Talk:Andrew Regan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OTRS icon This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation:

Issues identified are: Proper representation of legal events per WP:BLP.
 The OTRS ticket number is 2007120310012124
Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on living individuals.
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]
Note The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.

Contents


[edit] Removal of reference to SFO prosecution

There is a constant removal on this article of any mention of Regan's three trials for fraud by the Serious Fraud Office. Furthermore, it is being done by people who are not logged in as wikipedia users. This is information that can be verified by numerous resources (SFO website, the BBC to name but two). There is no reason why this information should continuously be deleted —Preceding dfutter comment added by Dfutter (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is something very funny going on here! I just had a completely legitimate edit undone by an anonymous user with no given reason. All I did was change the article to use surname rather than first name terms and paste in a very small section on the CWS issue from the main Co-op article. The text makes no accusations against Regan (in fact it states clearly that "Regan was cleared of charges" and yet it was removed. I see that the same IP also reverted you without explanation. I am going to add some unimpeachable references to back up the paragraph. If it disapears again we may have to apeal to the admins for page protection. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now added references (and reverted another attempt to whitewash the article). The link to The Independent article is not great as it goes to an agregator site with pop-ups on it. If anybody can find a better link for the same article then please replace it. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated to be checked for its neutrality

Somebody (not me) has nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and I agree. The article seems excessively friendly to its subject, even after my edits, and is keen to gloss over well documented controvercies. I am not suggesting for one moment that it should become a "hatchet job" but it is not ballanced as it stands. We need a few people to cast an eye over it and help the article find the right ballance and tone.

Please discuss the neutrality of the article here. We need to hear everybody's opinon, discuss it sensibly and reach a consensus. This will be a much more constructive way to proceed than the current low level edit war. If the reverters can explain their objections to the new text then we can start to move forwards. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should state more then Regan just being cleared - it should mention that he had three trials before juries. —Preceding dfutter comment added by Dfutter (talk • contribs) 18:22, 01 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but it must not read as an implication that he was guilty just because he was tried three times. We may have our own opinions about the matter but that should not influence the article. If I understand correctly, it was the same case on all three occasions and the second two trials were retrials. If that is the case then maybe it is adequate to leave that bit as it is. I understand that there was a separate civil case afterwards. If so, then we could have a sentence or two explaining what came of that. The block expires soon and I think it might be a good idea to wait for a few days and see if the reverters come back before adding anything that might be even slightly controversial. --DanielRigal 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were the same charge, but that is very unusual. The fact that the crown decided to proceed twice demonstrated how strong they felt the case was. If the case had seemed weak then there is no way a second trial would have happened, much less a third. Why not mentioned the three trials; it is relevant and it is a fact? --Dfutter|Duftter]] 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.60.169 (talk)

I know what you mean but we must not have anything with a "Nudge nudge! Know what I mean?" subtext. Acquitted is acquitted. We have to respect the courts, and the neutrality of Wikipedia, irrespective of what we personally think about the case. If a way to explain the events without a "Nudge nudge" subtext can be found then that would be fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection reason

The reason for protection has been changed from vandalism to something I don't quite understand. Can anybody explain what is going on? Has there been a complaint about the article as it stands? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection and edits

BLP concerns received at OTRS were agreed to be fixed by protection followed by neutrality review and fixing of the BLP issues raised). I've therefore edited through the protection (which was the purpose of the recent page protection). Edit summary:

Items which gave a misleading impression and were able to be improved
  1. I've put the entire CWS trial issue into a subsection. This was one incident in an entire career and bio; it should not dominate a summary of his career. This is commonly how we handle such things.
  2. Section title is just "CWS" to avoid pejorative text ("trial", "theft case", "arrest and charges", etc) in huge letters in the contents or section headings.
  3. He faced just the one charge, and was acquitted. Wording that implies "charges" (plural) would be a problem.
Factual improvements
  1. The two cases were connected, but the connection was not well described. I've fixed that from the SFO report.
  2. The company he was charged with theft from, was a Hobson subsidiary, not Hobson itself. Probably unnecessary level of detail; he was acquitted whatever the subsidiary was, and the general nature of the issue is made clear. So I just left it out. It's clear what the issue was anyway.
  3. Regan's view was omitted.
  4. Awarding of costs £4 million was omitted.
Other
  1. Two external links on media reports following aquittal in the CWS case added. WP:WEIGHT concerns - probably better to leave as external links.

diff FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for working on this. How do you feel about the rest of the article? Do you think the Media section is a bit excessive? Also, should we have "Reagan has no other directorships." when this doesn't seem to be referenced or particularly relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Media - media section is way too long. (I noticed that but didn't want to touch anything through protection unless strictly related to the BLP/OTRS concerns; otherwise there's no mandate to edit it.) We want media that are biographical - or relate to his career, or something. These seem many, and somewhat "current and promotional" perhaps. Fewer and better would be good :)
Directorships - possibly worth noting, with sources. Its not uncommon for major corporate owners to have other directorships; if we're silent it looks like we haven't noted them. Not having any seems as valid a point to note as having them. But not a big deal either way. Not a BLP point, leave it to discussion.
Question - a balance of factual information, and WEIGHT. Should the sentence be added before the last sentence in that paragraph:
He stated he had not known of the improper use of the money.[1][2]
This is to clarify the other side of the case. He was charged, and he stated the money was paid to an intermediary, on the belief it was a fee for renegotiation of the contract, or for its success, and he hadn't known the money was being used by the third party recipient for improper purposes. It certainly explains succinctly exactly the case, which is a major biographical issue. On the other hand, it lengthens the CWS section and might be TMI. Undecided. Tempted to say "current version looks ok to me, anyone seeking more has the cites which make it clear".
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the Telegraph and Independent links which should be sources for notability,

-- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t12:12z

[edit] Linkfarm

Please review WP:EL. The plethora of links at the end of the article was removed per our guideline. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits 2008-02-19

There has been a flurry of editing today (2008-02-19) and while most of the edits are OK there has been a substantial and unjustified reduction in the coverage of the CWS case and an increase in coverage of Corvus which seems only partially justified. Do we really need to know about their specific investments? If they are notable then they should have their own article for this sort of detail.

I am concerned, given the article's history of being whitewashed, that we are heading back in that direction. I don't want to just revert today's edits as most are OK, and I don't have time to unpick the good and bad edits, but somebody needs to look at this and rebalance things correctly. Please remember that the CWS coverage has been reviewed for neutrality and hence should not be changed without good reason. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The reduction has to do with the removal of the information relating to people OTHER than Andrew regan (solicitors, Hobson execs, etc.). As for the addition of Corvus info, it may be too much. I think that should be removed for now too. Regan should not be used as a coatrack for Corvus. -- Avi (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco

All the SFO says is "who was residing in Monaco." There is no mention if the residence was of a transient, temporary, or permanent nature, and for how long that residence occurred. Furthermore, that piece of information adds nothing to the article. Please explain what purpose it serves and what sources can be brought to substantiate the claim. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commoditrade value

How the company has done is irrelevant to the article on Regan unless you have sources claiming that he is the cause. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1) A source was provided; you deleted it 2) The information as it stands is out of date and not an accurate picture of the share price 3) If how the company has done is irrelevant then there should be no mention 4) There is no reason to remove a link to defence costs 5) How can an accurate statement of a share price movement possibly be unacceptable? dfutter (talk) 19:503, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will replace the link to the defence costs, but the value of commoditrade/corvus is irrelevant to Regan himself, unless you can bring a source here that links the two. If you do, I'll reinstate it. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If the value is irrelevant I don't quite understand why the sentence is left which states "In 2005, Regan founded Commoditrade, a commodities broking group, which has seen its market cap jump from around £25m to £150m in 2007.". Further unlike what I wrote, it is unsourced yet you have no problem with it. That reeks of bias. dfutter (talk) 00:00, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think market capitalisations tell us anything at all as they reflect speculative stock valuations rather than anything real about a company. The company would be better described by its current turnover. I don't see any point in mentioning the change for 2007. I would also like to see the Polar Traveller section put back at the bottom. Unless Regan retires from business to make travelling his main activity, it makes no sense to have this as the lead item. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree, I am going to remove the links at the bottom, and make the above changes. It has been a couple of days and no changes have been made, despite the above comments.

dfutter (talk) 19:45, 01 March 2008 (UTC)


dfutter (talk) 00:00, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems with the edits you have just made from a BLP perspective. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

Please note that User:DRigal, who blanked a section here is NOT me!!! He has also copied my user page. Admins, please help! --DanielRigal (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this is all resolved now. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)