Talk:Darren Grimes

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

So the lead has been marked as too short which from the above quote would be true. I can't think what else could be reasonably put in the lead as the article is very short on substance. The article is basically just a short bio and that's it. Again I wonder if deletion, merging or redirection should have happened prior. Jclaxp talk 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

″People are not automatically entitled to have BLP articles about them as people just because they were founder or president of a group that has an article, so nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)"

As per the previous deletion discussion this article is still generally poor quality with poor sources. It should really be fully reviewed, checked and either information from poor sources removed or the article removed. I've tried to clean it up to some degree but to be honest it seems a fairly useless article when the BeLeave page contains more relevant information. I've tried to clean it up to some degree but it seems kind of pointless. --Jclaxp (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In July 2020, he sparked outraged after hosting an interview with the historian David Starkey who said "Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there?"^[1] Grimes did not challenge the comment.^[2] Former Chancellor Sajid Javid called the comments "racist" and said that they serve as "a reminder of the appalling views that still exist".^[3] Garhut233 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garhut233 Hi. Is this content you think should be added to the article? Twitter and Youtube would not usually constitute good sources. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for some guidance as to how this could be included in the article. Jclaxp talk 17:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing for now as this needs much better sourcing (

no longer be used on Wikipedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Smartse - the information that Trimperphon keeps adding should not be stated in the lead section of the article, nor should statements by individuals be presented in Wikipedia's voice as if they are undisputed facts. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the POV box to this page, until some protection is added, as it keeps being edited by the same person. --Vvvx3 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not quote a tweet by Owen Jones or refer to it at all. The tweet is embedded in the page but if it needs to be referred to we must reference the tweet directly and not the article. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the website has never had editorial control of the tweet’s content, and if the tweet is deleted by Owen Jones or Twitter, a reference to the article would not serve to verify that the Tweet ever existed.---Pontificalibus 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Pontificalibus. I specifically included Jone's response to Grimes because;

a) he's arguably the best known of the examples given in the article;

b) his tweet had the highest engagement rates;

c) his tweet gives a fairly representative flavour of the larger response &

d) I feel it's important to mention at least one example of the pushback Grimes got to give the incident proper context.

I don't agree with your rationale for excluding it. The tweet is in the article, so I see no reason why it can't be referenced. Additionally, the article is archived here: https://archive.fo/9uYxT, so it really doesn't matter who deletes what. I propose that the text is reinserted (particularly as Grime's is now complaining about the "pile-on" he got) - or, alternatively, a different example could be proposed. --DSQ (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing rings of

WP:RECENTISM to me - is this really a noteworthy event in Grimes' life or a hullabaloo in the twittersphere? Searching for "marcus rashford" "darren grimes" doesn't reveal any coverage outside of the tabloids (of which the Indy100 is one), low quality web sources and a brief mention in this comment piece, suggesting that this isn't a particularly significant event. I don't have too much of a problem with including about the tweet that he sent and that it was considered controversial, but including loads of context and Owen's tweet is excessive. While it might not be strictly against BLP in terms of V, it is definitely against the spirit of it: BLPs must be written conservatively is hard to reconcile with including you will always be a poisonous nothing. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand what you're saying re: Twitter hullabaloo - but Grimes obviously thinks it's a noteworthy event - he's been on

Ayesha Hazarika? Could've been worse, I could've quoted Tom Sherrington...... --DSQ (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Addendum: re: your edit summary - I went with "heavily criticised" as opposed to simple criticism to reflect the wording in the article. Possibly not the best choice of words, severely may have been better - but lambasted & slammed rise above plain criticism imo. --DSQ (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the context of the Rashford tweet, namely, that Rashford had lobbied the Johnson government to extend the programme of free school meals, but also the racist abuse that was being directed at Rashford, and which is relevant given Grimes' previous commentary on the *lack* of racism in Britain.

talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Conservative?

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't the lede describe him as far right? (86.149.119.205 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC))[reply] Presenting on GB News doesn't make a person far right automatically, but it is suggestive. Nangaf (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Darren Grimes throughout school was known as “crafty wank” having been caught by fellow students masterbating whilst in public, in school - which is in itself a crime in the U.K., that of outraging public decency <ref>https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/your-options/flashing-indecent-exposure-and-sex-acts-public#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20an%20offence,with%20'outraging%20public%20decency'.<ref> <https://www.zgr.net/en/wiki/fact-check-is-darren-grimes-gay-crafty-wank-nickname-everything-to-know-about/> 2A01:4B00:A82C:1800:C991:213:9834:CE8D (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Motion tabled for mention of this topic. 185.150.170.2 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]