Talk:Jeremy Thorpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] John Le Mesurier

when the article mentions John Le Mesurier, is that the same John Le -- 217.38.66.40 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Carmen 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)

[edit] Image

  • Is there any chance of getting a picture on this article? I think it needs one to brighten it up... Jdcooper 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)