Talk:Monday Club/Archive 3

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Major problem with this article

message: 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)
replies: text: I am going to try and do this during the course of today. --SandyDancer 14:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Finished. --SandyDancer 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And looking so very much better. Thanks, SD. Ground Zero | t 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's your opinion that it led to those consequences. Prove it or lose it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Muckraking?