Talk:Charles Ingram/Archive 1

Suspended 18-month prison sentences for two years

"Ingram and his wife were each given suspended 18-month prison sentences for two years...." Is it just me, or does this statement make no sense at all? MusicMaker5376 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way of saying this would be "18 month prison sentences suspended for two years". I'll change it accordingly. --Bonalaw 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timer Added

"In the 2008-09 season, the US version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire adopted a new rule that puts a time limit (Q1–Q5: 15 seconds, Q6–Q10: 30 seconds, Q11–Q14: 45 seconds, Q15: 45 seconds, plus time accumulated from Q1–Q14) to prevent such long delays that allowed for such questionable behaviour that took place in the Ingram incident. The real reason why this rule was added has no direct relation to the Ingram scandal." What is the real reason then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.167.170 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

Flagged article for cleanup -- a very wordy and POV account of trial has been inserted which needs attention. I made a start on pruning some gushing promo sentences and an advert for novel that had crept in. --mervyn 12:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conducted cleanup at 20:48, 3 April 2006.

f** O*

Wikipedia is not censorered for children. These phrase should be replaced. Jon513 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.169.187 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006

The questions?

So what was the question or what were the questions at which he was blamed for cheating? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good description of the questions and coughs - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2823407.stm

David Bergan 09:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirections

You are redirected to this article about Charles Ingram when you search (and click "Go") for Tecwen Whittock or Diana Ingram. I think it would make more sense to have separate pages for each of them and also having a page about their alleged cheating on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TurboForce (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Link to BBC about assault case

English is not my mother tongue, and I might be wrong ... but, the Wikipedia entry text says "discharged" (which means, I think, acquited in this case?), whereas the linked BBC article mentions a conviction. Could someone make the entry text clearer ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.0.246.115 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He was convicted, not acquitted. An absolute discharge is a type of sentence. --Citefixer1965 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whittock's cough

Whittock's own game on WWTBAM was repeated on cable today and he didn't appear to cough at all. 86.0.203.229 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mensa?

Did Ingram actually join Mensa, or was he simply able to or allowed to join Mensa due to his test score? Just because he was top 2% in an IQ test does not necessarily mean he joined Mensa, and the article is unclear. --Banime (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that he was accepted by Mensa? I watched the Millionaire Fraud program, and his reasoning is ludicrous; there's no way this man is more intelligent than your average Joe. Finding no evidence that he's part of Mensa, I suggest we remove the reference.Jkister (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link (found on the list of Mensa member page) which quotes Ingram as saying that he's a member of Mensa. Wikipedia surely can't cite Ingram's own words as evidence.Jkister (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT EVERYBODY TO READ THIS!

Charles Ingram did NOT cheat! I saw his complete run, and I asure you all; he did NOT cheat.

...And do NOT think I'm Charles Ingram, 'cause I'm an American.--70.240.216.139 (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Your opinion is duly noted. However, an encyclopedia allows little room for personal opinion. A jury also saw his complete run and he, his wife Diana, and co-conspirator Tecwen Whittock were all convicted. Senjuro (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the video is there for people to judge for themselves and he didn't get the million pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.246.173 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the complete run, as well and it's clear that they did cheat. I cannot confirm who the 3rd person is but it is VERY clear that his wife is getting irritated in the audience and those are some of the fakest coughs I have ever heard of and they just so happen to surface when he's answering incorrectly which caused him to suddenly chose the correct answer? (also, I dunno how to sign this to show that it's a new person commenting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.52.253 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GentlemEn vs Players

isn't it plural?

Question

I read this whole article and even though Im pretty sure Ingram cheated I do think there is a very strange occurrence in the event. One is isn't it highly ironic that the next contestant was Tecwen Whittock the person who helped him cheat? Plus why wouldn't Tecwen Whittock purposely cough because coughing would possibly save him from going to jail. Plus nobody could have told him, stop coughing since it cant be controlled (when in the hot seat). And the other part that I find super shocking is what are the odds that two of the questions would be written in his book. It seems that he knows a lot but when he's up in the hot seat he doesn't know much so why did that happen? did he suddenly play poorly on purpose? Again I do think Ingram is guilty because of all the evidence, I just find these events super ironic and strange.

And the last part I didn't understand is how did Tecwen Whittock got the answers. Was it the wife who told him through coughing and he repeated or did he genuinely know the answers when Ingram was on? If its the second (him genuinely knowing) then why did he do so poorly when he was up (it does mention that he was very knowledgeable in trivia)

I will be glad to hear anyone's opinions on this matter (the last part is a factual one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For each question except Question 10, Tecwen Whittock either knew the answers himself or overheard other contestants giving the correct answer (as was the case with Question 13). A remarkable turn of events transpired on Question 10, however, as even after a 50/50 was used Whittock still didn't know the answer and Charles Ingram seemed dead-set on the wrong one. Realizing that no help was forthcoming and that her husband was ostensibly on the verge of giving an incorrect answer, Diana Ingram, acting out of sheer desperation, took it upon herself to send her own relay coughs for the first and only time in the game, eventually steering Charles in the right direction.

It's interesting though, since as Charles Ingram received no help from Whittock and was at the very least outwardly set on the wrong answer, the two likeliest outcomes would have seen him either not answering and walking away with £16,000 or giving the wrong answer and walking away with £1,000, either way potentially remaining above suspicion as it was only after that that the wackiness REALLY began to ensue. I actually just got finished watching the 75 minute exposé but can't remember at what point suspicion set in amongst the production crew. If it wasn't present before Question 10, it most certainly was after.

As for Tecwen doing so poorly, it's all relative. I happened to know the £250,000 question because Anthony Eden's hat is referenced in a Kinks song and I love me some Kinks, so that could just as well have been the £100 question for me. Actually, it was easier than the £100 question for me because I'm not British and have never heard of the presumably British term "clothes horse". You can be the smartest person in the world but if you don't happen to know what keftedes are, you're screwed. Quackfoot (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Ingram, acting out of sheer desperation, took it upon herself to send her own relay coughs for the first and only time in the game

This is incorrect. It was decided at the court trial that even if Diana had tried "signalling", there would have been no way Charles would have heard it. The jury was tolf to disreguard it by the judge.

The audience had audibly gasped when Charles had made to lock him in. A far more likely scenario, therefore, was it was this that caused him to change his mind. This was convieniently left out of the documentary Celedor made. --118.92.144.10 (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this post was actually made by me, I had forgotten that I hadn't logged on... ^^; --MarkKB (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Whitehurst?

Everything I've heard, including the 2 documentaries give his name as Larry Whitehurst. There's not even sources in there.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Whitehurst source and Graham Whitehurst source...both from BBC. Which is his actual name? Sottolacqua (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cheating to win £1m" source has the correct name. I don't know where Graham comes from but it seems whoever typed the Graham Whitehurst source had got it wrong. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timer

I don't see the relevance of the timer to this article, if indeed as is stated this was not the reason the timer was added. [1] PSWG1920 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may now be automatic to the WWTBAM template, in that, if it's not mentioned, it might not be considered in the current WWTBAM template. --Starcade (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary Sources"

I have put a Primary Sources challenge on this page to assert that a number of things on this page (including question 15) are as "legal" as "verification" as my prior edit on question 14 had been, which was taken from a YouTube video.

If we're going to get picky on challenging, then the entire page should be questioned on several fronts, starting with a citation for question 15 -- which anyone who knows of the Ingram incident knows is the correct final question. --Starcade (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences

"On 7 April 2003 the Ingrams and Tecwen Whittock were each given prison sentences suspended for two years (the Ingrams were sentenced for 18-months and Tecwen Whittock was sentenced for 12 months, also suspended)"

"Immediately after the jury's verdict the judge sentenced the three defendants each to an 18 months suspended sentence"

--46.223.79.164 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final verdict

Well, shouldn't the paying of the £115,000 fine and their lives turning into a "living hell" be mentioned in the beginning of the article instead of being scattered around towards the end? Also nowhere does it actually say that he was indeed withheld of the money (it only talks about suspending it for the trial - and again - in only a single place of its own):

The judge told Mrs Ingram: "You might be well advised to thank your lucky stars you are not going to prison today, and put aside any childish wishes of bravado that you are entitled to this money."

--Diblidabliduu (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jury foreman's actions

I don't see any source for the jury foreman's actions, and I'm very much inclined to disbelieve it. The assertion that the jury had to find all three the same is completely unfounded in law, and had the judge actually said that it would have been a dead certainty of having the convictions overturned. As such, I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.153.7 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 million prize?

Please, add information in the opening section whether he was allowed to keep the 1 million prize or not. It is not obvious at all for a person not familiar with this story. 78.142.51.193 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that'd be very odd and extremely unlikely? Obviously, he was not allowed to keep the money. Peter238 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Ingram. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041020172443/http://www.portia.org/chapter14/major.html to http://www.portia.org/chapter14/major.html

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) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject slipped on an apple

Incredible as it may seem, we need to have discussion now on whether

In September 2010 Ingram slipped on a rotten apple while mowing the lawn and sliced off three of his toes.

is something that informs the reader and deepens his understanding of master criminal Charles Igram, or is simply ridiculous trivia that wastes the reader's time and brainpower in headlong pursuit of offering every available fact no matter how disconnected from anything else. See edit summaries at [2]. E Eng 20:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated trivia, remove from article. MurielMary (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also kindly reconsider your use of the male pronoun "his (understanding)" for "reader" - WP readers are both male and female. If you don't want to use "his/her understanding" then you can use "readers" and "their". MurielMary (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant injury that gained substantial press coverage. Keep. 94.1.240.12 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is still irrelevant to his story. The injury didn't lead to any change in his conviction for example - no impact on his notability. Therefore doesn't belong in a WP article. MurielMary (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about Ingram - not the 'Millionaire' scandal. 94.1.240.12 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists because the person is notable. Anything related to the person's notability is interesting and worth keeping. This is not related to the person's notability and is therefore not relevant. MurielMary (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Children/family are routinely mentioned in articles (with fields built into infoboxes), yet they're very rarely related to a subject's main claim(s) of notability. If someone is notable enough for an article, then details published in the press are viable additions to their page. 94.1.240.12 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from a note at EEng's talk page. I agree that it's trivial to the point of being silly, as well as that it has received enough attention to be covered in sources. Taking those things together, I'd say that it should be kept in, so long as it's only a brief passage in the personal life section. It's not really needed, but it also does not need to be omitted. So long as the page subject is sufficiently notable to have a bio page that includes a personal life section, bio pages frequently do include trivial but interesting facts about the person's life. Nothing in policies and guidelines says that bio pages cannot include interesting tidbits unrelated to what made the person notable. I'm not seeing any WP:BLP problems, and I don't think that it confuses readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you, busybody?^[FBDB] I guess it comes down to just how trivial we want our trivia to be. (Not trivial for him, of course.) If he'd had a drunk driving conviction, or got in a drunken bar fight, or entered rehab for a drug problem, these all reflect on what kind of person he is and maybe something about what happens to people who go down the path he did -- just like the bankruptcies. But anyone can slip on a rotten apple. It's just something that happened, and I don't think it enlightens the reader in any way. E Eng 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see so many opportunities for me to make a bad joke here, that I'll just leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, per usual, is correct. This is trivia and should not be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per usual?? ^[FBDB] I notice, Tony, that you are (quite reasonably) reacting to BLP issues, which is fine. But I don't think that this is a BLP matter, and it should not get folded in with the rest. It's not distracting or harmful trivia, but just a well-sourced interesting albeit not defining event in his life. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just inflating his ego . Yes, agreed. I removed it as trivia and then realized the rest of the article was a BLP nightmare. Two different issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not really satisfied that there was a consensus to remove it. To some extent, I think it could be valid to include as a small part of a large page, but much less worthy of weight if the page is short. Given that there are all these BLP issues that are obviously more pressing, I'm fine with leaving it out until we are clear on how long the rest of the page will end up being. But I will want to raise it again if it won't be undue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was far from the worst thing in the article (we still need sourcing for the entire first paragraph of the trial section, but I'm too lazy to find it right now.) I think it's pretty silly and was probably put there to embarrass the man (AGF and all, but given the rest of the article, it's my reading.) I'll try to finish up the BLP stuff next week and then look at it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN

This page is/was a BLP policy disaster. How did we have a page about a criminal trial of a living person with many paragraphs lacking a single in-line citation for years? Anyway, I've raised it at BLPN so hopefully some other uninvolved parties can take a look to improve and restore whatever can be sourced. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I added two knew cn tags to give a chance for people to cite it as it appears that they may be verifiable to other sources here based on content sourced elsewhere in the article. If they aren't, per the BLP policy they should be removed, and I will. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent mention in FactFiend

Was going to use {{press}} to bring this up, but according to it's page, it is not appropriate here. This article was recently mentioned in a video by FactFiend. I bring this up though because about 2 minutes into the video they mention that some of the information in this article appears to have been directly added by Charles himself. I felt that this information was pertinent to other editors. 2601:142:8280:5C4:2997:2A1F:69AA:2BCF (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with show dates

The article says that the Millionaire fraud occurred on September 9 and 10, 2001. However, these dates don't make sense. Watching the footage during the "Major Fraud" documentary, the host says at the end of the first episode that they'll be back "Tuesday Night". First, this suggests that the dates were not consecutive. Second, September 10 was a Monday. The cheques the host presents at the 32k stage in the second episode are dated September 18, 2001. That would be a Tuesday - and I don't know if they generally dated the cheques the same date as the show or not, but if the first episode was September 9, the Tuesday that followed would be September 11, 2001 - I'm not sure in the UK if something like Millionaire would have been postponed because of the New York 9/11 attacks. The caption on the documentary does say September 10, 2001; but that date doesn't seem to make sense. Did they tape on Monday to air on Tuesday? TheHYPO (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to my own comment that it APPEARS that the show was, in fact, taped on Monday September 10, and would have aired on Tuesday September 18 (to coincide with the date on the cheque). TheHYPO (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]