Talk:David and Frederick Barclay

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

Photographs?[edit]

There are some pictures of the Barclay brothers in BBC's profile of them at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3407799.stm (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39754000/jpg/_39754913_barclay_203.jpg and http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39752000/jpg/_39752563_barc_203.jpg)

Is it inappropriate to attach these pictures to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.173.84 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No - copyright laws on web pages in the UK would not allow it without the copyright holders permission, however im sure that if it was taken to court it may be waved as the BBC is mass media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.63.147 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotek?[edit]

The (current) fourth paragraphs starts "By 1962, they started redeveloping old boarding houses in London and making them into goteks". What is a gotek? I can't find a relevant match in Google, and it doesn't appear to be a standard english word ... The linked BBC profile article says "Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, they became property investors, buying boarding houses and converting them into hotels."

I can only assume that gotek is a double-typo for hotel, so I'm changing it :-) --YojimboSan 03:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can count Ian Paisley as a neutral reference on Catholicism. Secretlondon 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

This article is about two people - David and Frederick Barclay. I think there should be two articles. I would like to know the view of other users. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept as a single article until substantial information separating the two is found. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one is dead. that is a fairly big split,. the other was spied on by his nephews and has undergone a very public divorce. 137.191.233.194 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handbag.com[edit]

"In October 2006, the Barclays sold handbag.com for £22 million. This was almost all profit: they set up the website in a joint venture with Boots in 1999." What did they sell? the domain name or the entire business. Clarity possibly needed--91.84.84.234 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Wives?[edit]

Did/do the Barclay brothers have wives? There is mention of their son. But not the mother or wife. Why? Very very strange.

I have updated the Biography section with details of wives etc. and referencesJus naturae (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOB[edit]

"Some sources state that they were both born on 27 October 1934 in "London" but the General Register Office contradicts this by stating clearly that they were actually both born between January and March 1935 in Hammersmith, London"

Clearly? Hardly. The GRO index records the quarter in which the births were registered. Not everyone was registered immediately after their birth. You'll need to request a copy of the birth certificate to get the actual date. --Jmbox (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Barclays are philanthropists " - POV[edit]

by what objective measure does someone count as a philanthropist? this is surely POV. in my opinion, their "philanthropy" is more than offset by their management of their tax affairs. others may think differently, but then their viewpoint is just as subjective as mine, so why should it be privileged?

the only way this can be phrased neutrally is to add an opinion-marker to the phrase, and thus I have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.241.233 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy is the giving to charities; it's not an ethical or moral judgement. The vast majority of wealthy people give to charities, for varying reasons. The reasons don't matter: if they give substantially to charity (as they apparently did, and being officially recognized as having done so), they are philanthropist. I recognize that you object to labelling them as such on subjective grounds, it's improper to add this subjectivity to Wikipedia.
Mercster (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vineyard controversy[edit]

Could do with some mention of the brothers controversially buying land, turning off the local tenant farmers and taking it in hand for vineyards. See for example:

Richard New Forest (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard something like that on the radio. Why not compose a paragraph and pop it in? Or put it here initially for discussion first? Wildfowl (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may be controversial at a local level in Sark, but it is not so out of the ordinary for someone to purchase land and put it to their own use. This is how land ownership works. Some issues are best left to press reporting, and not so suited to an encyclopedia. Situations like this must be arising all over the world every day. Danrok (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of unsourced material[edit]

The section "Sark and Brecqhou disputes" includes several unsourced, potentially contentious claims. I would suggest removal of all unsourced material, as per WP:BLP, unless proper inline citations are introduced. --hydrox (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to fix the problem you (rightly) pointed out. Paragraphs 8 onwards of the cited article seem to cover it. There may be other deficiencies in the "Sark and Brecqhou disputes" section though. Let me know what you think. Wildfowl (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, look much better now! --hydrox (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish?[edit]

Their father appears to be Scottish, but their mother appears to be English:

http://thebarclaybrothersfamilytree.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/

"Beatrice Cecilia Taylor was born in Shirley, West Midlands"

Does anyone know for sure? Wikipedia seems to be rife with inaccurate ancestral information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.192.90 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David and Frederick Barclay. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sark and Brecqhou disputes[edit]

In the description of the new castle, "three-foot-thick walls" would be clearer, unless they really are only three feet *high* ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.180 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David and Frederick Barclay. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the hell is Douglas?[edit]

Frederick and Douglas are mentioned together running a tobacconist... I assume he is another brother? Not mentioned.

Mercster (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I suggest that the article would be better titled "Barclay brothers", since that is almost universally how they are referred to. (Second would probably be "Barcley twins".) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_and_Frederick_Barclay&oldid=1205728490"