[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Matt Ridley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Puffery"

[edit]

There is an ongoing edit war going on because including favorable reviews of Ridley's book is known as "puffery" according to an editor.

I suppose an acceptable compromise would be to remove all reviews? Or maybe something else. Thoughts? 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise done. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody, I assume Matt Ridley from the tone, is trying to remove any reference to his chairmanship of Northern Rock, which is the only reason anybody (certainly here in the North East) has ever heard of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.228.6 (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that somebody is me, not Matt Ridley. I'm not trying to remove any reference to the Northern Rock (I left the section in the middle of the article because it's relevant), I'm just saying that 1) for WP:BLP you can't take a reference from a blog (such as skepticalscience); 2) you can't say that "he's best known for" because this isn't true. If you know him only for that, it's your problem, not everybody's. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any mention of that role in the lede, just that the tones were clearly pov. I'll try to readd a more neutral reference myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udippuy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Northern Rock is what he's best known for and should be prominent in any article about him. Udippuy may not, as he claims, actually be Matt Ridley, but he seems strangely interested in the subject, so shouldn't be surprised when people asume he bears the same relationship to the subject as David Rose did to Johann Hari. But it's fair enough that the ref shouldn't come from a blog, so I've put in one from the House of Commons select committee, where he gave evidence about the bank's collapse shortly before his resignation. Fillthemill (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)fillthemill[reply]

If you claim that Northern Rock is what he's best known for, you have to prove it. I am Italian and I didn't even know of the existence of Northern Rock before reading this article. However, being interested in evolution, I've read one of Matt Ridley's books ("The Red Queen"). In general, I think you should avoid accusations of sock puppetry and of vandalism and try to keep a neutral tone in your edits and discussions. By the way, I'm fine with the mention of Northern Rock in the lede - I'm just removing the claim that he's best known for it. I'll add the fact that he resigned, though, that sounds important. Udippuy (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article resource

[edit]

Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt January 7, 2012 WSJ; excerpt ...

Coral reefs around the world are suffering badly from overfishing and various forms of pollution. Yet many experts argue that the greatest threat to them is the acidification of the oceans from the dissolving of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The effect of acidification, according to J.E.N. Veron, an Australian coral scientist, will be "nothing less than catastrophic.... What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way."

The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls it global warming's "equally evil twin."

See Natural Resources Defense Council, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Nature Climate Change, mollusks, marine ecosystems 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley's view on climate change

[edit]

Maybe Ridley's commitment to shale gas exploitation should be mentioned. Economic interests? Look this GWPF book:

http://www.thegwpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Ridley-ShaleShock.pdf 188.108.222.213 (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me OK to mention this, provided that it is done in a neutral manner. Can you clarify your "economic interests" suggestion? Are you suggesting that MR has a vested interest in shale gas? Viewfinder (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley → Matt Ridley – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Matt Ridley" is the name used by every single external link and source (with the exception of thepeerage.com) in this article. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC). McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent move: why?

[edit]

What was the rationale for the recent move? And shouldn't it have been discussed here first? The new name seems almost the worst choice possible, being neither the most common name used nor the correct full name and title. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:BDD for reverting this. Could we please discuss before any more changes. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The man who oversaw the first run on a British bank in 150 years...

[edit]

Is best know as a popular writer? And somewhat incidentally, "He is also a businessman" !? This is ridiculous - the whole Chairman of Northern Rock thing has to be the most prominant thing on this page, anything else would look suspiciously like whitewashing.

Any objections? Please justify before I restructure everything in a day or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alewhey (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object. It is clearly stated that he was Chairman of Northern Rock and that during his period Northern Rock experienced the first run happened on a British bank in 150 year, so no whitewashing here. But his main work is being a writer, not a businessman. He is internationally primary known as a popular author of scientific books. It seems that you are POV here (with using term like 'whitewashing'). Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skimming Google News mentions of his name, he is overwhelmingly referred to as a "science writer". --McGeddon (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been a writer for some years,indeed I do own one of his books, but surely being in the House of Lords and his involvement with one of the most a major economic events in the UK in recent years overshadows the writing. The BBC news article at the time of his selection for the Lords reflects this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21358553. Also the source for 'The World's Top Thought Leaders' isn't really established as authoritative FDent (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honors and awards

[edit]

I started this section, gathering such that were scattered about the article. Work in progress.

Here is a list, reproduced from Sourcewatch, which IB came from an older version of Ridley"s website:

Obviously need sourcing (and editorial discretion) to include here. Copied as I'm off to another comittment for the day. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matt Ridley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources required

[edit]

Without doubting the information, rather too much of the factual information comes from the subject's own online CV, rather than an independent source. Wikipedia:SPS It would be good if other reliable sources (not derived from that one) could be cited. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll add some Who's Who references for the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Right now it sort of reads like this: Ridley is a popular author! He's written lots of books! Some have won prizes! He's given lectures - even a TED lecture! Oh, yes, and there was that bank failure.... Marjaliisa (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, User:Lawrencekhoo has cut "businessman" from the lede sentence today on the grounds that it's "not what [Ridley] is known for". "Businessman" might not be the best word to use here, but given that a significant chunk of the "Career" section mentions business and bank work, I don't think it's overloading the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH to mention it there, rather than only referring to him as a science writer for the first two paragraphs. --McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly right to include it, and it's easy to find sources that refer to him as such, e.g. [1] which is ref 49 in the current version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Ridley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Matt Ridley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Ridley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Ridley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and Northern Rock.

[edit]

Can someone make sure that it is clear that Ridley is a supporter of Brexit.

Then compare and contrast to his skills and judgement running Northern Rock as a business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms section does not belong in an objective, encyclopedic article

[edit]

I am removing the Coat of Arms section (again). The Coat of Arms is a manufactured self-promoting device. It is puffery. Every person or family can potentially create their own coat of arms. Does that mean we should include it in an encylopedic article about them? Most definitely not. It is trivia and literally a manufactured conceit. Oska (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's a viscount in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The titles and arms were inherited from Matthew White Ridley, 1st Viscount Ridley. This is not somnething just made up. If you think he's using the arms improperly then I suggest you contact the College of Arms which governs heraldry within England. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathan A Jones: Of course it is something 'just made up'. The coat of arms was created by the 1st Viscount Ridley.
And there is no issue with him having an inherited coat of arms, nor do I think (nor would care) that he's using them improperly. You seem to be missing the point. The point is that his coat of arms is not relevant to an encyclopedic article. It's subject matter for Burke's Peerage, not a Wikipedia biography article. Oska (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was made up by one of the heralds of the College of Arms at the request of the 1st Viscount Ridley. The fact that Matt Ridley is the current holder of these arms is undisputed. You are free to hold the opinion that this fact is unimportant, but that view is not widely shared given the prevalence of such arms on Wikipedia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, agree that the current description of the arms is excessive: it would be sufficient just to give the blazon of the escutcheon Gules on a Chevron Argent between three Falcons proper, as many Pellets. We don't usually give the coronet, crest, supporters or motto, except where these are particular notable. Whether you draw the emblazon is then a matter of taste. Jonathan A Jones (talk)
Actually I was surprised to see that nearly 2000 articles use the full COA infobox or similar: see [2] for some examples. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. The example of George Martin's article having a coat of arms section shows, at least to me, how ridiculous this practice is getting. Oska (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also re-removed the "Styles of Address" section. Wikipedia is not Burke's Peerage. WP:NOTGUIDE / WP:NOTHOWTO. Oska (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have restored it until there is consensus on its removal. Styles of address are widely reported in relevant articles on Wikipedia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue with the article you referred to in your edit note. What I am saying is that this section is inappropriate in an encyclopedic biographical article. That it is included in many other British BLPs does not invalidate my point (although I agree, it might be good to get a sitewide ruling or guideline). Oska (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have no objection to your seeking such a ruling. But current practice is as I describe it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line I would draw is where someone has a wikipedia article primarily because they are the holder of a hereditary title that comes with a coat of arms then it is appropriate to include that coat of arms in the article (as the hereditary title is key to them having an article). Obvious example being Charles, Prince of Wales. Completely relevant to have his coat of arms in that article (and indeed, it also has its own article). But Matt Ridley gets an entry on wikipedia due to his authorial & corporate career, not because he happens to be a viscount and thus it is not relevant to the article. It is personal trivia. Oska (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced fringe statement

[edit]

"Ridley has consistently argued that the evidence suggests that carbon dioxide emissions are currently doing more good than harm" is a WP:FRINGE statement which is not properly balanced by mainstream positions contradicting it. So, it will have to be either deleted, together with the rest of the paragraph, or balanced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Mr Ridley's position would have to be due and well sourced and properly attributed etc. You have proposed nothing that would fit the bill. Also, looking at what he actually said, it seems to be indeed only about what's "currently" the good-versus-harm balance. You have presented nothing to show that's a fringe statement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You already know that is the position of a tiny fraction of climate scientists. Climate change denial is fringe, Ridley's position is fringe. You need sources for adding stuff, not for deleting stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need right wing activists like Peter Gulutzan policing pages claiming that global warming denial is not fringe. Just ignore him. He's a troll. jps (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley's statements on COVID-19

[edit]

Should we really have a hearsay quote like this in the article? According to Ridley in 2015 the two teams published a joint paper in which they professed to be able to manufacture "more dangerous pathogens and that this was a risky line of research". I don't believe the paper says this. Here's what the paper says:[1]

In addition to offering preparation against future emerging viruses, this approach must be considered in the context of the US government–mandated pause on gain-of-function (GOF) studies. On the basis of previous models of emergence, the creation of chimeric viruses such as SHC014-MA15 was not expected to increase pathogenicity. Although SHC014-MA15 is attenuated relative to its parental mouse-adapted SARS-CoV, similar studies examining the pathogenicity of CoVs with the wild-type Urbani spike within the MA15 backbone showed no weight loss in mice and reduced viral replication. Thus, relative to the Urbani spike–MA15 CoV, SHC014-MA15 shows a gain in pathogenesis. On the basis of these findings, scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue, as increased pathogenicity in mammalian models cannot be excluded. Coupled with restrictions on mouse-adapted strains and the development of monoclonal antibodies using escape mutants, research into CoV emergence and therapeutic efficacy may be severely limited moving forward. Together, these data and restrictions represent a crossroads of GOF research concerns; the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens. In developing policies moving forward, it is important to consider the value of the data generated by these studies and whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.

So, a more accurate summary of their statements may be: "this wasn't expected to increase pathogenesis, but it is certainly possible it could." Ridley's quote, on the other hand, makes it sound like they were boasting.

I'm not saying we should use OR here, definitely not. But I think it's probably an issue that we're using Ridley's opinion of science he isn't actually an expert in, and that's evident in the disconnect above. The man has no formal training in viruses, biosafety, etc. He does not have a PhD. He's an economist and a banker who wrote some books about genetics.

We either need to couch this in quotes from Baric, or remove it as UNDUE. I don't think Ridley is an expert on the mind of Ralph Baric.

Example quote from Baric as published in The Washington Post:[2]

We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells...These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China. Importantly, independent studies carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.

--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Menachery, Vineet D.; Yount, Boyd L.; Debbink, Kari; Agnihothram, Sudhakar; Gralinski, Lisa E.; Plante, Jessica A.; Graham, Rachel L.; Scobey, Trevor; Ge, Xing-Yi; Donaldson, Eric F.; Randell, Scott H.; Lanzavecchia, Antonio; Marasco, Wayne A.; Shi, Zhengli-Li; Baric, Ralph S. (December 2015). "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence". Nature Medicine. 21 (12): 1508–1513. doi:10.1038/nm.3985. ISSN 1546-170X.
  2. ^ Kessler, Glenn. "Analysis Fact-checking the Paul-Fauci flap over Wuhan lab funding". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
I've removed the RAI content, which is from a non-RS (partisan talk show, similar reliability to Fox pundits, for example, see: WP:FOXNEWS) and, interestingly, was added by a sockpuppet account that's now banned.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley's doctorate in zoology

[edit]

@Shibbolethink: You're telling us that he "does not have a PhD. He's an economist..."

I asked Oxford University's Degree Conferrals Office to verify your information about his not having a PhD.

  • University Administrative Services is unable to verify the information you provided.
  • A Student Records officer referred me to this article's infobox.

It seems that Dr. Ridley does have a doctor of philosophy degree (abbreviated as DPhil at Oxford or PhD generically), in zoology.

Notes

Collier, Jacqui. Email message to author. 30 November 2021.

UAS [University Administrative Services] Verifications
Dear J[...]
We cannot confirm the details of living people without their consent. You can make a Freedom of Information request through that team: [Information Compliance Team]@admin.ox.ac.uk
You can also independently follow Wikipedia links to verify the information there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley#cite_note-dphil-4  Which leads to this: https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=SOLO&docid=oxfaleph013858922&context=L&search_scope=LSCOP_OX
Best wishes
Jacqui C[...]
Student Records Officer
Degree Conferrals Office, Student Registry

–Dervorguilla (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The implied antecedent is "A PhD in a relevant field. (e.g. viruses, biosafety, etc.)" Even with a PhD in Zoology, he is not particularly qualified to comment on matters of virus evolution or zoonosis. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he needs to be an expert in the subject for his comment to be qualified for inclusion in his own bio. If necessary, it can be contextualised for WP:BALANCE, which should be quite easy here. Are there any better quotes that we can use than the one from Baric himself? LondonIP (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, when someone talks fringe nonsense about stuff they are not experts for, we ignore it even in the article about the fringe-nonsense talker unless reliable sources have noticed it, and even then we only mention it if there are also mainstream refutations of this specific person's fringe nonsense which we can add. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords

[edit]

He is going to retire soon as one of the youngest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.80.9 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Rock

[edit]

Why is Ridley's chairmanship of Northern Rock not in the lede of this article. Isn't that the most significant involvement he had in UK public life, although in his appearances in the media he keeps very quiet about it. NB I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm raising the question first! PeterNimmo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the lede: see paragraph 3. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jonathan. I'm new here, and was referring to the text above the information box. I was wondering if the Northern Rock stuff ought to be there? PeterNimmo (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the text above the contents box (which is what Wikipedia contributors usually mean by the lede, although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section discourages this analogy) then it was there already, but moving it from paragraph 3 to paragraph 1 as you have done is not a problem: some people might disagree with the move but it's certainly not obviously wrong. If you mean the Help:Infobox then that has a tightly defined standard format, and there is already a mention there in the appropriate place. So I remain confused by precisely what you are suggesting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I thought of moving the Northern Rock stuff higher up as it seems important. I'm glad that's not "obviously wrong". PeterNimmo (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Ridley&oldid=1210048231"