Talk:Darius Guppy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Find sources: Darius Guppy – news, books, scholar
[edit] Boris and Darius
Editors please note that this article is not a vehicle for attacking Boris Johnson, per WP:COATRACK. Material about Mayor Johnson which does not enhance our account of Mr Guppy is likely to be removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult one. We know very little about this man except what was written about him in the tabloids when he was in his early twenties. I’ve trawled through the net this morning and Darius Guppy hasn’t given one interview since that time. In fact he isn’t even quoted! Nothing. Some fascinating rumours but no evidence of any kind. Which makes writing about him a libel nightmare. Don’t know what to suggest. Perhaps the main article should make clear that very little actually known about him?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.87.83 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Boris Johnson: The saga continues
It definitely shouldn't be a vehicle to attack Boris. However as the following vid shows him referring to the Darius incident on a BBC comedy show with some degree of embarrassed good humour. As he has mentioned it himself there seems to be no plausible reason to not mention it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4
[edit] POV?
This article needs to be rewritten as saying "known for his acts of vengeance" is not exactly a neutral position; nor is mentioning friendships with Boris Johnson and Count Gottfried von Bismarck (why are these two friendships significant? If they're not, the "friendship" mention would be unencyclopedic name dropping which is best avoided here). If there is indeed "vengeance", vengeance for what action/activity... and are there independent, reliable sources attesting to it? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there are reliable sources and they are cited by the article. If you haven't read the article and checked its sources, then it is you that has a POV. It is no coincidence that the first word in his autobiography is Revenge. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is not a neutral statement, and Neutral point of view and Biography of living persons are non negotiable editorial policy. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The source does not state that specifically, so it can not even be reported as such with different phrasing. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- One source says "Guppy's acts of retribution are legendary" and its article is entitled, "The revenge of deadly Darius". Vengeance is a well-known attribute of this person. Whitewashing our article to remove this aspect would not be NPOV. Since the subject makes something of the same theme in his autobiography, there is not a problem here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this descriptive, phrased the way it is, neutral? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral doesn't mean bland and emolient. Instead, it means that we should be accurate, impartial and non-judgemental. For someone to be vengeful is a statement of fact. This fact is important in the case of Mr Guppy because it helps explain many of his actions. Whether these actions are right or wrong is a matter of opinion and so we shouldn't go there. For many people and cultures, his behaviour is unexceptional. Upholding your family and personal honour might be a matter of pride and respect. You seem to be assuming a condemnatory aspect which is not intended. Perhaps the wording might be improved further but I dispute that we should not report this important aspect of Mr Guppy's behaviour and character. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think about this. I altered it to ensure that we are reporting what the source says, rather than how it was worded. The only thing I don't feel comfortable about, is the wording. I don't find a quote of just that "various acts of..." What are your thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral doesn't mean bland and emolient. Instead, it means that we should be accurate, impartial and non-judgemental. For someone to be vengeful is a statement of fact. This fact is important in the case of Mr Guppy because it helps explain many of his actions. Whether these actions are right or wrong is a matter of opinion and so we shouldn't go there. For many people and cultures, his behaviour is unexceptional. Upholding your family and personal honour might be a matter of pride and respect. You seem to be assuming a condemnatory aspect which is not intended. Perhaps the wording might be improved further but I dispute that we should not report this important aspect of Mr Guppy's behaviour and character. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this descriptive, phrased the way it is, neutral? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- One source says "Guppy's acts of retribution are legendary" and its article is entitled, "The revenge of deadly Darius". Vengeance is a well-known attribute of this person. Whitewashing our article to remove this aspect would not be NPOV. Since the subject makes something of the same theme in his autobiography, there is not a problem here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
