isn't it better just to remove it? That's not censorship, it's just showing a little sensitivity. This article isn't improved by including that info. --SandyDancer 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with you. GLF's conviction many years ago is not relevant to the duties and functions of the CMC.--Couter-revolutionary 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont care one way or another. What I do object to are the trolling and threats by anonymous supporters of GLF. I am also concerned that an article for one of the most contraversial British pressure groups of recent times reads like a hagiography.--Edchilvers 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, however, there is such a thing as letting sleeping dogs lie. It does not enhance this article to drag up convictions which happened a long time ago (under specific circumstances) and haven't been repeated.  I quite agree it shouldn't be a hagiography, as it stands it does give an accurate representation.  --Couter-revolutionary 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, Ed, have you left Wikipedia or not? Make your mind up. Chelsea Tory 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I said that I have 'decided' to leave Wikipedia Isabella, that is not the same as stating that I've already done so--Edchilvers 12:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Enlighten us all, Ed, who is this Isabella?Chelsea Tory 09:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty convinced the article is fair. I did a lot of editing on it, and on one hand Ed Chilvers, who seems to me to have an active dislike for the Monday Club (and certain individuals associated in it) thinks it reads like a "hagiography" (which I don't think it does) and Chelsea Tory, who seems to be a supporter of the Club thinks it reads like an attempt at "demonisation" (which I don't think it does).
 * Perhaps when dealing with a "controversial group" (as Ed Chilvers puts it), an NPOV article will always attract such criticism from opposing people with a POV?
 * Perhaps such criticism from both sides is, in such circumstances, indicative of the fact that the article is balanced?
 * I note that neither of EdChilvers or Chelsea Tory has actually sought to edit the article, perhaps indicating that although they are not (and perhaps never will be) happy with it, they recognise that it at least represents a decent compromise?
 * Just some thoughts I had which may or may not take the heat out of the argument ... --SandyDancer 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are Chilvers, 'Sandy'. Please don't try and deny it. All your mannerisms, vacillations, etc., are identical. You follow each other around obsessively supporting each other. We're not all completely stupid. The reason I have not bothered to start editing this and several other articles is because you (and Ed) and your supporters will simply revert my edits because you wish to show things in a particular, not terribly clever, light. I just don't have the time for such edit wars. I am not as obsessive about these things. Your ideas of balance, if I may say so, would capsize any vessel. Chelsea Tory 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Muckraking?
Can the conviction of the Monday Club's leader, an event covered in ALL the national newspapers at the time which directly led to the decline and loss of credibility of the Club itself not be relevent to the article? --81.144.199.140 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that it led to those consequences. Prove it or lose it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To Anon: This issue has been discussed ad infinitum on this and previous MC Talk Pages and the consensus was to remove this irrelevant information. Thats how Wikipedia works, by consensus. GLF, who was not "the Club's leader", had resigned from the Monday Club prior to any charges being laid. I also understand from memory that he contested matters. The Monday Club's position was not in any way affected, so that is patently untrue. Yes the liberal-left newspapers had a field day but it was 15 years ago and presumably he has to get on with his life. Pity that you wish to resurrect it all now. What would be your purpose in doing that, I wonder. Doubtless you believe in WP:Good faith and accept the guidelines on living people at WP:BLP. Chelsea Tory 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I quite agree. The information may have belonged in the art. of GLF (which no longer exists) but it doesn't belong here. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say Gregory.