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