Jump to content

Talk:Alan Sugar/Archives/2012

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


Thatcher?

'despite having primarily risen to fortune during the Margaret Thatcher era.'? What's that all about? Is this a bit of editorial designed to cast Sugar as a champagne socialist?

Citation needed

"Experts say this has helped substantially increase his wealth, and make his company Amstrad more famous within the public eye."

Which experts? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

...It adds to the complete knowledge of the person. In my view I see no harm in it.... princess of Wales, descendant of African American, Lion of Judah ...son of God...

To add it some how in a profile or biography.

Reviews of Apprentice episodes

Surely this isn't the place for poorly written reviews of various episodes of "The Apprentice" - happy to be corrected as I'm new to this editing lark. Stevingtonian 19:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Apprentice section is absolute crap....Any change would make it better than what it is now. 89.243.244.180 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo/image problems

If we could possibly get a different photo for this article, it would avoid a lot of the difficulties with the current cropped-and-fair-use image, which has dubious legality. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can't justify fair use of that image to illustrate the article - I've moved it further down so as it is only illustrating his role in The Apprentice which I think is acceptable. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's even worse now - there's no image at all! Surely there must be a suitable picture somewhere on the web? Digifiend (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He started selling vegetables out of a van he had bought with his savings of £100

It is true that he bought his first van for £100, but he used the van transport electronic merchendise out to his customers. I am reading "Alan Sugar - the Amstrad Story" (1991) by David Thomas now.

No grocieres.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.8.151.98 (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Find a reliable source on the internet and correct the problem - • The Giant Puffin • 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

if only all information was to be found on the internet...

The article goes from him being poor and selling things out of a van to him founding Amstrad. What happened during the years in between? Jim Michael (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Shouldn't this article be renamed to "Sir Alan Sugar" As I am pretty sure that that's his Official Title. User:Aaronsingh 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, but you dont put Sir's in article titles - • The Giant Puffin • 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed "Lord Sugar" as he does have the priviledge of being a Lord in the House Of Lords. Go for Lord Sugar!! (90.222.0.16 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I Dont See Why Knighthoods Shoud Be Recognised Outside The United Kingdom.

That's ridiculous. Like professorships shouldn't be recognised outside the academic community, the pope outside of catholicism or the existence of testicles outside the male population? 81.98.250.180 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"I Dont See Why Knighthoods Should Be Recognised Outside The United Kingdom" Good job he lives in the United Kingdom then! Good job im reading this in the United Kingdom then!Willski72 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the presidential status of the US President should be recognised outside of the United States. The Nobel Prize shouldn't be recognised outside of Scandinavia. Both of those statements, like yours, are ridiculous. Queen Elizabeth is the queen of 16 independent countries, and head of the Commonwealth which has 54 member states. As such, her Knighthoods and other awards are recognised across the world. If you don't want to recognise the achievements of hard working people, then that is your problem. Zestos (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His attitude problem

Does anyone want to add details about his diabolic attitude problem? I would boycot anything he invents and sells.

Will Sugar's version of The Apprentice air in the US? When?

I hardly think think that most people consider that he has a "diabolic attitude problem", no reference has ever been made to him having an attitude problem and surely it would be nothing than your own POV? Gbarnes 5 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few sentences about his "tough businessman" approach, but that's all I think it is: he doesn't want to be fooled and ruined. It hardly denotes anything drastic.

No, that would be far too subjective and something you wouldn't be able to reference properly. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly Encyclopedic, just imagine opening your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, turning to a page on Alan Sugar and reading "Sir Alan Michael Sugar is someone with a diabolic attitude problem". C.harrison1988 (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! If an Encyclopaedia had that line about Alan Sugar in it, I WOULD BUY IT. Thanks for pointing that out! Although, "Alan Sugar is a person with a diabolic attitude problem" may be better than "someone". Blue123AH (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The article already acknowledges that fact that Sugar has come out with outdated sexist remarks, so there's no reason not to mention the fact that he is a bully and dressing it up with the usual wikipedia 'critics argue that _ _ _ _ '. Lindsay40k (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes to Amstrad

Now that he has sold Amstrad, this article gives me the impression that he no longer has a job. His son controls Amsair and Amsprop. Does he now run any businesses himself or is he just a TV personality now? Could someone make that clear in the article? Chapwithwings 09:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • He still owns Amsair and Amsprop, and I would imagine he plays some part in them still, even though his son controls them. Plus he's still staying with Amstrad despite the sale to BSkyB. [1] Alexrushfear 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph states that Amstrad reached at it peak a stock market valuation of £111 billion; this can't be right! Rolls Royce is only £10 billion. Its not attributed either. 87.102.93.234 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On Jonathan Ross show on BBC 1 in UK (May 9, 2008), he said he is retired, so I think from that statement he must hold financial interest rather than active business interests? i.e. does not run day to day operations? δ²(Talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo: lan instead of Alan in 2nd para of Amsprop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.241.6 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Apprentice has multiple times this year refered to Sir Alan as still being Amstrad's owner, but the show was filmed after the digibox firm was sold! Should probably be mentioned on both the Amstrad and The Apprentice (UK) articles, if not here. Digifiend (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that no mention is made anywhere that Amstrad was on its knees and the verge of bankruptcy and were only saved when Sky asked them to supply their set top boxes. No doubt someone will tell me to edit the article, but what's the point? It will be removed on account of wikipedia articles seeming to never allow anything truthful and citable to be published if it goes against the grain.86.143.168.124 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Any relevant fact can go into the article if it is supported by a reliable and verifiable source. Please feel free to provide one. --Rodhullandemu 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder image

I've restored this as it has a valid reason and use for appearing in the article - to encourage the upload of a freely licensed image. I see no 'consensus' for removal as User:Rodhullandemu said in their edit summary. Exxolon (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached here among the whole Wikipedia community that these images should no longer be used. I can understand why some editors might have missed this, but consensus it is, and remains. --Rodhullandemu 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the image. This issue could've been avoided with a more accurate edit summary. I used Remove Placeholder image as per consensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Exxolon (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Surname

What is the origin of his surname? Is is Eastern European? Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, haha, Badagnani, you do get about. (^_^) Some say that surname comes from the confectioners' trade. [2] It has equivalents in German and French. Anyway, from my own experiences with Alan Sugar in the distant past, I can vouch that it's nothing to do with him being all sweetness and light, anyway! Tsuchan (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

There are a lot of controversial aspects of Alan Sugar's career and personality which *could* have been mentioned, but the only one that *is* mentioned is Outdated attitudes to women; and I don't feel the case has been made for that. The citations given say that "rules which prevent employers from asking job applicants if they plan to get married and have children result in *some companies* simply throwing away women's CVs" and "You're not allowed to ask, so it's easy, just don't employ them." It could be argued (and given that he regularly chooses a female apprentice I would argue it) that he's making the point that the law is regularly working against the interests of women in the work place, in deference to its intention. I suggest removing this point from the section, and documenting his real character flaws in its place. Tsuchan (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it could be useful if we did. The man does have a lot of flaws, after all- in interviews he's claimed that a degree in flipping burgers is more important than history, which is "useless", said children should be smacked, and also called laws regarding the protection of children "rubbish". Not to mention the fact he calls selfishness a "good trait". He's a pretty depressing figure. Blue123AH (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a section on allegations of bullying.Lindsay40k (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the points in the criticism section would be better presented elsewhere, however I am at a loss as to where they might fit in the article as is given that there is no specific section describing Sugar's business practices and ethics - it's basically a list of firms Sugar has founded, charities he supports, TV shows he's appeared in and a little personal information. Perhaps someone can start a new headline describing Sugar's professional practices which could incorporate the existing criticisms along with his neutral and redeeming qualities (assuming they exist, zing!)? Lindsay40k (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Political career

Alan Sugar had plans to run for Mayor of London for the Labour Party in 2008 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/25/sir-alan-sugar-says-he-may-stand-as-labour-candidate-for-london-mayor-115875-20620105/

He has also donated £200k to the Labour party campaign in 2001 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/21/alan_sugar_gives_labour/

Sexist discrimination?

Perhaps the current wikipedia quotes Sugar out of context.

"These laws are counter-productive for women, that's the bottom line. You're not allowed to ask, so it's easy – just don't employ them. It will get harder to get a job as a woman."

Currently, the article only shows: "You're not allowed to ask, so it's easy – just don't employ them."

source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it better to provide the full version to ensure neutrality insofar as is possible, and I'll do that now. Rodhullandemu 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He's currently sued by the woman who's company he bought up cheap when she hit the 'credit crunch' - see Mail on Sunday , 28th June, 2009, p. 24. Hannah Sebright thought of and set up Electronic Health MEdia Limited in 2007 , but did a deal with Sugar when she hit a cash flow problem - reluctantly sold the company (now Amscreen) after being assured she would become managing director of her own , autonomous division - then was allegedly never invited to attend financial planning meetings, or allowed to have access to any data on budgets, then had to make room for the two female finalists in this years 'Apprentice' a juniors, because no one else wanted them. Sugar allegedly undermined her at sales meetings - seems all he does is waits for someone to get a cash flow crisis, buys them out, then takes credit for the entire organisation, ideas and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.105.34 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Peerage

Apparently he's been offered a peerage by Gordon Brown [3] so I've added a sentence about this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was brokered when Blair was in power, via Lord Levy actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.105.34 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

His title should not be inserted until it's been gazetted; it may well be "Lord Sugar", but this is currently speculation in the newspapers. In any event, it's likely he will get a life baronetcy and will become something like "Alan Sugar, 1st Baronet XXXX". Rather than follow the speculation, I suggest we wait until correct information is available. There is no rush for this, and we don't even know if Sugar has accepted the honour. Rodhullandemu 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Alan Sugar will not become a life baronet: there is no such thing as a life baronetcy. He will become a life baron.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
To clearify things: he will receive a life peerage to be able to sit/work in the House of Lords. The chosen title may be indeed Baron Sugar, however can be also completely different (note that Lord XY is only the address).

It should be "Lord Sugar, 1st Baron Sugar". The fact that the peerage is not a hereditary one means that there is unlikely to be a 2nd Baron Sugar but you never know, better safe than sorry i suppose!Willski72 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. Life peers are always described as John Smith, Baron Smith of Birmingham (e.g. Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury). John Smith, 1st Baron Smith of Birmingham, would be the first holder of a hereditary peerage (e.g. William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw).--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Where would he be of? (ie. of Hartlepoole and Foy) Im guessing that London is too much of a generalisation....Willski72 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it will be very much up to him where he is "of". As there is no other peerage including the name Sugar I imagine that the most obvious title would be Baron Sugar. There is a difference between the territorial designation and the title. He may well opt for 'Baron Sugar, of Hackney in the London Borough of Hackney', but the title is Baron Sugar. If there were already a Sugar peerage he would have a title such as Baron Sugar of Hackney, of Hackney in the London Borough of Hackney. Of course, he could surprise us all an go with Baron Stamford Hill, or something equally unexpected.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All we can do is wait....Willski72 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed which is why i did not insert it. Peers choose their own titles. It would be Lord Sugar of Tate and Lyle or whatever he chooses. That is why we have to wait.
He was on the wireless this morning on radio 4 so you can get his comments from there but seems like he will accept. SimonTrew (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC are reporting "Baron Sugar of Clapton" but in the past they've got titles and territorial designations muddled. (Though if it is "Lord Sugar of Clapton" that makes sense for an East East barrowboy made good.) Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The authoritative source for his title will be the London Gazette, but I see no mention of this yet. Clearly he could not have taken his seat in the HoL before being elevated, and it may be that the online Gazette is lagging the real one for some reason. Meanwhile, the image caption has been changed to an incorrect version, and I will amend that to something more neutral. Rodhullandemu 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lordship name change/move debate

As he's now Baron Sugar of Clapton, we would normally move his bio to Alan Sugar, Baron Sugar (of Clapton). I am happy to leave as is - is any one going to tap in that lot, versus Alan Sugar? Would certainly speed up the loading times leaving as is/reduce the thousands of diverts that would result in a move. Thoughts? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap in technical terms, so I don't see that being much of an issue. However, the only source we have is the BBC, rather than a more authoritative version, and I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC are using a shorthand version. I propose we wait until the title has been gazetted. Rodhullandemu 14:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite apart from the uncertainty over the exact title, Sugar goes into the Lords with a very high public profile. The most recent such case is Peter Mandelson whom we have at the non-titled form and I think Sugar is in the same category. If in a year or so he's overwhelmingly known by his peerage then we can always move it then. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree, per WP:NCP and WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see an overwhelming need for a move at present. Rodhullandemu 14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from the Letters Patent (read out in full in the Lords) that he's "Baron Sugar", with a territorial designation of "of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney". Quite apart from the fact that "of Clapton" would be repeated were it part of the actual title, he swore the oath as "Alan, Baron Sugar". Proteus (Talk) 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the Letters Patent as read out say:

Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other Our Subjects whatsoever to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Know Ye that We of Our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf Us enabling do by these Presents advance create and prefer Our trusty and well-beloved Sir Alan Michael Sugar Knight to the state degree style dignity title and honour of Baron Sugar of Clapton in Our London Borough of Hackney
And for Us Our heirs and successors do appoint give and grant unto him the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of Baron Sugar to have and to hold unto him for his life
Willing and by these Presents granting of Us Our heirs and successors that he may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Barons And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging which Barons of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy
In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent
Witness Ourself at Westminster the 28th day of July in the 58th year of Our Reign

Obviously there's no punctuation, but it's clear from when only the actual title is repeated in the second paragraph that it's "Baron Sugar". (I assume "28th day of July" is a mistake...) Proteus (Talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wife's title

Since Sugar is now a Lord, doesn't his wife become a Lady? The C of E (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

She would already have been Lady Sugar as the wife of a knight. She is now Lady Sugar as the wife of a baron, though more formally she is The Lady Sugar, Baroness Sugar, The Baroness Sugar, The Rt Hon The Baroness Sugar, etc.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Right Honourable

{{editsemiprotected}} Why is AS described as the Right Honourable? Is he a Privy Councillor or something? The Right Honourable needs to be removed and not replaced with anything. Le Chiffre001 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it used by Barons refer The Right Honourable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan Sugar is NOT a Right Honourable and the article should be edited to reflect this. This award, also known as a Privy Counsellorship, is usually given to polticians of long and distinguished service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rt Hon can be used by two groups of people: privy counsellors, and peers of the rank earl and below. Lord Sugar is one of the latter. However, this usage is slightly obscure now, so it's fairly uncommon to see non-privy counsellor peers referred to as Rt Hon. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's current policy on this is, so perhaps it needs to be clarified. JRawle (Talk) 14:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ministry of Justice says no. [4] Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexism again

"Regarding the 1970s UK law which states that it is discriminatory and hence illegal for women to be asked at interview whether they plan to have children," The reference cited, which is a section of the Sex Discrimination Act, doesn't state this at all. In any case, how can it be discriminatory to ask women that question, but not equally discriminatory to ask men the same question? -- Smjg (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Amscreen update

The section on Amscreen states that previous Apprentice winner Lee McQueen works for this company. This is no longer the case, and is reflected on other Wikipedia pages.

http://tv.uk.msn.com/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=149813038 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.100 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you add external reference links to 2 Amscreen websites at http://www.amscreen.co.uk http://www.linklocal.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amscreen Steve (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Lord Sugar"

Is the "The" really required in the information box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.255.180 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.254.71.247, 15 May 2011

Please could someone change his Net worth as according to The Sunday Times Rich List 2011, he has a fortune of £770 million, Thanks

87.254.71.247 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a direct online link? CTJF83 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've found at least one. Give me a second I'll change the article.--5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it, can someone check that the conversion into American dollars is correct please? Not sure my calculator got that right--5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks 5 albert...Google got 1.18 but close enough. CTJF83 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That's based on his old wealth isn't it? Going by that link looks as if it is.--5 albert square (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the lead still says "Sugar now has an estimated fortune of £730m" CTJF83 23:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Shoot forgot the lead. Changed now--5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
5 Albert, 41 billion appears to be a typo? CTJF83 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what my online calculator came up with when trying to convert his new fortune into dollars but I said above I didn't think that was right and asked if someone would check it--5 albert square (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption

I realise that he may have been "Sir Alan" at the time, but the photograph is being used to identify him and at the time he is Lord Sugar. If a photograph is taken of somebody before they marry, we don't use a caption with their maiden name. Million_Moments (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the caption to use his surname as is normal. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Political involvement

Is it worth mentioning that Sugar was a vocal supporter of Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party during the 1980s? (92.10.138.107 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

If sources can be found showing that it is true and notable, then yes I think so. Given that he was been a major donor to the Labour party, then his change of allegiance over the years is certainly an interesting and relevant part of his biography.
So, what do I mean by 'true and notable'? Well, true is easy enough - was he really a vocal supporter of Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party? And 'notable' - I think it makes a big difference as to whether he just made some remarks to friends back then, versus actively campaigning, writing newspaper editorials, donating large sums of money, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
While there are a lot of press reports of the 1980s to the effect that Sugar's business success was the epitome of the Thatcherite approach, that is not the same as saying that Sugar himself was a prominent political supporter of Mrs Thatcher. He seems to have made no public comment on his political preferences until February 1992 when he gave an interview to Carol Leonard of The Times after which Leonard wrote "He was, he says, a Thatcher fan, he did not vote at all until she came to power, he will vote Conservative in the election, but says if it weren't for Neil Kinnock: 'That bloke, he's out for lunch, isn't he, they've got to get rid of him'; he might be tempted to vote Labour because of his working-class roots." During the 1992 general election Sugar was one of 43 leading business figures to sign a letter to The Times endorsing the Labour Party's economic policies, but criticised Gordon Brown for an attack on high city salaries and praised John Major; when the Conservatives won he said it was a "victory for good old fashioned common sense". Later and under Tony Blair his support for Labour became much firmer. So it is a bit of a confused picture. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This source says he attended the 1983 Conservative conference http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617149.stm. (92.7.31.6 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC))

Controversy

Should his recent comment about Engineers being poor at business be included in the controversy section? It's been headline news this week and given his discriminatory views against women are included, it seems equitable to highlight his discrimination against Engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarkr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont think is it controvertial or particularly notable and although some may not agree with it it is just an opinion based on his experience of the world. So I dont think we need to mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed, and I think the 'controversy' section could be trimmed to some extent as well. Relevant reading might be Kayfabe - as he's on a reality tv show, it's important to understand that a fair amount of what he says and does may just be mildly provocative specifically to generate publicity. That doesn't mean there's an actual controversy. (Is he about to lose his job over it? Is his company about to vote him off the board of directors? Is anyone filing a lawsuit? Or is it just some tittle-tattle in newspapers too lazy or strapped for cash to go out and do some actual reporting on something important?)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

iPod

Can someone add this source for Lord Sugar's iPod quote? He denies saying it so it's worth having a source to back up the article - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3637246/What-you-see-is-what-you-get.html 109.155.77.16 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

hi everybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.124.133 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Right Honourable - The Lord Sugar

I really doubt that he is THE Lord Sugar. --Bonnerlunder (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The present form would appear to be correct. This one is the same--5 albert square (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Sugar/Archives/2012&oldid=1136505006"