Talk:Harry Bensley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


The article has many problems. It is sourced almost entirely from a self-published website the subject's descendant. The article is largely speculative since so few details are known for certain. The lack of sources makes the notability of the topic questionable. I'm inclined to cuit it down to what is in the very short BBC reference,[1] or perhaps the longer website.[2] Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to come in on Mr Beback's assertions. I have already unmasked this individual as a fraudster. There was no "wager". The central character, Bensley, came up with the con whilst in a prison cell. I have outlined this to persons who keep pushing this fiction; but to no avail. The truth is here. [3] JPM

I have also posted further on this nonsense as it is clearly getting out of hand. HE DID NOT DO IT. IT WAS A CON. SEE HERE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"USD 27,997" versus "$100,000" versus "£21,000"[edit] claims the bet was for "$100,000 (then £21,000)", which is really confusing wording. I think it means that the bet was for £21,000, and then implies that £21,000 in 1907 Britain would have been roughly equivalent to $100,000 in twenty-first-century America (which may or may not be true, but is certainly irrelevant). very explicitly states (on the front of the postcard) that the wager was for £21,000.

The current article claims that the wager was for "USD $27,997", and gives as the source for that claim. I'm going to assume that this number was the product of vandalism, and revert it back to "£21,000".