![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
on Formosa and Peking by Jeremey Thorpe appeared on The Times, May 04, 1951. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
I feel like the article may need to include this recent news story. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 09:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
on Formosa and Peking by Jeremey Thorpe appeared on The Times, May 04, 1951. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
I feel like the article may need to include this recent news story. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 09:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
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)