Talk:Richard Sharp (banker)

Disambiguation

I'm wondering if it's worth changing the title of this article to "Richard Sharp (UK banker)" and of Richard Sharp (executive) to "Richard Sharp (US executive)" just to aid disambiguation. If Richard Sharp is indeed confirmed as the next BBC Chairman he's likely to be increasingly the subject of WP searches. --Lost tourist (Talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for claim that accusations of bias against the BBC are false?

The accusation that the BBC exhibits left-wing bias is categorically stated to be false in this article without an apparent source. Political bias within the BBC is a large and complex issue and probably shouldn't be tackled in this off-hand way within this article, but if it is to be tackled then it needs some robust sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.157 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the new Chairman of the BBC has a twin sister who is a leading judge? Source: "He has a twin sister, Victoria, who is a senior judge. " ([1])

• Reviewed: Richard Platt (brewer)

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

• Hi Edwardx, review follows: article created 6 January and exceeds minimum length; sourcing is generally good but there is one citation needed and a bare URL to sort out; the lead will need to be expanded to resolve the orange tag; Earwig shows some similarity in wording from the sources that you may want to review but I think this is acceptable as it is mostly limited to names of institutions and so forth; a QPQ is needed. The fact that Victoria is his twin is not in the source used to support the sentence in the article (only states that they are siblings). The hook currently focuses on his sister, I think it would be good to provide one or two alternatives that are focussed on Richard - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Edwardx: The article also has a citation needed tag that needs to be resolved before this can be promoted. @Dumelow: As for an alternative hook, how about:

ALT1 ... that Richard Sharp, the next Chairman of the BBC, has stated that he plans to donate his £160,000 salary to charity?

ALT1 is dependent on the hook having an inline citation , which it currently does not have. The only other possible hook fact I could see (about the controversy surrounding his appointment) is an obvious BLP violation so that's probably not a good idea. I'm rather ambivalent on whether or not we should link to BBC; on one hand, the BBC is one of the world's most famous broadcasting organizations and presumably many people have at least heard of it, on the other hand we are writing for a global audience and making assumptions about which abbreviations are well-known or not can be tricky. As for the original hook, is there a particular reason why Sharp isn't mentioned by name? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, ALT1 is fine for me. Edwardx, still a couple of things outstanding on this one per comments above - Dumelow (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

QPQ now done. The bare URL has gone. N citation could be found for the citation needed sentence, so this sentence has been removed. The BBC article mentions them being twins, so I have re-used that cite. I have aded a cite for him planning to give his salary to charity. I don't think we need to link the BBC - like many acronyms (eg NATO, CIA, FBI, MI5) it is better known by its initials than its full name, and it is well-known worldwide. As always, readers can always use the search box. As for not naming him, the job and organistion are more noatble than he is - after all, before the appointment we did not have a page for him. As for ALT1, it is a bit humdrum, and it appears that he can well afford to do the job unpaid. Alas the more interesting facts might well fall foul of the "focus unduly on negative aspects of living people" stipulation. Edwardx (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll give it a tick. Citation added, hooks check out, QPQ added. I'll leave hook selection up to the promoter - Dumelow (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

to

piers Galveston 88.83.100.19 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Gary Lineker controversy

There is no clear evidence linking Sharp to this. The section should be removed. S C Cheese (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The main site for this is now appearing on Lineker's page. I have edited this article to reduce it to comments on Sharp's reponsibilities. S C Cheese (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Mention of the cartoon

@DeFacto: You should not have re-instated the trivia about the cartoon. It’s not pertinent – it’s not even about Richard Sharp. The story is about the Guardian and Martin Rowson’s cartoon. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, who do you think the cartoon, described as being a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon", was attacking? Who did The Guardian make their grovelling apology too? This news item was linked to Sharp across the media, both British and international.

Given the weight of reliable sources behind this story and that is 100% related to the subject of this article, I propose reinstating this extraordinary event in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts about who the cartoon was attacking are not relevant, and who the cartoon was attacking is not the point. Explain to me what information about Richard Sharp is given in your text, and where this is stated in a (non-opinion) source. (Note that the Spectator is an opinion piece, so doesn’t count for this exercise.) I see that material on this incident has been added to the Martin Rowson article, where it is relevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, which text do you men by Explain to me what information about Richard Sharp is given in your text? All I did was restore content added by someone else that you deleted.

Is your objection to the inclusion based on the current wording and sourcing? If it is, then as the subject of the cartoon is easily verifiable, and as the weight of reliable sources carrying this event is considerable, then I'm sure we can agree on how best to phrase it, and which of the plethora of sources best conveys the general consensus of those sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I referred to ‘your’ text because you were the last person who added it. The text in question is On 29 April The Guardian apologised and removing a cartoon by Martin Rowson from their website, which depicted Sharp as a rich Jew, saying it "does not meet our editorial standards" after it was branded a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon".

My objection to the text is that it says nothing about Richard Sharp. It is about a cartoon in the Guardian. This article is about Richard Sharp. The text is also inaccurate, as it speaks as if the cartoon ‘depicted Sharp as a rich Jew’ when this is disputed. But this is beside the point, which is that there is no information given about Richard Sharp. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sweet6970 so, for example, the cartoon "The Rhodes Colossus" has nothing to do with Cecil Rhodes in whose article it appears... it's just about Punch magazine? Maybe that's why it has it's own article? And the image on the front cover of Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011 has nothing to do with Muhammad, it's just about Charlie Hebdo... after all, no one got hurt, did they? Etc., etc., etc. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, ok, not my text then, but the text I restored, thanks.

As for the content of that text, what do you suppose "Sharp" refers to in this part of the text: a cartoon... which depicted Sharp? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The cartoon The Rhodes Colossus is not mentioned in the article on Cecil Rhodes – it is merely used as an illustration. So I think you have proved my point there.

If I am reading the cartoon correctly (I have it in front of me, but I find Martin Rowson’s cartoons difficult to decipher) the cartoon also features a caricature of Boris Johnson. But no-one has added reference to the cartoon in the article on Johnson. As far as I am aware, Mr Sharp has not made any public comment on the cartoon. The BBC news report says he declined to comment.[2] If he had made an official complaint, then this might be worth a mention in this article.

And if Richard Sharp had been murdered, that would get mentioned in this article.

I ask again: what information about Richard Sharp does the text give?

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah, "merely used as an illustration". That's not a mention, lol. Why is it there at all? Maybe because it's 100% about Rhodes. Johnson is at the basis of this whole sleazy story (no surprise), so that's probably why Rowson included him. And I'm not sure Muhammad made any comment about the Charlie Hebdo cover, did he? As far as I know, prominent political cartoons aren't meant to "give information" about their subjects. They are just meant to poke fun. The controversy over this one has very widespread coverage. Whether Sharp himself has made any comment at all is irrelevant. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, the information that the text gives about Sharp, and which could be elaborated upon further, is that he is depicted in the cartoon - here: The Guardian apologised after removing a cartoon by Martin Rowson, which depicted Sharp as a rich Jew. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, that's true. The article currently doesn't say he's a rich Jew, I guess. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

BBC internal inquiry

Is this continuing? S C Cheese (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

End of term as Chair

My updating of his position has been reverted. The article is now misleading. The Occupation field is no longer accurate. What's the correct way of bringing the page up to date without a reversion battle? Thanks S C Cheese (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you did it anyway, but should have updated it in the article body first and replaced the ols source with the new there. I fixed it here. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)