Talk:Richard Branson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Richard Branson was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 18, 2006
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Virgin Group

moved details of virgin companies to the Virgin Group page. Grunners 02:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Richard Branson

Surely as this is his name, the page should be renamed?

Just off the top of my head, neither Arthur C. Clarke nor Arthur Conan Doyle have their articles in the wiki as "Sir". It's a title, not a name change; it would make the same amount of sense as renaming John Kerry's article to President John Kerry if he had won. A redirect from Sir Richard Branson to Richard Branson already exists.--Ben Brockert 23:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Should his name in the first paragraph now have "Rev" prefixed to the start?203.214.20.143 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

there's no controversy section about Branson, and there are sources (such as the Bower biography) which indicate controversion behaviour on Branson's part. As similar articles in Wikipedia have such sections, I recommend one created for Branson as well.

- This entry is so blatantly self-promoting that I would not care to even try to add a listing about Branson's temper tantrum on the Colbert Report. It should be listed, however...

It's been listed for a week. NcSchu(Talk) 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

-- which entry is self promoting? The Branson one or my suggestion that a controversy section be included? I'm not Tom Bower :) I just think we need to see both sides of the guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.218.129 (talk) 10:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I can't help thinking that Sir Richard could hardly have improved on the article if he'd written it himself. He's a resourceful, highly motivated individual who has achieved a lot in his life. That doesn't just happen to someone because he's a nice guy. He is not unique in that; any businessman has at times been fairly brutal, in his dealings with both his rivals and his associates. The article as it currently stands makes it sound as though he walks on water spreading peace and love everywhere.
In my opinion, the biography by Bower makes his attitude to Branson very clear: he doesn't like him at all. Consequently, the book does need to be approached with care. There is plenty of factual material in it which will stand up, though. --Stephen Burnett 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADD

Is there any official source claiming that Richard Branson have an Attention Deficit Disorder? This would be important to add it to the page as this have a major influence on things he made in is life.

[edit] Early life

Perhaps some mention of his formative years might be useful, perhaps more information on his first successful venture- "Student magazine"

And also a correct timeline for it, the summary at the top says it was started when Branson was 15, but then a couple paragraphs later says 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.23.226 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "King"?

I quote from the "Biography" section, sixth paragraph:

"After the so-called campaign of "dirty tricks," Branson sued rival airline British Airways for libel in 1992. King countersued Branson..."

Who is King? I can find no mention of him anywhere else in the article.


-> King is Lord King (previously Sir) of British Airways, the then Chairman.

[edit] KBE

Is he really a KBE? I can't find a source for that (all the Google results are for articles derived from this page!) Normally British citizens become Knight Bachelor. KBEs are usually given as honourary KBE to people like Bill Gates who aren't entitled to call themselves "Sir". However, they are sometimes given to Britons living abroad such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee (presumably because in some countries they are unlikely to be called "Sir" even if they are entitled to it...) So I'm interested to know if Sir Richard is really a KBE.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/12/99/new_years_honours/584131.stm - "KNIGHTS BACHELOR". Thanks/wangi 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Quote: KBEs are usually given as honourary KBE to people like Bill Gates who aren't entitled to call themselves "Sir".
Wrong - where on earth did you get this idea from? Most (but not all by any means) knighthoods given to any non-HM Government recipients (honorary or not) are KBEs (DBEs for women). Look at the articles about the British honours system. A KBE is a Knight Bachelor of the Order of the British Empire - the same Order as the more numerous and familiar CBE (Commander of the Order of...), OBE (Officer...) and MBE (Member...). There is absolutely no relation between the Order of a particular award and the right to be called "Sir". By the way, the award of Knight Bachelor - which is not part of the Order of the British Empire - is usually for male public servants and most definitely not "British citizens" generally. 86.17.247.135 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article!

I've reviewed this - I did a bit of general copyediting that it seemed to need. Otherwise, it seems great. Metamagician3000 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I've removed a couple of links that were merely spamming. Bransonblog.com isn't a serious site and has only intermittent postings. Virginbrand.com is similarly unprofessional and only sponging hits from the page. I added RichardBranson.com which is the official gateway to all the virgin companies. I know its difficult to separate real websites with serious content and high visitor rates from the chaff as there are so many virgin websites out there. Richard Branson 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed mediaman link.

He can't even spell Rebel!

[edit] GA review

After reading the current article ([1]) I have these comments for the editors :

  • The prose needs a copyediting in the Life and career section.
  • The embedded HTML links should be formatted as inline citations.
  • This statement : He has a son Sam, 21 and a daughter Holly, 24 (2006) is non-notable trivia.
  • It is tough to seperate the Virgin company from the guy in the article. It that I mean, did he decide everything or was that a company's decision?
  • Although Branson says his success was not planned, and it just happened, he has said that he has 10 secrets to success: would be better with an inline citation.
  • He is the No 1 Admired Businessman in Britain, and 2nd choice amongst youth for Prime Minister (after Tony Blair) [3]. He has a cameo appearance in the new Superman film, credited as "Shuttle Engineer", alongside his son Sam, with Virgin Galactic-esque commercial suborbital shuttle at the center of his storyline. He will have a cameo in the upcoming James Bond film Casino Royale as well. isn't part of his business exploits, it is more about outside the business trivia/facts.
  • What does close means in He was again seen as close to the government when the Labour Party came to power in 1997.?
  • Branson has described himself as a libertarian. is that true? if so, maybe a citation would help that statement.

These are some comments that may prevent the article from retaining its GA status. Please be sure to comment this review if you disagree with any of the comments or want more explanation. Lincher 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements on family and media appearances might be a bit trivial, but such information is frequently included in biographies (I would actually ask for family status if I reviewed it and there was nothing on it), but the lack of sources for important statements is a very valid reason to delist the article. Please proceed and delist, otherwise I will feel compelled to do so. Bravada, talk - 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper GA review

As we have just agreed that more thorough and comprehensive review summaries need to be placed on talk pages when promoting/failing/delisting articles, I believe we owe one to this article too. Here I go (WP:WIAGA criteria in italics, review comments in normal type):

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
I don't think the prose is all that compelling. It reads more like a collection of various information on Branson, and the style varies from formal to fairly informal (and I think the latter is not very appropriate for an encyclopedic article). In the "Life and career" section the second paragraph talks about Virgin Records to suddenly mention that "he" purchased a gay club. What "he"? Is Virgin Records masculine? Another example that just occurred to me on second reading - seems like Branson "suffered from curious spirit". This sentence needs some attention too.
I must admit I might fall in the "specialist" category here, but I believe the article is actually fairly comprehensible to all readers given its "everyday life" topic, though the style makes it confusing at times (see above) and there could be more wikilinks (see below).
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
As mentioned above, the article is more of a collection of information than a well-structured text, there are many one-line paragraphs while other are quite long. Ideally, the article should consist of 4-6 line paragraphs focused on a topic and easy to read.
Section captions (only top-level ones) are used sparingly and are two first ones are pretty irrelevant to the contents of the sections. The first two sections seem to try to provide a summary of Branson's biography chronologically, including his business ventures, but the latter one suddenly breaks into the "transformational leader" stuff and what looks like a bunch of stuff just dumped together. The controversy section mentions Branson's enthusiasm towards cannabis, but does not mention any actual controversy related to that. I also do not see any mention of an actual controversy concerning the price-fixing scheme. Being parodied is hardly an "honour". My feeling is that there is a serious cleanup needed.
The lead section mentions the fact about the Virgin name, which would better fit somewhere inside the article. Nothing is said about Branson's "adventures" though, for one, and in general there is no information in the summary about how Branson is different from other millionaires (and I believe the article somehow proves he is).
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important reasons to delist the article, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that, but I think listing Branson's "secrets" in such a short article is unnecessary - it would be better to link to an external source here. It would also be better to present the dates (years) of birth of Branson's children than their age that has to be accompanied by an ugly and ambigious mention of the date the information was correct on.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
The article is comprehensible in general, though I believe words like "budgie" (I guess this means a budgerigar) could be linked to allow better understanding by users who might not be familiar with such words (not a "specialist" word, but many non-native speakers might not know what it means). Also e.g. dyslexia and maverick could be linked. (UPDATE: Oh wow, there seems to be nowhere to link maverick to, and it should be! This is not this article's flaw, though...)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Discussed below.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
There are some embedded links in lieu of inline citations (which do not satisfy the criterium anyway), but overall this is the article's weakest side. Given the number of controversial and potentially questionable statements, the article should be rife with inline citations, beginning with Bransons "sometimes being called SRB" through the "mention in management lexicon" (what lexicon actually?) to his describing himself as libertarian. There is actually even a "citation needed" template used in the article!
On the other hand, the "external links" section seems bloated and contains items that are quite out of place there, but should be rather quoted as sources.
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
The books in "references" look OK to me, though one is missing an ISBN, but I'd be careful about online sources like "e-stoned.com"...
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
Until inline citations appear in this article, almost everything could be original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
I don't have a feeling the article gives a good overview of Branson. There is no mention of his business philosophy or strategy common for all Virgin businesses, the descriptions of most areas of his activity are mostly barely superficial and in general the article seems too short to address all important issues given the notability of the subject. What I mean is that it is not on the right stage of expansion to be considered GA. Oh, and if Branson has children, he also probably had/has a wife or some other kind of a female partner.
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
The article fails to make clear how the quote from Stelios actually relates to the subject of the section. Other than that, the article is rather an example of insufficient rather than overabundant information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
The section on music reads quite POV, especially concerning the Tubular Bells fragment marked "citation needed". Putting the two issues under "controversy" without explanation creates the impression of a bias. Some other statements seem to be leaning this way or another, but I guess this might just be the bad style and structure of the article, so until those are rectified, it is hard to judge that.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
As I said, some controversy is implied but nothing actually presented.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Moderate editing activity in general (one to four edits a day), some minor vandalism from time to time that looks pretty random. No evidence of recent discussion on talk page. This should not be a problem.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
They are tagged, though fair use ones lack detailed rationales and references to the article they are to be used in in their descriptions pages. The Private Eye covers' image seems unnecessary given how little is devoted to the actual issue in the article. The caption is definitely too long and should be put in the article, if anything.
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
It does not, but this is not the case :D

I guess this is not the best example of a complete GA review, but the article is so far from GA level it is hard to review it that way. The overall conclusion is that there is quite a lot work to be done before it can be considered for renomination. That said, I hope to see it become a proper GA as soon as possible and I cordially encourage all editors to keep working on the article on this important person. We seem to be lacking an example of a really good, not to mention superb (Featured) article on a businessperson, but I would tentatively recommend taking a look at the Henry Ford article - while it has its deficiencies, it would be good to follow its example at least in general. Bravada, talk - 22:46, 18 September 2006

[edit] one citation

in section "Life and career", "citation needed" has been marked for the sentence "The album [Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells] was released by Virgin after no other company dared to release the whiz-kids' unconventional record"

A simple Google search led me to http://tubular.net/articles/01_08.shtml. Close enough, it seems to me.

Jerome Potts 05:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible error regarding Global Warming "Donation"?

I have heard that his pledge was not to provide a charitable contribution, but in fact to invest in technologies, in a business context, that would mitigate global warming. If this is true, the term "donate" should be changed, and the paragraph should be revised. 68.32.51.201 10:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed non-NPOV statement

I have removed the statement that Virgin trains "is struggling to stay in business. Legally mandating the use of trains instead of airlines for equivalent routes would clearly benefit his own financial interests". Not only do I feel that using phrasing such as 'clearly' is non-encyclopedic and this is thus not NPOV, but also Virgin trains is definitely not at risk of going out of business and as his airlines are much more profitable, it is doubtable that this would greatly benefit his own interests. Furthermore, as he admitted his bias on BBC's Newsnight, this would seem only to be an oversight anyway. Will 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

Hi, I've never been to this article, and stumbled onto it wanting to get a little biographical info after reading the BBC's article on the pledge for cleaner airlines today. I hope this isn't too big a source of bias in favor of Branson, but there- you've been warned.

With that out of the way, I've got two major problems with things labeled as controversy in this article.

The first: I think the following:

Another controversy came about when Virgin Atlantic allegedly reported British Airways for price fixing
in June 2006

...should be removed for two reasons:

  1. . It would be contriversial, if British Airways is found not guilty, and VA charged and convicted of perjury.
  2. The reporter of the alleged price-fixing was "a Virgin counterpart" of "a BA executive". The I've read does not link Branson to this action. The only mention of Branson is in a lawsuit involving BA and "dirty tricks" that he won. This might be useful on the Virgin Airways article, though due to the prior reason, I'd still argue against it.


The second: When a competitor says the following:

"Let's be honest – Branson is some hippy from the 1960s whereas I'm a university graduate who went through
formal training to become a businessman."

I don't see this as any kind of useful criticism, being a very childish ad-hominem. How is making it on your own less worthy than going to graduate school and then making it. Surely one can't argue that Branson is not a good businessman, considering his accomplishments. Compare his £3,065m to Haji-Ioannou "and family"'s £727m, if you like [2]. While this may be considered a critical statement, I still don't see how it falls into the scope of being controversial.

I suggest deleting both of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKazin (talk • contribs)

Even though unsigned ;) , I find the above argumentation very valid. As a former GA reviewer of this article I just have to agree. Bravada, talk - 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Both removed! --Amit 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bees wax fuel?

I heard that he said he intends to develop an environmentally friendly rocket fuel made from bees wax. I'm assuming this is a joke or a rumour though. anyone have any more information on this?

???? hehehe. Sounds like a dodgy rumor. (Toritaiyo 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC))


[edit] World Records

I noticed that the article did not mention anything about Branson's ballon trips and world records. Is anyone interested in adding this informtaion? I might write something if I have time. (Toritaiyo 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Hmm, well there used to be, because at one time there was a wikilink through to Sir Chay Blyth as he was Branson's co-skipper on the Virgin Atlantic Challenger attempt/record. AFAIR there was more information in this article than there was on Sir Chay's. Kert01 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please Consider This Link

Doc Glasgow has suggested that I submit this link for community discussion before putting it live.

This link conforms with EL Guidelines. It leads to 17 Richard Branson quotations which provide insight into the way he thinks.

http://www.quote-fox.com/QuoteFox/QuoteFox_SearchResults.php/?indexpage=temp/index_source_fd819b10e78fe649c9f3cfa457a263dc_Richard-Branson_1.html

What do we think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speermeister (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] References

In the references section of this page, I see 4 copies of his autobiography - Losing my virginity. Why so many copies of the same book ? Are they all equally up-to-date ? If I want to buy one today, which one do I buy ? This might be OT here, but the page of the book itself is a stub, and no talk page for it exists. --RohanDhruva 08:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Record Channel Crossing

I that he held the record for fastest channel crossing in an amphibious vehicle (the record has since been broken) - should this be added to the world record section if an appropriate source can be found? [[Guest9999 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Student design contest proposal

Citing no sources in this edit of the article at 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC), user 68.217.8.173 (talk · contribs) added the following paragraph:

"Ed Barker, an electrical engineer, mentor to the Kell High School Robotics Team #1311 of Marietta Georgia, submitted to Branson a proposal for design contest that would capture solar energy and create a form of synthetic fuel. The fuel cycle would resolve the issue of greenhouse gases by recycling CO2 similar to natural photosynthesis. He asked for no money for himself. The proposal was made to Branson's office in London, dated September 28, 2006. November 23, 2006 Branson's organization Virgin Fuels notified him that they were rejecting the proposal. Several week later Branson announced an extraordinarily similar design contest. Branson reportedly cited the longitude prize and the X-prize was cited as inspirations. No mention was given of the rejected Ed Barker/ Kell Robotics proposal."

To user 68.217.8.173: this needs Wikipedia:Attribution. — Athænara ✉ 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Virgin Cars

There is no mention of this venture? RB went into partnership with Quentin Wilson (motoring journalist, former Top Gear presenter adn prenter of the Fifth Gear TV programme) + one other unknown person.

The company started life based in offices in Watford and sourced cheaper cars from Europe which were sold via the internet in the UK.

Virgin Cars closed after moving to Leeds when the car market stalled, due to bad sales affecting the motor trade. Unfortunately I can't cite any of this! Does anyone know the full story? --Pandaplodder 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought up quite a few results. Here's one. But there's also a Wikipedia article already on Virgin Cars containing more references. Waggers 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television Appearances

Just to mention, the person who added the information about Branson's appearances on Live & Kicking was me. I am certain of this fact, but have only been able to find one website listing his appearance on the show (which i have linked). It may be useful to find a source giving a more detailed description of his appearances on this show. I also believe he was often the celebrity guest in the "Hot Seat" during the program.


[edit] Donation of money to Enterprise

Someone wrote that "Branson was prepared to donate $3 million for continuation of the prematurely cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise television series." and provided the following reference. [3]. I read this and found that there was absolutely nothing in that forum which supports the claim that Branson was prepared to donate this money. I have thus removed this section from Richard's page.124.190.16.161 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The person in the interview stated in the reference was SRB, which was not only noted in other posts but also pretty obvious if you read the whole thing. He was prepared to give money, your action has been reverted. NcSchu 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The information should be removed purely because the link is unverifiable. It is after all a web chat transcript that doesn't identify the participants. But above and beyond this problem, the information should be removed because it isn't actually supported by the hyper link reference. While Sir Richard Branson's name was present in the transcript, there is nothing there to connect him to the claim that he was prepared to donate $3 million to save enterprise. Rather, the participants in the web chat have argued that the organisers of the campaign should contact Sir Richard Branson in order to get him to donate some money. Therefore, I am removing the incorrect information124.190.16.174 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football

"Richard Branson got involved with football when he sponsored Nuneaton Borough A.F.C. for their FA Cup 3rd round game against Middlesbrough F.C.. The game ended 1-1 and the Virgin brand was also on Nuneaton Borough's shirts for the replay which they eventually lost 2-5.[citation needed]"

-He also got involved in football when Virgin Atlantic sponsored Crystal Palace in the late 80s / early 90s. I've no idea how this fits in to the article though so i'll leave it to someone who's less of a virgin with this article (sorry i couldn't help it).extraordinary 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price Fixing?

I didn't want to remove the edit because I wasn't sure what others would think. But, why is it relevant to mention the price fixing when nothing has indicated that Branson was even involved? This is more relevant for the Virgin Atlantic page (on which, by coincidence, the same user added the same information). NcSchu(Talk) 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billion vs. 1,000,000,000

In the UK a "billion" is 1,000,000,000,000 whereas in America it is merely 1,000,000,000. As Branson is a British citizen, we should list his wealth more specifically. I see that "billion" is linked to 1000000000. Is this clear enough to the average reader? Geneffects 17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm a UK citizen, and I consider a billion as 10^9, not 10^12, as will every British mathematician, financeer, politician, newsreader, joe public. mattbuck 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, billion is 10^9 in Britain and is used by most people. The 10^12 use is archaic but some may still use it (along with other archaisms!). See long and short scales. Halsteadk (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sightings at TED

Not sure how this can be worked into his article but he can be seen in the audience in the last few seconds of the TED talk with Vilayanur Ramachandran. I'd suspect him as being a financial backer of TED. The talk is hosted at ted.com. EvanCarroll 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A newly available TED talk with Branson can be seen at ted.com entitled, "Richard Branson: Life at 30,000 feet". EvanCarroll 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English or British Entrepreneur?

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, sorry if it has, but the first line reads "English entrepreneur" last time I checked Branson is (like the rest of us from the UK) a British citizen and his nationality is therefor British regardless of what part of the UK he hails from.

This seems to be an ongoing confusion on wikipedia, if people could clarify why this is the case that would be great :) --Curuxz (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There definitely was a discussion of this exact thing and the editor referred people to the featured article, Charles Darwin, which uses "English". I personally find this really strange because we refer to American people as "American" not "Californian", for example. But alas it seems there's no arguing with this. NcSchu(Talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Darwin was not born anywhere near the time of Branson so I fail to see how the conventions of nationality by him would have any influence on modern people. Thank you for your incite into the issue, I'm just suprised that its been determined in that way. Just seems very odd. --Curuxz (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you, it seemed to be a decision purely based on nationalism about being "English", not "British" (my uncle was the same way). I think the user pointed us to that article because it was featured, which I found quite strange in the first place. Just because an article is featured it doesn't mean the format is set in stone. NcSchu(Talk) 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think (but am not absolutely sure, as it seems to keep changing) that the convention is to use "British" unless there's a verifiable source stating that the subject personally identifies more with "English", "Welsh", etc. If it doesn't say that in the convention, it should do, as it's common sense! Waggers (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A further point is that in this case, "English" is linked to English people, which is described (correctly) as an ethnic group, not a nationality. Branson's nationality is British. Waggers (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the USA and the UK. England is a constitent country of the UK, and people are rightly often described as English, or Scottish, or Welsh (hence we have those categories). There is a general acceptance on Wikipedia about this. --UpDown (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not, judging from just the general confusion exhibited above. :/ NcSchu(Talk) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because a few people are confused does not mean there is not an accepted practise.--UpDown (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I still find it hard to believe it's as accepted as your claiming, I've seen "British" just as much as "English/Welsh/Scottish" or perhaps even more so, on this encyclopedia. Now, I don't care that much to be honest, I just wish I could see this solid consensus so I know what to do. NcSchu(Talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Isn't it always the same that when an Englishmen does something good he is English but if he does bad he is British. And if a Scottish person does something good he is British but if he does something bad he is Scottish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.66.135 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What was his age?

In the summary it tells us that he was 15 when he created the Student Magazine, but in the Early Years section it say that he created it when he was 16. Which is it? That is confusing. 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)the amazing salsa

[edit] Mates condoms

Another possible fact about him at http://www.mates.co.uk/about-mates/ -

"Mates was launched back in the mid-Eighties by Richard Branson, who saw the need for a condom brand with more personality. Now owned by global latex manufacturer Ansell Ltd, the brand has continued to grow, while forging a brand identity that young people feel comfortable with."

I guess it must be the same man? Yet Mates is absent from but this page, and from the "List of Richard Branson's business ventures" page. Should we add it? -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is the same man. Not one of Sir Richard's more successful ventures, and spectacularly inappropriate for a company calling itself "Virgin". Stephen Burnett (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Virginrecordlogo.jpg

Image:Virginrecordlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Private eye branson.jpg

Image:Private eye branson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)