Talk:Darius Guppy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Darius and Earl Spencer

The entry mentions Earl Spencer but does not reference the brawl between the 2 of them Is there a reason why it isn't mentioned? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9961473/Darius-Guppy-That-element-of-madness-was-always-there.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401320/The-revenge-deadly-Darius.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darius-boris-and-a-blast-from-the-past-1658043.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darius-boris-and-a-blast-from-the-past-1658043.html --Biscuit1018 (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Boris and Darius

Editors please note that this article is not a vehicle for attacking Boris Johnson, per WP:COATRACK. Material about Mayor Johnson which does not enhance our account of Mr Guppy is likely to be removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref above. A previous contributor wrote that Mr Johnson had provided the address of the journalist sought by Mr Guppy. All the evidence in the media states the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.138.132 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. We know very little about this man except what was written about him in the tabloids when he was in his early twenties. I’ve trawled through the net this morning and Darius Guppy hasn’t given one interview since that time. In fact he isn’t even quoted! Nothing. Some fascinating rumours but no evidence of any kind. Which makes writing about him a libel nightmare. Don’t know what to suggest. Perhaps the main article should make clear that very little actually known about him?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.87.83 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reinserted Boris quote about Mr Guppy. It's the one most quoted in the press about him, so why delete it? And from everything I've read about him,seems fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.138.132 (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson: The saga continues

It definitely shouldn't be a vehicle to attack Boris. However as the following vid shows him referring to the Darius incident on a BBC comedy show with some degree of embarrassed good humour. As he has mentioned it himself there seems to be no plausible reason to not mention it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4 Regarding the Stuart Collier Controversy, reference should be made to two sources: http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com, exhibits 2&3, the affidavits of the man hired by Guppy to beat up the News of the World journalist and to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/boris-johnson-you-ask-the-questions-430403.html, an interview with Boris Johnson about the matter some years before he became Mayor of London. Both accounts are consistent with Guppy's own version of events given in Roll the Dice. Guppy had been incensed to learn of the News of the World's attempt to smear certain members of his family and had sought retribution for this reason and not because the journalist in question had been investigating his background or any of his activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.140.30 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

'Boxing nemesis of Boris Johnson' does not summarise the above situation, and could only be taken to mean that Johnson was injured, either physically or professionally by Guppy in a boxing environment. Valetude (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

POV?

This article is written in a way that makes this gentleman seem like a hero of some description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.64.62 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I was astonished when I read this article, it sounds as if it were written by a PR firm. The only reliable on the record evidence about this person is that they are famous for being caught committing FRAUD. Newspaper commentary at the time claimed it was because he wanted to get rich quick. The vengeance excuse was dreamt up later. Gmdean2015 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

99% the above comment was written by the informer in the case. The tone way too angry to be Joe Public. Other people have noted how he’s posted things on this page before. In fact I think this article is well referenced and the details of the Guppy case have been widely reported on in the press, including motivations etc. The nobodylikesagrass website gives full information. The informer obviously very upset being shown up as a grass and he seems to have got nowhere in his life. But he should understand that people don’t like his attitude. He should pick himself up and move on. To moan and troll all day just isn’t the British way of doing things. It makes him look a coward. One suggestion. Perhaps the articles written by Mr Guppy in the media should have their separate paragraph or be included in “Writings” section??

I went back to the older wording which was more interesting and balanced, probably because it had involved contributions over the years from many sources which is what the Wiki project is supposed to be about. The recent edit is too skewed and concentrates only on events that are ancient history. It excludes interesting references, for example, to recent writings which imho include some fine and ground-breaking essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.102.120 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten as saying "known for his acts of vengeance" is not exactly a neutral position; nor is mentioning friendships with Boris Johnson and Count Gottfried von Bismarck (why are these two friendships significant? If they're not, the "friendship" mention would be unencyclopedic name dropping which is best avoided here). If there is indeed "vengeance", vengeance for what action/activity... and are there independent, reliable sources attesting to it? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, there are reliable sources and they are cited by the article. If you haven't read the article and checked its sources, then it is you that has a POV. It is no coincidence that the first word in his autobiography is Revenge. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a neutral statement, and Neutral point of view and Biography of living persons are non negotiable editorial policy. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The source does not state that specifically, so it can not even be reported as such with different phrasing. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One source says "Guppy's acts of retribution are legendary" and its article is entitled, "The revenge of deadly Darius". Vengeance is a well-known attribute of this person. Whitewashing our article to remove this aspect would not be NPOV. Since the subject makes something of the same theme in his autobiography, there is not a problem here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this descriptive, phrased the way it is, neutral? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral doesn't mean bland and emolient. Instead, it means that we should be accurate, impartial and non-judgemental. For someone to be vengeful is a statement of fact. This fact is important in the case of Mr Guppy because it helps explain many of his actions. Whether these actions are right or wrong is a matter of opinion and so we shouldn't go there. For many people and cultures, his behaviour is unexceptional. Upholding your family and personal honour might be a matter of pride and respect. You seem to be assuming a condemnatory aspect which is not intended. Perhaps the wording might be improved further but I dispute that we should not report this important aspect of Mr Guppy's behaviour and character. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about this. I altered it to ensure that we are reporting what the source says, rather than how it was worded. The only thing I don't feel comfortable about, is the wording. I don't find a quote of just that "various acts of..." What are your thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The quotation from the journalist Roger Clarke's review of Mr Guppy's book should be removed on account of its potential bias. There may have been other reviews of Roll the Dice and some of them were perhaps more favourable. Why not quote from them? More importantly, as was widely known at the time of Darius Guppy's trial, Mr Clarke was a direct contemporary of Guppy's at Eton and at Oxford, who was disliked by Mr Guppy's family for reasons that nearly landed the journalist Mr Clarke in serious trouble, in fact more serious than anything faced by Guppy, but which were hushed up at the time. Mr Clarke's motivations and objectivity seem suspect at best.

SOURCE MATERIAL

Reference to the URL http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com has been re-inserted. Wikipedia places stress on the importance of source material. Most often that material consists of references to newspaper articles, sources which are at best questionable. The above mentioned URL, however, contains the actual Police interviews, witness statements, charge sheets etc relating to the gemstones episode and as such should be considered more valuable source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.140.30 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous fish?

Surely it was the naturalist who was eponymous, not the fish? Maproom (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

News of the World/Boris Johnson matter

I have reverted to an older wording regarding Mr Guppy's bugged conversations with Boris Johnson in which he sought to obtain the address of a News of the World journalist. As the references in the main article show all three protagonists in the affair, Mr Guppy, Boris Johnson and the man hired by Mr Guppy (Mr Brian McLaine), and the only people privy to Mr Guppy's motivations, have concurred independently that Mr Guppy was looking for retribution because the journalist in question had been seeking to smear members of his family.

The suggestion that the News of the World would engage in such practices is hardly revelatory or libellous since most members of the public would probably concur that such behaviour is the stock in trade for newspapers like The News of the World! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.97.143 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of libels

The comments of 30th July and 14th August were almost certainly made by the police informer in the Guppy/Marsh trial. The first was removed by another Wikipedia contributor on 15th August as an “unsourced and blatant libel.” The informer has a history in this regard and it can be seen in Exhibit 53 of http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com where he is successfully sued for defamation by Guppy . The second comment is equally defamatory. Nowhere either during the trial or in the extensive reporting in the media at the time or in the comments given by the prosecution was the slightest suggestion made that Guppy and Marsh had tried to ‘frame’ the informant. In fact as was widely reported in the media and emphasised by the prosecution and trial judge, Guppy and Marsh’s attitude had been one of zero co-operation with the authorities and they had exercised their right to silence throughout the proceedings. www.nobodylikesagrass.com contains the police interviews, arrest warrants, witness statements etc relevant to the case and the sequence of events is clear: Guppy and Marsh got away with their offence for over a year until an accomplice was caught attempting to imitate them and immediately informed to the police. See in particular exhibits 1-47 of the said website. See also Exhibits 48+49 where the informer’s somewhat unbelievable excuses for his actions over the years are analysed. In addition, the American police officer in charge of the case in an interview given for television was explicit: “Approximately a year later (ie. one year after the gems robbery in New York) I was sitting in my office. I was telephoned by Scotland Yard and they explained to me that they had (the informant) in custody and that he was giving evidence against Darius Guppy and Benedict Marsh. Apparently he had been caught, as most cases are solved, doing something else and rather than go to jail he was going to give up somebody else.” This can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS5cnNFtnaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.55.161 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ease back on the meth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:8929:2D1D:A97A:AEC0 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent history?

Why so much silence about the later years? Has he really managed to stay under the radar of the world's investigative journalists? 86.176.5.37 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion to previous wording

I have reverted to a previous version in order to include Mr Guppy's trial. Although this trial occurred twenty years ago, it cannot simply be ignored since it forms such an important part of Mr Guppy's public persona. Also, the wording seems neutral and non-judgemental enough. I have also added references to various articles written by Mr Guppy which have been published in the national press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.247.41 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Poetry

No reference is given for his work in poetry, nor for the praise from Christopher Logue. The only source that I can discover is a book published in 1984,and co-edited by Guppy and John Adlam: iiFirst Set: Blue Jade. It's attributed to Libanus Press, which is a printing and design company rather than a publisher, so it would seem to have been a private project of the two editors.

Guppy contributed nine of the sixty poems (the other contributors, including his co-editor, being limited to three or four apiece). The book has a preface by Christopher Logue; it's couched in pretty general terms, doesn't mention Guppy by name (but mentions having met the editors), and offers general (and in places somewhat condescending) praise for the poems in the book. The contributors are (in the order they're listed at the front of the book):

Darius Guppy
Joel Lane
Hohn Adlam
Dickon Bevington
Roger Clarke
Kirsty Gunn
Peter King
Joseph O'Neill
Rabindra Ray
William Stephenson
Jean Hanff Korelitz
John Wells

--87.114.104.198 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The only comment which could be seen as "patronising" in Christopher Logue's Introduction is a quip about the poets' youth which is perhaps not surprising given that they seem to have been in their late teens/very early twenties at the time of publication. Logue's remarks are flattering: "How pure these poems are. Their voice is clear, calm, modest, low ... a sort almost non-existent in the last fifteen years - the landscapes, and the people whose patient hope illuminates their misfortune."

It appears that Darius Guppy and John Adlam also edited and contributed to a further collection of Oxbridge poems, "Second Set: Nomads", with a preface by the late Oxford Professor of Poetry, Peter Levi, who comments: "I find here... a presence of lucidity, intelligence and common sense ... They have that bite of formality and emotional tension that re-entered English poetry with Philip Larkin... several of them are both remarkable and memorable, which is perhaps the ultimate test of a poem."

A Google search also turns up a review by the poet Elizabeth Jennings, writing in The Spectator in similar terms.

The relevant references have been added to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.46.30 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

@81.149.102.120: The subject of this article is notable only for the insurance fraud, and his association with Boris Johnson and others in the light of the media attention his encounters with journalists received several years ago. All other biographical details are embellishment.

The previous version was poorly weighted, badly written, and riddled with obviously un-encyclopedic material. If IPs continue to revert to the former version I will have to refer this elsewhere. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I removed the template, having addressed the concerns (WP:BLPSTYLE). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the commentator on 16th June. The article as it stood was well referenced and more balanced and way more interesting. I’ve heard that Darius Guppy was part of the Feasta group in Ireland where I live which might explain some of the influences for his writings. Regarding the police informer you mentioned above you can go back to some of the previous entries including a page which had to be deleted because of his vandalism. The grass website you mention also shows how he wrote an entry about himself under an alias (http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com/html/exhibit_60.html) on Patrick Trevor Roper’s Wikipedia page. That page should be corrected. So he does this sort of thing all the time. I’m suspicious about “Wormwood.” It’s very easy to set yourself up as a “User” and write a few entries for credibility. Last I checked Wormwood was created as a user only a few months ago and the name seems like a bad joke and too much of a coincidence. His suggestion that Mr Guppy is known only for one thing is also too like the point made by the commentator above on 14th December which you picked up as being the informer. For a User to insist that it’s either his version or no version and that he’ll keep going back to his own version unless it is accepted is again very strange and sounds obsessive. Who would speak like that? A disinterested “User?” I don’t think so. (I’ve just checked and apparently Wormwood has now deregistered as a User) Whatever the story about Wormwood is, the entry should be allowed to grow over time with contributions from many different sources which is what’s happened so far, instead of being decided on by a single Mr “Wormwood.” That is totally against to the Wikipedia spirit. Administrators, please take note. The only thing I’ve changed is to put the writings in one section as suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.106.16 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother responding to the above. Anyone who arrives here from WP:BLPN, please note that I am User:L.R. Wormwood (retired). 86.189.191.103 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My recent changes

(Just to comply with WP:SCRUTINY: these posts, the edits to the article under this IP, and the posts on BLP/N were written by User:L.R. Wormwood. I have only contributed to this article since my retirement.)

@Ritchie333: Thank you for endorsing my change here with your change here. What do you make of the other two which I made and then reversed? 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've replied on WP:BLPN - I think comparing diffs is not really as important as determining the state of the article now and moving forward. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it was appalling a few months ago. I'm just terrified of English defamation law, even though all of this is factually accurate and in the public domain. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think if somebody tried to file a defamation lawsuit against "the user known as 81.155.111.250 on Wikipedia" (particularly when said IP is just a domestic BT Broadband address that could be anywhere) it'll get laughed out of the door. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the law changed in 2013. I think the 5 year sentence included the time served for the VAT fraud charges? 81.155.111.250 (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"know for" associations

As there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy, and no source at all in this BLP connecting Earl Spencer in any way at all with Guppy, connecting both of them in the lead to Guppy is violative of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say that Guppy is only really notable because of his association with Boris. Type have i got news for you boris johnson darius guppy into Google, and the top hit is a transcription of the telephone call, while the next two are Guardian / Independent news pieces about it. Of if you prefer, this BBC news source says "He was pilloried over his friendship with another old-Etonian Darius Guppy who was later jailed for fraud." Or, a straight news search for darius guppy, as a Guardian piece as the third hit, the lead of which says : "Darius Guppy, the man with whom the London mayor, Boris Johnson, famously discussed the intricacies of inflicting physical violence...." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite. Boris Johnson freely admits to being his friend. The "Other details" section is fully cited. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

.... although Boris also said we'd get £350m a week extra on the NHS when we left the EU, so I wouldn't trust his word that much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - that is on the s side of bs. He may be a friend of two people who are famous, but that is not the same as being "known for" such friendships. In fact, the person is not likely "notable" much at all, and finding that Google finds single news articles is not the same as assuring "notability" under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you're kind of right in that he's pretty much non-notable outside him being name-dropped by Boris. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of bs, "there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy". There are several, and I emailed (I think) 15 of them (all from UK broadsheet newspapers) to someone recently. I could probably get a couple of hundred reliable sources in the man if I really wanted. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And? The question is whether Guppy's notability derives from any association with Boris, not whether fifteen papers including the Daily Mail ran a single story about the two. BLPs are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view giving important information about a person. That a person eats Frosties, for example, is not of any importance as far as encyclopedias are concerned. Collect (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you make crap comments like "there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy" then people will pick you up on it. I'll repeat something again, as you obviously haven't read what I said "all from UK broadsheet newspapers": who on earth mentioned the Mail? (And who the fuck mentioned Frosties? What sort of crap straw man is that?) - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In short, if I phoned the White House, I would be notable for calling the President? The amount of notability implied by "known for" is far more than has been presented. If you insist- try a Request for Comment. And I suggest that a person one phones is not necessarily any indication of the phoner's notability. As far as your personal attack, kindly remove it. It leaves an ill-taste on any talk page. Collect (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In short, it's fairly clear you are not familiar enough with the subject to make the claims you are ("there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy" being the most obvious example). There is no PA, but nice try. – SchroCat (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that we all ignore User talk:Collect's bizarre comments and stop wasting our time. There is a consensus among the three of us that Guppy is notable, probably mostly, for his association with Boris Johnson (Johnson is mentioned in the AfD discussions). There is also no PA - uncivil perhaps, but that's what you get for writing infuriating nonsense such as you have above (Now retired - apart from this article - editor Wormwood). 81.155.111.250 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't get this debate. Lots of people are "famous for being famous", whether it's because of their associations, accident of birth, or just being in the news. Darius Guppy first came to attention as Charles Spencer's best man, someone who was only famous for being the brother of a person who married someone who happened to be the son of the Queen, who was simply born into that role. So what? What matters is that for whatever reason he came into the public eye. Then his trial made him front cover news for several years, as well as that tape recording where wants to beat up some journalist who according to Boris Johnson had been "very nasty to his family." There were many elements to this man's story that made it worthy of attention, a jewels heist, royal connections, famous friends, Bullingdon etc. So I've included some of the more interesting elements of the story taken from other commentators previous contributions, because it's the exciting bits that made him known in the first place and everything I’ve included is cross-referenced to a proper source. The Boris Johnson quote about his “Homeric code” has also been re inserted because it comes up in nearly every article I’ve Googled about the man and I can see no reason to exclude it. But, I agree, a few months ago the page was a bit of a mess. So, I've kept the basic structure as is. Also included from Google more referencing to several of his writings which are interesting in themselves, much more than anything produced by his contemporaries like Boris Johnson who I personally don't have much time for. I agree with Colonel Warden who thought that aspects of his character added to his fame/notoriety (is there any difference these days?) like his appetite for revenge. I don't think you can leave that out. It isn't judgmental to include it because, as Colonel Warden points out, in many cultures his behaviour and that part of his character would be considered normal and even praiseworthy. He also comes from an interesting family on bboth sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.203.71 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Biographies on Wikipedia should conform to the WP:BLP policy. Darius Guppy is WP:NOTABLE in relation to the insurance and VAT fraud, and his relationship with Boris Johnson—specifically in relation to the press coverage the allegations about the News of the World journalist received. Please stop adding irrelevant speculation about his personality, and details about his political views. As for your prose—as I said on your talk page—you are not writing for Tatler Magazine. Please visit WP:BLP and WP:NBIO. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous version was better and more balanced than Wormwood’s which is why I’ve gone back to it. Wormwood seems unhealthily determined to monopolise this page for reasons unknown. He criticises writing like Tatler yet is happy to include the fact that Mr Guppy was a member of the Bullingdon and the Piers Gaveston Oxford Societies (Where do we draw the line? Boris Johnson’s page, for example, has plenty of Tatler. Was reporting his affairs anything other than gossip? Should Wormwood cut that out?) Wormwood should not delete well-known reported facts just because he has a bee in his bonnet about the man. Guppy’s trial was a media sensation, as evidenced by the fact that it was turned into a film starring a well known actor, before anyone had heard of Bojo so it is incorrect to say that he only came to light as a result of his association with Johnson. What the judge and prosecution stated at his trial, his background, his education, his social connections etc etc, all go to explaining why he was the subject of such attention and are therefore important for context. A Google search shows that such facts were extensively reported throughout the mainstream media and not at all by Tatler, which is of course why he is “notable”, objectionable to Wormwood or not. Wormwood states in “Talk” that one shouldn’t “promote” the subject of the article. Does stating that a film was made about a person “promote” that person? It’s a fact, that’s all. Obviously someone, somewhere, including an entire film production team thought the events in question were worthy of note. How does mentioning that fact, or any other fact, “promote” anything? And if, as Wormwood states, Mr Guppy is known for the tape recording with Bojo then the first question anyone reading this page is going to ask is “what motivated him?” To delete his answer to this question given in an interview with the Telegraph has nothing to do with writing like Tatler. What an inverted pyramid of piffle. It’s his response, like it or not, and to exclude it is biased and therefore contrary to Wikipedia policy. Wormwood pops up as a registered contributor a few months ago (using a name which presumably he finds amusing) having made the bare minimum number of contributions and then promptly retires, “except for this article”, in his own words. There are over five and a half million Wikipedia entries in the English language and he refuses to write on any of them, except for this one? Either he knew the man in some capacity and has some agenda or else he is the perfect example of the fascination Mr Guppy continues to exert for whatever reason. And that is exactly why, infuriatingly for some people, the subject of this article is “notable.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your version does not meet our standards for biographies of living persons. Please take the advice I gave you on your other IP address here, and stop edit-warring. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

ip??? Who is "our" as in "our standards?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already warned you on your talk page. You are currently WP:EDIT-WARRING against the WP:CONSENSUS version of the article. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow people to repeatedly override one another's changes, especially if they are overriding changes against the consensus among participating editors. Such behaviour is WP:DISRUPTIVE, and can get you blocked from editing the site. I referred this article to WP:BLPN last year, and there is a consensus among those who contributed to the discussion in favour of the current version. I have sent you numerous links to pages detailing "our standards"—ignoring good advice is a waste of everyone's time. If you revert the WP:CONSENSUS version again, I'll take you to WP:ANEW. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wormwood obsessed… Probably a journalist duffed up by Mr G. This is what we know: Wormwood (chortle, chortle) registers as a User, which any old troll can do. From a look at his History (21 June 2017) he retires in disgust because he holds the rest of the Wikipedia community in contempt (“most of the contributors are obnoxious”) , despite claiming to speak for all of us (“our policy”). Nevertheless, out of the five and a half million articles on Wiki, he makes one exception when it comes to retiring (see his edit above): this one, and then does not entertain the slightest amendment to his own version despite the fact that the History shows how the other versions are clearly more in keeping with Wiki policy regarding BLP which emphasises neutrality and verifiability. Wikipedia is a commons effort and not a monopoly or a vehicle for trolls. Cross reference to the History shows a collaborative effort from numerous different contributors over the years and the referencing is good. That History shows clearly where the concensus lies as Wiki administrators will note. Wormwood has given no detailed explanation for his removal of information that is patently in the public domain and of public interest. He is very obviously an obsessive who has known Mr Guppy in some capacity and has an axe to grind. If he’s that fascinated by the man why not just contact him directly and ask for his autograph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on what you have been doing here, I'm going to try and get you blocked on WP:EW and WP:COMPETENCE grounds when I have time later today. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol! Your man is obsessed. I added a couple of mentions to this article a while back. I agree with the version by 91.227.222.7 (Cambridge?) So there's another vote for concensus. Perhaps Wrmwood should read the concensus link: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines... Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing." I don't see anything wrong with the Cambridge version. I agree with the other editors. It's balanced, well referenced, in the public domain and from the evidence it's also true. Wrmwood doesn't smell right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.106.16 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I referred the IP-hopping user to WP:ANI and the page has been semi-protected (i.e. you will no longer be able to edit it), so I now consider this closed. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Old conviction

I've edited to remove the reference in the first sentence to what is now a nearly 30 year old conviction. I won't argue if another editor reverts, but my thinking follows me having a side interest in how Wikipedia deals with very old convictions. The conviction is relevant and I've left it in the lede. But using a very old conviction as a primary trait of a living person in the first line a biography (WP:BLP) does not seem fair or accurate. Guppy's notability, and the justification for this article (WP:notability), is that he once asked the present UK prime minister for information on a journalist so Guppy could arrange for the journalist to be beaten up. Guppy's criminal record is relevant to that event. But my broader point is that describing someone (e.g. 'footballer and felon', or 'businessman and felon') as a felon on the basis of a very old conviction implies that a person can never be an ex-felon. And if they can be an ex-felon, it seems proportionate drop the felon thing altogether at that point. In the UK, one in three men has a criminal record - we certainly wouldn't dream of describing people as 'teacher and felon' or 'plumber and felon' in everyday conversation. Moreover, young black men are disproportionately likely to have convictions and it does not seem right to me that where they become well known their former felon status should follow them forever on Wikipedia. I'd be very interested if anyone else has a thought on this. It's a small style point, I know, but an interesting one (to me, anyway!). Emmentalist (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)