Jump to content

Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

revisions

Revision from advertising previously displayed on this page, I edited it -- Rowing88 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion to original article which does not implicate Davenport as a member of the Bilderberg Group (a claim which is frankly asinine as the Bilderberg Group publishes its membership list) or the Illuminati, which does not credibly exist. I have also eliminated any reference to Davenport as a member of the Rich List; he is not a member. I will include a link to the Rich List - Rowing88 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Today I have yet again fought an editing battle with User:Goalsended, who is dedicated to declaring Davenport to be a wealthy aristocrat. I strongly believe that he uses resources which are false and most likely written by Davenport himself in order to aggrandize Davenport in a show of egotism and self-advertisement. I therefore have requested protection and would like to speak with an editor urgently to resolve this issue -- Rowing88 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rowing88 has violated wikipedia policy by posting defamatory hearsay from talk show radio stations. The user has violated wikipedia policy by repeatedly removing edits from other users including myself and replacing it with his original, biased and defamatory version. The user has further violated wikipedia rules by removing my content from this discussion page. The user has violated copyright by lifting a picture from one of Lord Davenport's web sites, without prior consent. The user has now requested that his defamtory comments which are based on accusations, not facts be protected.

The same user requested that article 33 Portland Place be deleted, but I am happy to see that someone has reverted this. Please assist me in having this user banned so Wikipedia can be factual not a forum for hearsay and sensational attacks of character.

current disputes

What is the actual information being disputed at this time? Can we see if we can build consensus around it? Martijn Hoekstra 16:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Gatecrashers????

The article says "during the closing of Gatecrashers." The words are all part of the English language, but the phrase means nothing to most speakers of English in the world. Does this mean something to people living in London? Please add some context. In all the websites searched by Google, "closing of Gatecrashers" only appears in this article. Edison 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi- I clarified what Gatecrashes is- It was a famous organisation which Lord Davenport set up whilst a student. It gained publicity for arranging balls for rich kids which often got out of hand.

The "orgy" stuff seems pretty irrelavnt and derogatory?

For the Compromise

As Martin suggested, the following are concrete facts and should be included.

This bit is from the BBC, and therefore is utterly credible:

Davenport founded Gatecrashers, which was a tremendously successful company in its time. Gatecrashers was famous for being "out of control" as the BBC mentions. There were orgies, which are a concrete theme within Davenport's past.
In November 1990, Davenport went to jail for 9 months for tax fraud (if Goalsended is so offended, we may work on a different term for tax fraud such as "financial improprieties" or something of that ilk).
In 1998, Davenport essentially stole the High Commission of Sierra Leone. This is a fact and cannot be disputed.

These are quotes from the BBC which back me up:

"For this to happen the lease for 33 Portland Place was transferred to Edward Davenport through a company called Capricorn Financial Investments, for the agreed price of £50,000. But seven months later instead of refurbishment getting underway, a newspaper profile of Mr Davenport revealed that he had an altogether different plan for 33 Portland Place, a building which the Daily Mail claimed had helped make him one of Britain's most eligible bachelors."
"Well we can reveal that the case had a very different outcome. Mr Davenport opted to make a substantial out of court settlement to the government of Sierra Leone by way of compensation. They got the money, he kept the building. Although he risked seeing the inside of another prison cell when the court placed a freezing order on his assets and called on him to make a full disclosure of what those assets were. By refusing to comply he was found in contempt of court. The freezing order was eventually lifted and Mr Davenport awarded costs, however, one judge commented during the case:
JUDGE'S STATEMENT On his own admission most of his assets are held in companies which he controls through offshore entities, the method by which Mr Davenport exercises control over these companies and other entities is not clear. And Mr Davenport did not give any coherent or comprehensible explanation."

This article can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/radio4/facethefacts/transcript_20060811.shtml

I'm assuming that Goalsended would be terribly offended if we mentioned Davenport's shady business dealings - which both the Telegraph and the BBC have mentioned - so therefore we will leave them out.
Finally, we should remove any notice of Davenport's inclusion in the Sunday Times Rich List. He is not a member of the Sunday Times Rich List, which I have throughly checked out. The BBC mentions that Davenport is not a member of the Sunday Times Rich List quite explicitly:
"BERESFORD He wanted us to believe that he was in the mould of the 1980s, 1990s, entrepreneurs mould breaking, taking risks, getting rich. My impression was that this was a chancer trying desperately to seek the seal of approval that the Rich List would give him in a perverse way because it would be amongst a lot of very solid businessmen. And I knew it would be the kiss of death for my credibility if I let him in."

The above quote comes from Phillip Beresford, who is the editor of the Sunday Times Rich List.

As for the orgies, they should also be included; Davenport has openly acknowledged that he even participated in them and throws them quite often. These can be found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/nprank05.xml

Is this fair? I will post an edit which may be ameliorative to both parties. -- Rowing88 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology on one note

I have reviewed Davenport's family tree and was frankly shocked to find that it was probably written by the College of Arms. While Davenport is not related to a baronet or to a peer of the realm, he does descent from minor gentry and may even possibly hold arms.

I will ring a good friend of mine at the College tomorrow to ascertain whether or not they indeed wrote this document. -- Rowing88 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that wikipedia requires reliable sources for everything, it would be nice of you could get the College to make an official statement about it somewhere, so we can source it from there.Martijn Hoekstra 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg Nonsense

This utter nonsense about the Bilderberg Group must be removed. It is utterly unverifiable except for the mention of orgies found on the website Bilderberg.org, which is a conspiracy website. Bilderberg.org also mentions the following which I find to be quaint and rather disturbing at the same time:

Quote: "[Table of Contents] Quark, Strangeness and Charm - Illuminati Leaks - 666 - Babylonian - Man Made Religion - Sport - Ritual Human Sacrifice - Secret Western Government Apparatus - Bohemian Grove - Freemasons Exposed"

The website may be found here: http://www.bilderberg.org/ - Rowing88 16:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made a basic edit of this page to remove any controversial material. I think it is a good temporary exception. - Rowing88 16:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Indeed

Well, I wouldn't call being Davenport, a horrific social climber, a compliment. Regardless, you are quite... inflexible which I suppose demonstrates tremendous fortitude.

Regarding legal disputes: to my knowledge, there is a grass roots movement within the Government of Sierra Leone to attempt to seize back 33 Portland Place. The Government additionally first accused him of fraud, which is obviously a criminal offense, but then settled out of court. The trial therefore started as a criminal trial and then morphed into a civil trial when Davenport compensated the Government of Sierra Leone, who then dropped charges. Please correct this with a legitimate source if I am misguided. He has therefore, quite properly, been accused of being a con-artist by multiple people, including the Government of Sierra Leone. Perhaps the opening sentence should therefore read as follows:
"Lord" Edward Davenport is a British businessman, self-proclaimed aristocrat, and party promoter who is most famous for his purchase of 33 Portland Place, the former High Commission of Sierra Leone under questionable circumstances. He has been accused of being a con-artist, although the accusations have never been proven.

I have attempted to place the orders in chronological events, and my apologies if I did not do so properly. I am under the impression that chronologically they read as follows:

Davenport is born in Greater London (saying the "Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" is rather pretentious and unnecessary, additionally as you very well know as a Londoner yourself that this is nearly an act of self-fellatio; the "Royal Borough" also includes other, less unsavory areas.) He was most likely born into a respectable middle-class family, though the element of selling clothes on Portobello Road is frankly plebeian in nature and suggests at the minimum serious financial issues within the family. I'm also sure that you remember the reputation of Kensington and Chelsea in the 70s and 60s as being quite similar to that of a more run down Greenwich and Kew today, though this is perfunctory information and I don't think we need to add that.
I suggest we not add the family tree as a call to the college today informed me that I must pay to verify the document, which frankly I do not feel like doing. The next time I am in London, I will pop into the Records Room gratis.
Davenport starts Gatecrashers during his teenage years. They are raunchy parties (having been to one myself in my younger years) which were frankly full of uppity, pretentious teenagers (as I was) and though I never witnessed an orgy, I certainly heard of one. Perhaps I left too early in the evening. To my memory they were on King's Road, though this was several years back when polyester was fashionable and not reserved for workout clothing.
Davenport then starts several real-estate holdings, the profits of which he keeps overseas. They are unverifiable by the high court as mentioned in the BBC article. We will remove any mention of his real-estate ventures as they are unverifiable and frankly I don't consider either the Mail or the Sun to be anything but gossip. A paper which features a stark naked woman on its second page is frankly not of the highest intellectual veracity.
We will remove any reference to the inheritance of the Lord of the Manor of Giffords as a call to the Manorial Society of Great Britain disclaims that any such title exists. Additionally, Davenport could not have inherited this title without land (manorial titles are, after all, attached to the land) and therefore would have had to pay death dues, which I highly doubt a 28 year-old of any rank could afford.
Davenport somehow acquires 33 Portland Place through suspicious circumstances. We will mention both sides of the story (pursuant to good grammar and editing)
Davenport is NOT a member of the Sunday Times Rich List. This is utter nonsense. This must be removed until information contrary to that of the BBC can be demonstrated to myself any of the other numerous editors from a reputable source such as the Sunday Times Rich List itself. I will then not only yield, but proffer a full apology.
A mention of the orgies is fully acceptable, and is not an attack on the sexuality of a living person. Davenport admits to the orgies and even participates in them according to his own words. I will find the article that mentions this if need be.
I think it is important to mention that the "Royal Bet" was done in poor taste. It's not really a subjective comment and I am quite sure that any member of the Prince's Trust, which was raising funds in order to aid various social causes of importance, would agree. Breaking a security line during a charity event is frankly not only distasteful, but crass in the extreme. We will add the website of the "Royal Bet" to balance this view out if need be.

Is this fair or must we bargain further? - Rowing88 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Best way to quote sources is per footnote. I've thrown in a {{cite}} templates where I think a footnote would be in place.

"Lord" Edward Davenport is a British businessman, self-proclaimed aristocrat, and party promoter who is most famous for his purchase of 33 Portland Place, the former High Commission of Sierra Leone under questionable circumstances.[citation needed] He has been accused of being a con-artist[citation needed], although the accusations have never been proven.

Martijn Hoekstra 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Part II

Thank you for your willingness to compromise. I have reverted the article to its original state and do not encourage it to be rewritten or deleted. (This is vandalism in accordance with Wiki policy) You have repeatedly deleted entries from more than 5 sources, excluding myself. I am not Lord Davenport or associated with him, but thanks for the flattery ;).

I am working on your compromise and will be clarifying the following:

  1. Legal disputes - I trust that you are a non-practising barrister, but you have accused him of criminal offenses on a number of occasions where in fact the issue revolved around a civil matter.
  2. I propose placing civil cases or other legal events in chronological order. The Gatecrashes debacle happened almost 15 years ago and the Sierra Leone purchase almost 10 years ago. This features too prominently and appears to undermine the legalities of what actually happened, including a settlement by the Sierra Leone Government.
  3. I will compromise on the orgy accusations, but propose underlining the purpose of this which is documented in a link which I added, but was deleted.
  4. I will not compromise on any content that claims Lord Davenport "stole" the embassy or indeed has any capability of being a con artist. These allegations are unfounded.
  5. The BBC transcript is not an article, but a radio transcript and for this reason cannot be deemed as a valid source of information. The transcript is based on rumour, allegations and hearsay and this is the reason why it was never published in the form of an article.
  6. Please remove the copyrighted picture which I see you lifted off a Sierra Leone publication.
The "copyrighted picture" is free use in accordance with British law. The photographs of any building that is not protected are, generally speaking, free use. - Rowing88 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we can compromise on this, but trust that you understand the importance of other Wiki users input which you have deleted.

user:Goalsended

I wouldn't know why a BBC transcript of a BBC radio show is not a proper source. Could you give some reasoning for that? Martijn Hoekstra 10:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts from Fiction

  1. Edward Davenport entered the rich list in 2004 - Mail on Sunday estimated his wealth as being £133m. Please feel free to call the Mail on Sunday to verify.
I rung the Times today. They have absolutely no idea who he is, and they have no record of him as being on the Sunday Times Rich List. - Rowing88 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. User:Rowing88 attacks his character on a number of occasions - primarily that he came from a "poor" background.
  2. User:Rowing88 Relies heavily on a BBC talk radio transcript which is hearsay, not factual. The content of the transcript is oral and therefore not verifiable as being a news source. The reliance of this source is one sided.
  3. Factual information regarding Lord Davenport's affiliation with A list celebrities and high ranked cabinet ministers were removed without explanation. Pictures of such an affilation are evinced on the official site of Lord Edward Davenport which were removed by User:Rowing88
  4. User:Rowing88 mistakens a civil case broght against a company owned by Lord Edward Davenport as "fraud". This civil case has since been dropped by the claimant.
  5. User:Rowing88 violates wikipedia policy and makes defamatory remarks about a living individual's sex life
  6. User:Rowing88 requested that a page holding the history to 33 Portland Place be removed without good reason.

http://www.11stonebuildings.com/cases/wolman_gemini.htm

User:Goalsended 13 June

I slightly copyedited your post, I hope you don't mind. Let's stop making this about users, and focus on the content. The best listed source I found was the Telegraph article, but there seems enough notability, so a bit of a search should give us enough ground to cite all claims. How about we move all the disputed content to the talk page, and add it back in when we have a proper source for that particular peace of information? Martijn Hoekstra 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Martin, but I'm quite sure that the person who is posting this information about Davenport is the bloke himself. Party promoters thrive on good publicity and Wikipedia is a one-stop shop of good publicity for them. I'm simply attempting to present the facts in a simple manner. I'm quite used to these sorts of temper tantrums as I was a barrister in the criminal courts in my younger days. :) - Rowing88 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Right so

a) I would please ask you to source out the trial transcripts as I frankly find it hard to believe that the BBC would publish incorrect information, especially from a programme whose title is "The Facts". Additionally, this paper deals with the civil suit - it is a different court from the criminal court and therefore has a different transcript and a different judge handling the trial. The Sierra Leone High Commission was stolen, on admission, by Lord Davenport. I will find this article should you request it.

b) I believe if we remove the self-proclaimed aristocrat line that people may mistake him as an actual peer. We must therefore rename the article if we are to remove that reference. The idea that the media has christened him with that title is absurd at best.

c) I am more than welcome to source information. I am quite aware as to what constitutes a defamatory statement and what constitutes libel having spent close to four years reading about the damned things. I am also quite aware that what I had previously written would not, in the slightest, constitute libel in a court of law.

d) I have to re-read the items regarding the Royal Bet and re-listen to the TV programme before I can make an opinion on this, unfortunately I will not be able to do this until later tonight (American time.)

e) I will have to ring the Mail to verify this information and to understand how they came about it. Regardless, should we even mention it, there must be a corollary describing his rejection from the Sunday Times Rich List which, as I am sure you can understand as a fellow Briton, is the most authoritative paper in the country besides the Court Circular.

I humbly ask that you do not threaten me with legalese as I am utterly fluent in it.

This is most certainly a suitable starting point though we need to hammer out a few more details before we may proceed.

My regards, Rowing88 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I will do some of my own research regarding Davenport's early life. The accusation of being a con-artist is not totally unfounded, especially given his prison stint which must be mentioned. - Rowing88 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-edited the page. Do give me your opinion. It's rough and quite basic. - Rowing88 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Promo/vandalism

Have revised the page yet again due to self-promotion/vandalism. Please contact me should anyone see a problem in this. Rowing88 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Same as above, but have included indisputable media sources. Have removed the following:

a) The claim that Davenport owns over 20 properties is dubious. Mr. Davenport is often fond of what the BBC terms con-man schemes whereby he rents out a building which he claims to own and then leases the properties to the chagrin of the tenant who unfortunately was misled.

b) The list of clients is also dubious. I'd assume that anyone entertaining "HRH Sarah Ferguson" would have also realized by the same token that she herself has a private secretary which would have already advised Mr. Davenport on how to address Sarah, Duchess of York. Although Mr. Davenport may have met these people, and may have even taken photos with them upon meeting them, it is highly unlikely that he entertained them in the form of clients which is what is suggested within this article.

c) Davenport has used the claim that he owns property in Monaco several times over the past few years. However, several people have an officially listed address in Monaco and many more use it as a tax shelter. In order to strike a compromise with Mr. Davenport and his agents that edit this article, we will leave the fact that he owns some sort of property in Monaco within the article as fact given that he has some sort of trust there. - Rowing88 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lord Edward

I've reverted the change to paragraph about him calling himself "Lord Edward." The given source does not say this is illegal. I believe the old wording most accurately reflects what the sources say:

"After acquiring a manorial title he began to call himself Lord Edward..." Source says, "He later started calling himself 'Lord' Edward after acquiring a manorial title."

"although he is not officially a peer." Source says, "While Davenport is not officially a peer, he styles himself Lord Davenport on his website. He claims to have won the right to use a title from a property he once owned in Shropshire."

Since we've been over this before, if you disagree, please cite the exact sentence in the cited source that you believe supports the wording you prefer. Thanks. Rees11 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Change Title

'Criminal' is NOT the right word for this man. He has committed a crime during his career however the word criminal suggests a life of crime. I urge this be changed forthwith. Consider the case of former MP Jonathan Aitken, sentenced to prison for a period but NOT titled Jonathan Aitken (crimimal). Bluekangaroo 16:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See above. It's already under discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He has been convicted several times, this makes him a professional criminal. Career fraudster maybe more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.120.122 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — 178.37.120.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Cox

Several users have recently removed the information regarding Davenport's purchase of Patrick Cox. This information is sourced (to the Daily Mail, but could equally easily be cited from Vogue, The Independent or The Evening Standard), and none of the deleting users has offered any rationale for their edit (it might be worth noting that neither User:Windmill1959, User:Ceasar1234 nor User:109.204.31.87 have made any other edits). If there is a valid reason for removing this information, please discuss it here, rather than edit warring. Yunshui (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This maybe related to the advance fee fraud scam that Davenport is convicted for. Patrick Cox left his shoe business and now sells cup cakes. The Patrick Cox web site is gone. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/my-perfect-weekend/8316733/My-perfect-weekend-Patrick-Cox.html. Furthermore there were legal proceedings, is Cox another victim? Because the business Davenport claims to own seems to vanished. http:/www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-lawyers-called-in-as-cox-gets-his-designer-toes-trodden-on-1513425.html178.37.74.80 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

New page move request

I have to say that I don't believe there was WP:CONSENSUS to move the page back to '(property developer)'. It's a bad title. It's not very Recognisable, it's not precise, it's not concise. It may be natural and it just may be consistent, but 2 out of 5 IS bad. We need a new title. Let's get on and agree one.Fmph (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New page title suggestions

Please add new suggestions to the end of the list.

  1. Edward Davenport (property developer)
  2. Edward Davenport (fraudster)
  3. Edward Davenport (criminal)
  4. Edward Davenport (socialite)
  5. Edward Davenport (entrepreneur)
  6. Edward Davenport (con man)
  7. Edward Ormus Sharington Davenport
  8. Fast Eddie
  9. 'Lord' Edward Davenport
  10. Edward Davenport (party organiser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.74.80 (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — 178.37.74.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comments on list

Please comment on specific items in the list by reference to their number in the list.

When the recentism wears off we'll know where to move it to. I don't believe that ED was ever a property developer. The title has been inaccurate for a long time. This discussion is not about moving the article. It's about deciding where the article should reside. Once that's agreed, we can decide on the 'when'. Fmph (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you have it exactly backwards. The when, by definition, will have to come before the what. Once the recentism wears off, there'll be enough material available from reliable sources to properly define his role, e.g. socialite, developer, entrepreneur, or whatever. That's when the community can more objectively review the extant information and arrive at consensus regarding the proper title. Just my 2p worth, save up the change for a turkey leg or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's wearing off already. We'll be lucky to see any coverage in the weekend papers. It's pretty much done now. Fmph (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: He was never a Lord - maybe a Lord of the Manor of God knows what; always a conman; incidentally a property converter in that he converted Sierra Leone's former High Commission, 33 Portland Place, to his own use, thereafter a party organiser and socialite, commonly known as Edward Davenport. Follow the money. How did he get rich? As far as I know it is not a criminal offence to call oneself a Lord when one is not a Lord, but he is undoubtedly a multiply convicted criminal. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

He cause himself a Lord, as in landlord, because he had a licensed premises. So it wasn't in any way wrong or illegal, just not quite the sort of lord most people perceive
Actually no, he is merely the Lord of the Manor of the village of Giffords. [1] Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Then his title is Mr Edward Davenport, Lord of the Manor of the village of Giffords, Salops. His website is just plain misleading and should not be used as a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Who lost out as a result of the wrongful conversion of the High Commission? Sierra Leone or the British Government. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
More likely the British taxpayers! Fmph (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the British Tax payer had to fund a replacement high commission for Sierra Leone178.37.78.112 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Why? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He appears to have been first notable as a party organiser with Gatecrashers Balls. Unless he first conned the Sierra Leone Government out of their High Commission which seems potentially notable. His subsequent notability is undoubtedly his criminal and fradulent history. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)#

The Mirror?

Why is a rag like the mirror being used as a source here? I thought tabloids were best avoided? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, make your choice from this lot. Mirror is accurate when it correlates with all the others. Fmph (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not a good source. davenporttrust.com and 33portlandplace.com are the only original sources for the claim that he is a "self-styled lord" which is not a remark that deserves to be in the lede. The fact that he aquired the lordship of the Manor of Gifford, Salops is sourced but deserves no prominence.He is not known for property development or being a self-styled lord. they are not notable enough for the lede. they are self sourced claims. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
They are NOT self-sourced. The subject bought a manorial title, and styled himself as 'Lord' Edward Davenport. Others, including much of the media have picked up on this and now continue that usage. It matters not a jot whether he is a member of the HoL or not. What matters is if he is known by that name. And he is, given that a multitude of independent and notable sources use that name for him. I'm quite happy to discuss moving it from the lede to somewhere else, if that is preferable. But he IS known as "Lord" Edward Davenport, and also as "Fast Eddie". he is not known as "Mr Edward Davenport, Lord of the Manor of Giffords, Salop" as this google search makes clear. That may well be a 'proper' form of address or something, but it is not a name by which he is known. Fmph (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Edward Davenport, who is also known as Lord of Giffordslord of the manor of the village of Giffords Yes he is. The mirror is a rag, did it not get in trouble last year for printing fake pictures of British troops torturing Iraqis? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
And the Torygraph would never do a thing like that, would they? Fmph (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing the Mirror as a source here, not the Telegraph. The mirror is a sensationalist tabloid rag and it`s use in a BLP surprises me. I am of the opinion it ought not be used as a source. (And need I really point out the difference in printing a premature obit and printing fake photos of her majesty's armed fores?) The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
We are also discussing what he is notable as and for. Fmph, please examine your agenda here. Who knows him as Lord Edward Davenport? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Agenda? I don't think I'm the one with the agenda. I don't know anyone who knows him as Lord Edward Davenport, but I can find literally hundreds of references which say his name is "Lord" Edward Davenport. There's a significant difference. I have no objection to anyone replacing the Mirror reference with any of the others. And luckily we are not discussing the Torygraph cos otherwise I'd say that there is not much of a difference in printing a fake obit or a fake photo, IMHO. Fmph (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The references you fnd are those which say "self-styled Lord Edward Davenport". And self styled won't do at all. It isnt WP:RS. Literally hundreds which say his name is LED? You don't mean it. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No they don't. They say self-styled 'Lord' Edward Davenport. And it will do. They don't say he's a Lord. In fact they make clear he isn't. And they all say the same. That that is a name he is known as. There is one from the telegraph which says he uses both LED and Fast Eddie. Fmph (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:COMMONNAME. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it supports my view. Fmph (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature removed

I have removed the signature, which was uploaded by [2] with the claim of 'own work'. That user could be, I suppose, Edward Davenport, but there's no actual evidence of it, and the users contribution history looks pretty questionable to me. (I'm going to ask commons to look into it.) But in any event, there's no source to prove that this is his actual signature, and even further than that I think it is almost always a privacy violation to publish people's signatures in Wikipedia outside of a very narrow set of exemptions. (Basically, heads of state or people whose signature is famous for some reason.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, notice the contribution history of Londongreek on whose talk page that uploader contributed. Various images relating to "James Stewart" or "James Stuart" were uploaded and later deleted. That was one of Davenport's aliases [3]. I would guess that someone involved in the fraud was trying to use Wikipedia to support the credentials of "James Stewart". Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow. That's really interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Now if we could obtain a copy of James Stewart's signature........... Kittybrewster ☎ 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Page title

Despite assertions (above) of consensus for the current title, I see significant dissent from it. The poll with multiple options (also above) is likely premature. What I'd like to do in this section is try to make clear that there is no consensus for the current title, or prove to myself that I'm wrong.

The argument against titling the article 'property developer' is that he is not, in fact, a property developer. The only thing he's done which plausibly counts as "property development" is purchasing 33 Portland Place and using it for parties. This article in the Indy is a typical profile - his career is described mainly in terms of his party organizing. It is said that he made his fortune organizing parties. It is talked about how many celebrities he's been photographed with at parties that he organized.

It's also worth noting, in light of his fraud conviction, and in light of his ludicrous efforts to style himself "Lord Edward Davenport" that he is likely just as self-styled as "property developer" having - per all reliable sources that I've seen - not actually done any property development.

I am not currently arguing for any particular alternative title, but rather arguing that of all the titles proposed, at least "property developer" doesn't work. After we've firmly got our heads around that notion, we can begin to consider alternatives.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose current title of "Edward Davenport (property developer)" - per my discussion above--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jimbo and Fmph. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current title for the time being - Jimbo's reasons are erroneous. Davenport is most famous for his party organising, as that attracts gossip columnists like catnip, but it's certainly not his main focus and he most certainly is a property developer of some note. I've added more info to the article to clarify this issue. Davenport is reported to own at least 25 properties in London's West End alone and one of the issues the SFO was investigating was an apparently crooked property deal in London (not related to the former Sierra Leonean High Commission). Various sources put the value of his property portfolio at £100 million. It's true that he made a significant amount of money by organising parties in the 1980s but it's not as if he was poverty-stricken at any point - he is reported to be the beneficiary of a multi-million pound trust fund and his family is extremely wealthy. "Property developer" is thus a justifiable description and that line of work appears to be the main source for his fortune (reported to be £6 million in 1995, now upwards of £100 million). However, I would support either "Edward Davenport (businessman)" or "Edward Davenport (fraudster)" as alternatives - though it should be noted that he is apparently appealing his conviction. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose current title as per Jimbo. Thats why I created the list above. I do think 'socialite' is the least POV dab term amongst them. Fmph (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Any comments on the facts that I've put forward above, of which Jimbo appears to be unaware and weren't in the article until I added them a short time ago? I've taken the trouble to do some research on the issue, so I would appreciate it if you could address this. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
They aren't facts. They're unsupported opinions. I've removed the citation requests because we don't use them on talk pages, but I understand why they were added. If they ARE facts, then add them plus all their supporting references to the article. But I suspect there aren't (m?)any such references. Fmph (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
They are in the article already. I presume you have actually read the article recently? Prioryman (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion here, not to mention factually incorrect statements, let's set out the facts from reliable sources:

  • He has been involved in far more than just the acquisition of 33 Portland Place.

I hope this settles the issue. Prioryman (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Think the problem is that the selection of links you have provided - with the exception of the one from the Independent - appear to make Davenport this notable ******** as a fraudster and this notable * as a property investor. Because what is being discussed is the article title, the question is primary notability, rather than verifiability. --FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't addressing primary notability - I was tackling Jimbo's mistaken assertion that Davenport "is not, in fact, a property developer" and therefore should not be referred to as such in the article title. As the sources above indicate, that is clearly wrong. I agree that his primary notability now is that he is a fraudster and as I said above I would be happy with appending "(businessman)" or "(fraudster)" to the disambiguation in place of "(property developer)". Prioryman (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks to Prioryman for gathering more facts in the case, but I'm afraid that in light of his fraud conviction and the other details of his life, we need to be fairly skeptical of claims that he's made in the past. Note well that having a £100 million property portfolio does not mean your net worth is £100 million, because there will be loans against the property. It isn't that difficult for a "wheeler-dealer" (as he is referred to in one source) to put together such a portfolio through faked paperwork, price ramping, and so on. I remain personally unconvinced that he actually did any property development, but I also fully concede that Prioryman has done good work and has a valid point.
I think my doubt here is valid. In his trial it was alleged (successfully, it seems) that "It was essentially worthless. Its only business was fraud." He did put himself forward to the press as a property developer, but that doesn't mean that he actually did any property development. We might say "property investor" - since he did buy properties but... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Gresham was certainly worthless, but that was the vehicle for the advance fee fraud, not the property business. According to the Sunday Times, the latter was carried on through his Monaco-based Davenport Trust. I think you have a point about his involvement in property development, as his only actual development activity that I've come across was the refurbishment of 33 Portland Place. Prioryman (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose current title of "Edward Davenport (property developer)". Because his primary claim to fame was as a party organiser, in fact I suspect its what he still most famous for. His 'property development' seems to be where he ran his various 'schemes'Pulitzer NA (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Net worth removed from infobox

In the infobox, we had him with a net worth of £100 million, based on this source, which doesn't actually say that. It says that Davenport "claims to own a £100m property portfolio". So, first of all, the paper itself doesn't confirm the number, only that he claimed it at that time. Second of all, just as anyone might own a £300,000 home, they'll typically have a mortgage against it so that their net worth is a lot lower.

I think that, based on the news that has emerged, we have to treat pre-conviction sources with some suspicion to whatever degree they are based on Davenport's own claims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong agreement. Furthermore the CPS is going against his assets. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. His claims of wealth are part and parcel of the fraud. Furthermore the CPS say little is expected to be recovered. For instance, 33 Portland is a 9 year lease of a very badly run down building. The lease is worthless in fact. Pulitzer NA (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary "citation needed" tags

It's somewhat irritating that Fmph again seems to be having trouble reading references, but for his sake I'll point out the obvious below:

  • In 1996, Davenport was introduced to Professor Cyril Foray, the former Foreign Minister and High Commissioner of Sierra Leone, during that country's civil war. Davenport entered into negotiations with the Government of Sierra Leone in order to refurbish their London embassy, 33 Portland Place, built in 1775 by Robert Adam and valued at £5 million. He acquired a lease on the building for £50,000 but eventually claimed the property as his private residence. The government of Sierra Leone took legal action against Davenport in London in 1999, but the case was eventually settled with no clear victor.[1] - these lines are all cited to the source cited at the end, namely [4]. Please read references in future before you add citation tags.


None of the references added state anywhere that Davenport was introduced to cyril foray during the civil war. Thats why the citation requests will remain.Fmph (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that would be the last cn tag yes? Will this source suffice? [5] The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That looks much better. Fmph (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Civil war lasted 12 years so its quite like that a lot of things happened during the 1990's. Its not relevant and 1990's would be just as accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Alleyne, Richard (21 October 2003). "Millionaire hails victory over £50,000 mansion". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 5 October 2011.

33 Portland Place: leasehold or freehold

"In 2005 Davenport acquired the freehold of the building for £3.75 million; it is now valued at £30 million.[1] The British Government offered to purchase a new building for the Sierra Leonean High Commission, leaving Davenport with the remainder of the short lease[8], which expires in 2020.[20]"

Unfortunately our claim that he acquired the freehold is sourced to the Sunday Times, to which I don't have access. If I understand the terms 'freehold' and 'leasehold', then if he really acquired the freehold, then the bit about "remainder of the lease" is not relevant. My suspicion is that he never actually acquired the freehold, and that in 2020 the building reverts back to the real owner. (No idea who that might be, but given the location, possibly the heirs of the last Duke of Portland).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid mere suspicion won't get you very far! The acquisition of the freehold is actually mentioned in multiple sources; as well as the Sunday Times, it's mentioned in the Evening Standard and the Rob Sharp article in the Independent that is cited in this article. I've revised the text in the article as it seems to have been written in the wrong order. The sequence of events seems to be that he acquired the leasehold, settled with the Sierra Leoneans while holding on to the lease, then bought the freehold in 2005 – so you are correct that the "remainder of the lease" is no longer relevant as there is no longer a lease. The length of the freehold isn't documented but will probably be the usual 999 years. Since it's clearly stated in several sources that he obtained the freehold in 2005 I don't think we have any grounds to state or infer otherwise.
Portland Place is part of the Howard de Walden Estate (see [6] - the heir of the last Duke of Portland was his sister, who married Baron Howard de Walden (hence the renaming of the former Portland Estate). Prioryman (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Its quite simple, its impossible to obtain the freehold from another leaseholder, so the claim that it was obtained from the SL government in the various newspapers quoted is quite obviously wrong. This is another typical falsehood that has originated from a twice convicted fraudster. And look at the circumstantial evidence; it needs several million pounds refurbishment, instead it is rented out for parties and film shoots. The building is unsellable becuase its got a short lease (<20 years) with no prospect of an extension.Pulitzer NA (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And they never sell the freehold.Pulitzer NA (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention of 33 portland place at the site you link to, the rest is WP:OR The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the order of the comments here as I think there is some confusion about who said what. It was I who linked the Howard de Walden Estate website, not in relation to 33 Portland Place but in reply to Jimbo's comment about who the estate belongs to now. I agree that Pulitzer NA's assertions are OR and frankly, he has no business removing reliably sourced content because he disagrees with what the sources say. Prioryman (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is very good reason to question newspaper sources becuase Davenport has carefully crafted a image of himself as an incredibly rich man, primary through the newspapers. There is no reason to include superfluous information that could very well be fake and it should be assumed to be fake based on the history of this man.Pulitzer NA (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No it should not. We don't work on the basis of assumptions around here but on what reliable verifiable sources state. It is not our business to prove or disprove what those sources say. That is original research and is strictly not permitted, and it will get you into major trouble with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy if you persist. If you're not willing to follow Wikipedia's rules, you're not going to have a very long editing career. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Providing facts from the Land Registry or from Estate agents valuations is not original research. I think you will find that this is wikipeadia and you do not decide what is acceptable or not.Pulitzer NA (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Land Registry, a company based in Nevis (in the Carribean) did indeed purchase a freehold extension in 2005, with some sort of restricted convents. The house then has bank charges put against it, to prevent sale, by a Monaco Bank in 2006 (mortgage?). The SFO stops any sale under the Proceeds of crime act in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, whatever else to say about Davenport, he DOES NOT OWN 33 Portland place. Its owned by a company based in the Caribbean. Confirmed here http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/revellers-row-across-cognac-filled-pool/story-e6frf7jx-1225892469487 so its valuation is moot as the SFO and bank are in control of the sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rule #1 for any aspiring fraudster - don't hold your assets under your own name. There's no doubt that this is a Davenport vehicle, like Gresham, Capricorn and all the rest. What you found at the Land Registry can't really be used in the article, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll just make some general philosophical comments. First, thank you to Prioryman for explaining things a bit more clearly. As for me personally, I didn't realize that a freehold is only 999 years in the UK. I'll have to read up on that.
But I'm afraid I have to disagree in a limited way with you, Prioryman, on the question of when we can exercise editorial judgment without violating our usual principles on original research. It seems clear to me that at least some of what we would normally regard as reliable sources have reported stuff that's clearly nonsense promulgated by Davenport. At the time it was reported, we had no reason to question it and should have published quotes of it accordingly. But now, with the benefit of hindsight and a criminal conviction and fraud exposed, there's good reason to, as Pulitzer NA put it, "question newspaper sources".
Having said that, I do agree with you that looking things up in the Land Registry is a pretty risky proposition, particularly in a case like this, because interpretation is really difficult.
To sum up what I am proposing is that we be particularly careful about casual old newspaper sources that have proven to be unlikely, at best, given what is known today. Any claim that he made 100 million as a property developer is highly highly suspect, for example, even if at the time it was reported by gold standard sources. Any claim that he owns the freehold should be subjected to strict scrutiny as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. But I don't agree that a 999 year lease is a freehold. It isn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
A 999 year lease is a 999 year lease, it is absolutely not Freehold. The freehold still has control over the property and depending on the convents can even go as far as reseizing the lease. The is nearly happened to the SL government due the building's neglect in 1999. The Lease holder often has to pay ground rent for instance, there can be many more. Anyway, the Lease was converted into freehold with an unknown payment to the Freeholder, Howard De Walden Estates, under section 10(2)(i) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (this is a sub part that define's exactly what is part of the enfranchisement). The point is that the freehold was bought, with a loan from a Monaco bank, by a a company located in Nevis. Who owns this company and therefore the loan and freehold is impossible to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Verification for Fraudulent Valuations

Can we determine what is a valid valuation on a property, such a 33 Portland. Is a claim given to a newspaper more verifiable than a actual sale price in the Land registry or current asking prices for property on that street? Furthermore, why are valuations permitted at all or necessary for a fraudster whose main modus operandi was lying about his wealth and noble background in order to gain trust and rob them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The value of the property has been stated independently by two national newspapers. They don't indicate where they got the information from but neither attributes it to Davenport. Unless you have a source which shows that they are wrong, there is no good reason to remove that information, and especially not because you personally disbelieve their reporting - that is impermissible original research. Also, please read WP:PRIMARY for why trolling the Land Registry would not be a good idea - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable, published secondary and tertiary sources, but Land Registry records would be a primary source. The Sunday Times and Independent qualify as reliable secondary sources and so are preferable. Prioryman (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I and most people don't have access to the Times so its not much use as source. However, news papers are not in the business of property valuation, they are not a qualified source. To claim that becuase its printed in a newspaper, it therefore believable, is wrong. Based on local property values the figure of £30million is false, do you believe estate agents prices or a newspaper interviewing a convicted criminal? Newspapers are not a reliable source of factual information, many of them reported Davenport as a Lord without question, for instance. I got an estimate, based on condition and lease. Zoopla Estimate £831,635. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is also the question of why a property valuation needs to be included at all. Its under a lot of uncertainty and has nothing to do with Ed Davenport, other than being part of his criminal enterprise.Are the property holdings of every notable person in Wikipedia listed? Pulitzer NA (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that it's relevant to the story of how he managed to get hold of it in the first place. Getting it for £50,000 and ending up with a valuation in the millions is a key element of the story. As for the Times, of course you have access to it - you just have to pay for it or to have access to a database of back issues. That doesn't affect its usefulness as a source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that a source from company under police investigation by parliament and the police for its news gather methods is acceptable, but a reference to public record in the land registry is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Correct. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of why. Prioryman (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely. Land Registry is just as accessible and obviously far more accurate than the Times newspaper. So I'll post a link to it and if anyone wants to check its cheaper than a Times subscriptionPulitzer NA (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cognac swimming pool

I've altered the article so as to tone down a reference to Davenport organising a swimming pool full of cognac for a party for Courvoisier. The material was, strictly speaking, verifiable because it comes from the Telegraph, which does talk about a "swimming pool" being filled with cognac and being "so big that you can row across it". However, it also mentions the size of the pool being 1,000 litres, which makes things slightly less spectacular than they seem at first. here is a picture of a 1,000 litre "swimming pool".

1,000 litres of cognac was probably interesting if you were at the party, but I'm not sure if it is encylopaedic. --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit is the lingua franca of this and other confidence tricksters.Pulitzer NA (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add this sort of trivia to the encyclopedia. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tabloids as sources

We're currently referencing this Sunday Mirror story about orgies at his house. I'm not convinced that we should be as the Sunday Mirror isn't the most reliable source. The independent story mentions tabloids reporting about orgies, shall we reword the section to say this and to show that it isn't absolutely certain that there were orgies? Smartse (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It already says, "the Sunday Mirror reported that orgies were being held," which I think is good enough. But I wouldn't object to qualifying the statement further. Rees11 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that we should remove any reference to the Sunday Mirror article given that the subject matter refers to Davenport's house rather than Davenport himself Rowing88 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article in which his confirmed girlfriend openly talks about the orgies Edward-Davenport-jailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.72.173 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page

There seems to be adequate consensus that the current title of "(property developer)" is not good. There appears to be less consensus about what to rename it to. I'm going to go with Edward Davenport (criminal) for now, and there is precedent for this, see for example Carl Williams (criminal) and Mark Moran (criminal). Some concerns have been raised about BLP issues and neutrality, and I do think those are factors to consider. But it isn't non-neutral to say that someone is a criminal, if they are, so I don't think neutrality carries the day. And the BLP issues would be more compelling for me if he were notable for something other than his crimes, which he really isn't. (Some minor notability as a flamboyant character, but not sufficient to bring him into Wikipedia, I think, were it not for his crimes.)

I'm not adamant about this change, but I think we'd need some compelling reason to switch to something else. Most of the other proposals are themselves problematic on neutrality or other grounds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we please move it to Edward Davenport (fraudster)? That would be more consistent with other UK fraudster disambiguations, e.g. Kevin Foster (fraudster), Michael Brown (fraudster), etc. Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Prioryman here, it is also not quite so POV. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
NPOV is not really the issue, I think - it's more a matter of specificity and consistency with other similar people. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally happy with this proposal. Shall I do it, or does someone else want to do the honors?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Go for it, J! :) Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the article appears in the list "con artists by century of birth" as a 19th century birth. I am sorry, but I do not know how to correct this as the birth date in the article description is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.63.114 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(fraudster)?

Since the article text contains only a one-sentence paragraph about his fraud conviction, is it not somewhat POV to title the article "Edward Davenport (fraudster)"? I notice that the disambig page lists this page as "Edward Davenport (property developer)"; given the balance of the article's content and our policies on biographies, I propose a move back to "(property developer)". Yunshui (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I am dubious of the current title, its highly POV. businessman would seem better? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Blow, moved it - I agree with your logic! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems like Kittybrewster didn't... Yunshui (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Placed a POV tag on this. Kittybrewster seems to have a POV problem??? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I placed a notice on Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. This things is moving around WAY TOO MUCH!!! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(Businessman). Putting (Criminal) is HIGHLY POV in this case. His entire life does not revolve around fraud. The lede should also mention business first, then convicted of fraud for the same reasons. Ravensfire (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Swapped the order in the lede to property developer and convicted fraudster. Don't like that phrasing though, but wasn't sure what was better. Maybe just "property developer"? Then add something about in September 2011 he was convicted of fraud related to an advanced-fee scheme? Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Ravensfire, supported! I couldn't see that on the references/facts that we have to hand, that property developer reflected what he actually did. Seemed to have his hand in numerous businesses, so hence my choice of businessman. He also has a deft hand of engaging lawyers rather quickly, so hence the move from fraudster to businessman. I can't see how on the balance of what we have as references at present, that we can tag him in the tile as fraudster or criminal - its just too POV. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
He was never a Lord. Just Lord of the Manor of ....... See the references for multiple WP:PEACOCK. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No doubt at all that the new title is non-WP:NPOV. See WP:TITLECHANGES. Any move to a title other than "(developer)" at this point would be a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. It needs to be moved back. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What about Edward Davenport (socialite) which may be more descriptively accurate. Fmph (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The test under WP:TITLE would seem to be what made the person notable, which is not to be confused with what they're best known as. The way I see it, his notability arises from his engagement in property development, which in turn elevated him to the arguable level of socialite, or more recently, convicted criminal (which is what got this whole conversation started). My own preference would be to restore the label of "property developer", as stated by Trident13. As is the set standard, however, WP:CONSENSUS will determine the proper title. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
And that is, by your own definition, where you are wrong. He did NOT become notable, because of his disputed ownership of the Embassy. His fame and source of initial wealth was as an organiser of parties, especially the Gatecrashers Ball which were headline news for several weeks.178.37.120.122 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem here around him is the self-created/centred PR that he's generated. Even edits records of our own page here show - as Kittybrewster points out - various peacock edits. Much of the side commentary from the media around the property development "business" seems to centre on him renting a building, then cliaming to own it, and then sub-letting it. So is that property development, or did that title here (as opposed to businessman), then suit his means? Socialite again seems to suit his highly-spun image. My personal conclusion is that given a few weeks, we'll have a lot more sources on what to call him - at present just get it away from the POV! Hence going back on our track and reverting to Edward Davenport (property developer) seems the safest option. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(Property developer) works for me. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I also think that (Property developer) is the best option. SmartSE (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking over the discussion, I think WP:CONSENSUS has been reached that the proper title would be Edward Davenport (property developer). Would you do the honors? I tried once, but I think the already-existing redirect got in the way, so a G6 deletion may be needed first, and that's an admin-only button. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was about to, but I came across this by the Press Association who call him an entrepreneur. Looking over the article, I can't really see why he is called a property developer, whereas entrepreneur seems more accurate. Would Edward Davenport (entrepreneur) be ok? SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no (caveat: not yet!) We could debate this till the proverbiale cows come home, but at least or time line and his lawyers were happy with Edward Davenport (property developer). More sources as they rise over the next few weeks will support a consensus on if/which title to move him to later, but at the moment the goal is to remove the POV. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok. That's done SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no indication of him developing any property. He's on his second jail sentence for fraud related crime, plus the VAT offences, so his career seems to heavily biased towards crime. Looking at the Wiki definition of entrepreneur, the correct title is Criminal Entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.120.122 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we end up calling the article, it might be a good idea to rename this talkpage too... be a shame for all this discussion to be nuked by a G8.Yunshui (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Woops. My bad. That's now fixed. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank You SmartSE. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever he is he is NOT a property developer. He owns one house in London (which he acquired through a 'development scheme') but there is no indication that he has done anything of the sort since. Socialite, Entrepreneur, social climber, twice convicted fraud or leave it blank. But NOT a property developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.120.122 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your non-neutral opinion has been noted. However, WP:CONSENSUS is that the correct title is "(property developer)". Perhaps if you decide on a less combative and more neutral title, it would meet with serious consideration. Read through WP:TITLE; it might give you a bit of insight, not to mention inform you as to why your preferred title is not acceptable. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
non-neutral my arse. He is/was NOT a property developer. Fmph (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with (entrepeneur)? It's neutral, sufficiently disambiguating without being misleadingly overspecific - the problem with the current disambig. VanIsaacWScontribs 05:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As the title is supposed to signify what made him notable, then its obvious that he should be described as a party organiser or socialite. He did not become notable for his ownership (actually, a short term lease) of 33, he got far, far more press coverage for Gatecrashers Ball than anything since. 178.37.120.122 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, further debating on this topic has occurred on Wikipedia at Talk:Edward_Davenport_(fraudster)#Moving_the_page. --Rebroad (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent move

Have moved the page from "Edward Davenport (fraudster)" to "Edward Davenport (convicted fraudster)", as this is more NPOV. Fraudster is a subjective term, and not everyone agrees he is one. But it cannot be disputed that he was convicted of fraud, and therefore this new title is less POV. I hope all agree. --Rebroad (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebroad, I apologize for moving the location of your post, but it is reanimating a four-year dead discussion so I felt it would be best to start a new one. I honestly don't see how adding "convicted" to the title makes it more neutral, and thus the added length and wordiness just seems unnecessary. I have moved the page back to its original location. If you really want to move this page, I suggest using {{requested move}} and get the discussion going again. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Rebroad missed the discussion at #Moving the page above in which I pointed out that "(fraudster)" is in fact already used in several similar article titles. It's also rather bizarre to argue that it's POV to describe someone as a fraudster when they have in fact been convicted of fraud in a court of law. It's not a question of opinion but a verified fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Davenport (fraudster). 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Davenport_(fraudster)/Archive_1&oldid=1136338950"