Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Thorpe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Recent edit

I added the second sentence to the article because it is, very unfortunately for Mr. Thorpe, his primary legacy. The article itself accurately conveys this, but we need to know what makes a person famous.

To illustrate this point, suppose I wrote an article about Neil Armstrong, and my opening sentence simply stated "Neil Armstrong was an American astronaut during the 1960s.", and said not a whit about him being the first man to walk on the moon until the place in the article where this fact would come up due to chronological order. This would be technically accurate, but an encyclopedia article needs to have a topic sentence at the beginning for the article, if it is possible. Unschool 14:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

John Le Mesurier

when the article mentions John Le Mesurier, is that the same John Le Mesurier who was in Dad's Army and is described in the article at John Le Mesurier!? Is that a hoax, because the Mesurier article makes no mention any kind of political career, let alone that, has someone been stealth vandalising? Jdcooper 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the naming of the alleged co-conspirators, since I don't remember John Le Mesurier being involved either, and the link to David Holmes was just to a disambiguation page anyway. -- Arwel (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't panic, Messrs Cooper and Parry! This is a different John Le Mesurier, and the other accused are also not famous enough to have Wikipedia entries in their own name. For this reason I didn't personally add links any of the other alleged conspirators. I have now reinstated the names of the accused without links, but added their professions in brackets to discourage well-meaning wikifiers in the future. FYI, confirmation of the other members of the "Rinka Four" is found here. BTW Arwel, thanks for correcting my IMDB link. Hairybottle 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No probs! It's a long time since I had an opportunity to read that sketch anyway :) -- Arwel (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Public statements

I have taken the liberty of amending the sentence "Thorpe has never publicly acknowledged his affair with Scott, nor has he made any statements regarding his sexual orientation". The first half implies that there was an affair, but that he has never admitted it. In fact, the reality of the affair remains a moot point. Therefore I think it is sufficient to say simply that he has never commented publicly upon his sexuality.

I completely agree with your point, Tom. Thanks for putting me straight. Hairybottle 17:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image

Thorpe's sexuality

As Jeremy Thorpe's sexuality is not (as far as I am aware) a matter of record, I don't think there any basis other than hearsay for categorising him as gay. For that reason, I am removing his categorisation as an "LGBT Politician from the United Kingdom". If someone wants to reinstate the category, I'd be grateful if they could provide some justification. Thanks, Hairybottle 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thorpe explicitly denied any relationship with Norman Scott in his memoirs 'In My Own Time', but several well-referenced books, most notably 'Rinkagate' by Simon Freeman and Barry Penrose present multiple sources insisting that he was a promiscuous homosexual whilst leader. Also, Thorpe's defence counsel in his trial, George Carman QC, conceded at one point in the trial that his client had 'had homosexual experiences in the past', and whereas Thorpe freuquently sued or threatened to sue a number of journalists for libel over scurrilous stories in the past, he has never followed through and prosecuted anyone for any claims about his sexuality.

You make some very good points, but none that decisively put Thorpe into the LGBT pigeon-hole, I think. Would the complexity of the issue not be better represented by a section in the article itself, which elucidates the evidence you have outlined, but which also mentions Thorpe's continued denials? Your comments in the paragraph above read, to me, as if it would be a worthy addition to the aricle. Such context is surely better than a blunt, subjective categorisation. I won't personally revert again but I would be interested in the views of others on this. Hairybottle 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds completely reasonable, and extra information on his sexuality is definitely worthwhile, since, however unfortunately, Thorpe's sexuality is a major contributor to his fame and notability. Jdcooper 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't putting Thorpe in an LBGT politicians category broadly equivalent to putting Tom Cruise in a 'gay actors' category (as opposed to the more suitable 'people *alleged* to be gay')? I'm sure the latter wold be swiftly reverted. --131.111.250.80 09:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bunnies can and will go to France"

The article includes this apparently whimsical excerpt from a letter from Thorpe to Scott, but doesn't explain its significance, purported or otherwise. I gather that (according to Scott, at least) it was some form of lovers' code — but what was it supposed to mean? I think the article should say — otherwise, to a reader unfamiliar with the scandal (such as myself), it looks like a bizarre aside, or perhaps corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Thorpe

Regarding "a descendant of Mr Speaker Thomas Thorpe MP, Speaker of the House of Commons from 1452 to 1453 during the medieval English civil war, the Wars of the Roses":

  • The Thomas Thorpe link is for someone who lived in a different period and did entirely different things.
  • 1452-1453 was before the start of the Wars of the Roses (1455). Mutt Lunker 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal scandals

Extraordinary in recent years that the Liberals appear to have so much difficulty in finding a leader who dosen't have any association with sex scandals or other various controversies. What with Charles Kennedy's drinking, Mark Oaten's bizarre homosexual fetishes and Simon Hughes coming out as gay 23 years after having been, back in 1983, the unprotesting beneficiary of a decidely homophobic election campaign (by Liberal campaign workers and by an independent candidate put up by the previous Labour MP, Bob Mellish) against his official Labour opponent, the Liberals could do with finding someone with no sex scandals or other dark secrets in their past or any other skeletons in the closet. Surely Jeremy Thorpe would be the perfect candidate? 217.38.66.40 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, my comments here appear to have been substantially edited by other users, which I thought was kind of against the rules. I presume this may have been done to clarify that Simon Hughes probably did not instigate or play any part in the homophobic campaign against Tatchell, but it wasn't just Mellish's people who did so, some Liberal campaign workers used homophobic sentiments, even if Hughes did not endorse this. I have also restored my recomendation that Thorpe be made the next Liberal Party leader. -- 217.38.66.40 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The chronology for his tenure

His tenure as leader of the liberal party goes from 18 January 1967 – 10 May 1976. Unless he has a time machine, this isnt true... 98.109.41.59 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rinkagate is confusingly written

This whole Rinkagate conspiracy confuses me greatly. What exactly did this Penrose person claim to uncover? What's the significance of the missing file? What does Thorpe have to do with MI5? How can Wilson be accused both of wanting to protect Thorpe from MI5 and also of collaborating with them to smear him?

All I understand is: 1) Scott claimed he was Thorpe's lover, which Thorpe denied; 2) Newton tried to kill Scott, then claimed Thorpe hired him to do it, which Thorpe also denied; 3) Penrose uncovered something so ineffable that it was used to implicate Wilson both as helping and smearing Thorpe.

Would somebody mind summarising or re-writing this part of the article in such a way that those of us with little knowledge of politics, government and conspiracies can understand it, please? A "Rinkagate For Dummies", if you will.194.75.236.70 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Any news of his son?

Thorpe's son Rupert is now over 40. Maybe a word about his career? 86.144.243.136 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

As it stands, it appears that Thorpe's son Rupert was born shortly before his parents married. Can't believe this would have been acceptable for a British politician in the 1960s. Suspect one or both of the dates is wrong; does anyone know? Tsuguya (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A letter in The Times

on Formosa and Peking by Jeremey Thorpe appeared on The Times, May 04, 1951. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rinka wasn't Scott's dog

Isn't it about time that someone should mention that Rinka wasn't Scott's dog. He was looking after her for a friend. Rinka belonged to Chris Lawrence, a Barnstaple businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.168.66 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Update and expansion

A year ago I created the article dealing with Thorpe's downfall: Thorpe affair. I am now developing and expanding the biography article, particularly in the light of Michael Bloch's biography, published after Thorpe's death in December 1914. The article may appear a little lopsided for a while.Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Jeremy Thorpe. 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: 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) 11:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Son

Regarding whether Thorpe's son should be named I looked at various wikipedia policies and manuals of style. The most relevant seemed to be "Privacy of names", from which I quote:

"When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."

Although the passage arises while discussing BLP I suggest the policy holds whether the primary subject is living or not, that the presumption in favour of privacy trumps the reader's general interest, and that a complete understanding of the subject is achieved without any need for the son to be named. Captainllama (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Rupert Thorpe, he's a successful photographer with a certain level of notoriety of his own. As such, he's not necessarily a "low-profile" person. I've modified the reference in the article without spending too much time on a rabbit trail.--Jburlinson (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Here he is in The Sun, not that we could ever use that source, of course. And here's his Facebook page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, ... we just did. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Not for long, I'd guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's see. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Might take ages for an editor like John to appear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. I don't object to naming the son if more decent sources can be found, but we obviously can't use The Sun to source anything on a living person per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Anything wrong with The Telegraph? --Jburlinson (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it is fine. But if that one mention is all that can be found, I don't think we can include it. Are there any more decent sources? --John (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's indecent about The Telegraph, but a couple more sources have been provided. This was really quite a significant incident in the history of press freedoms.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe so. But what's it doing tucked away in sub-section called "First phase, 1967–70"? Nothing to do with Rupert's birth or his growing up. And certainly nothing to do with his father. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It's tucked away there because that's where Rupert is first mentioned. The reader might be interested to know that Rupert has some level of notability of his own. Actually, there is more of a connection to Jeremy in that when British press coverage on the Scott affair started up again in the late '90's, the son felt himself obliged to leave the country for a while. I'll mention that at a later point in the article.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As I say, there would need to be more sources than this one fleeting mention in the Telegraph. --John (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There are.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for the input. I opined earlier that the reader's general interest is trumped by the presumption in favour of privacy. I'd like to add that the presumption in favour of privacy is clearly trumped by the decision to become a paparazzo!
It is awkwardly placed in the article though. "Legacy" section? Captainllama (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Scott a model?

We describe Norman Scott as both "a former model" and "a would-be model". These cannot both be true. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Was this raised/ clarified at the trial? Thorpe affair suggests it he was very much a would be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Aside from whether Norman Scott ever actually modelled, to describe him as a "a would-be model" in 1971 and as "a former model" in 1979 does not seem inconsistent. Captainllama (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, fair point. But wouldn't it be more usual to label people with the occupation they had at any given time, not what they may have been aspiring to at some time in the future? Also, if he's a "would-be" in 1971 and a "former" in 1979, then presumably at some time between 1971 and 1979 he actually became a model, so shouldn't those details appear somewhere? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Here he is in 2014, modelling a lovely blue fleece jacket with matching jeans, in the despicable Daily Mail. But it sounds there as if he was a bit reluctant to ever embark on his modelling career and that the prospect was all an invented ruse to lure him to his death with "a poker concealed in a bunch of flowers, duly produced as an exhibit." They describe him as a "sometime male model." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. here's an interesting AP Archive clip of Thorpe being interviewed with his wife, which might be added to the article, with him reminding the interviewer he has "plenty of gardening to do": [1]
Scott himslef claims here in The Irish News: "I lived in some beautiful houses and ran my own businesses. I had a successful modelling career." But he doesn't say when. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Scott hitman dead or alive?

I feel like the article may need to include this recent news story. Thoughts? --John (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I rather think that Gwent Police are about the only people who thought he was dead. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Now featuring on tonight's BBC News at Ten. Certainly needs to be added at Thorpe affair. Case is to be reopened. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Family Background

The second paragraph of the section on Family Background is confusing: specifically "Both were rewarded with land, the younger branch—of County Carlow—prospering in Dublin as High Sheriffs and Lord Mayors, but the elder losing its land and becoming tenant farmers and tradesmen." To what does "the younger branch—of County Carlow" refer? Bazza (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to DrKay. Bazza (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

List of media appearances

I have removed the long list of bullet-pointed media appearances. There were way, way too many, and they do not add to the understanding of Thorpe. If a reliable source (such as one of the books listed in the references) can be found that says "Thorpe was portrayed in many documentaries and satirical sketches, such as X, Y and Z", that could be added at the appropriate point. But not just listing them all. The mentions of Dr Who, for example, while mildly interesting, probably belong in articles on those episodes but are emphatically NOT relevant to a biography of Thorpe. My own personal inclination is to remove the "Popular Media" section and burn it with fire, but I can see the necessity for including what is there at the moment. I will not revert over this, as I find edit warring tedious, but I would appreciate it if the matter was discussed here before anyone replaced that bizarre footnote. Sarastro (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hands up on pushing it into a footnote - that was me after my removal of the information was also reverted. Also not wanting to edit war, I went for the second option of pushing it all into a footnote, but my preference is just not to have much of it at all, except where truly relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. My view is that outright removal is the better option. If possible, the gist of the footnote could be added as one sentence if a reference which covers all of this could be found. In fairness, it is perhaps a point that could be made if he was frequently satirised or something similar. I've got a copy of Bloch's biography somewhere, I'll see if it says anything that we could use. Sarastro (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit conflict. I agree. I would delete all of the "In Popular Media" section. The link back from A Very English Scandal is enough.Graham Beards (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Most politicians don't have Channel 4 Secret Lives documentaries or editions of BBC Panorama, made about them. I think these two items could reasonably be restored, if appropriate WP:RS source(s) are available. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bloch's book does not really mention anything about Thorpe's "media reception" other than the usual coverage of the scandals. However, he explicitly mentions Peter Cook taking the piss out of Cantley at the Secret Policeman's Ball, which is something that could be added if that was thought worthwhile. Somewhat surprisingly, he makes no mention of the Mangold documentary that I can see; I would also agree this could be added if we can find a decent source (not in that abomination of a media section, but both of these would fit in the trial section). I disagree on Secret Lives (though I could be persuaded); I don't think it is notable that he featured in some documentaries unless those were particularly important or earth-shattering. The Mangold one I think would qualify on these grounds given that its broadcast was stopped. Sarastro (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I also notice some of the information about Peter Cook is in the Thorpe affair article. Nothing on Mangold's documentary there either though. Sarastro (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Thorpe/Archive_1&oldid=1246041555"