Talk:Andrew Regan

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)

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)

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)

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 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.
 * 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 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changing citations
Why were the citations changed to older, less accessible ones? That does not make any sense. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The out of court settlement
The out of court settlement is referenced to an article on The Grocer. It is about Regan and it makes it clear that the defendants of the civil case paid money to the Co-op as part of the settlement. An anonymous editor is trying to suggest that Regan was not part of the group that made the payment and remove reference of it from this article. This is counter to the way I read the reference material. If Regan wasn't part of this then why is it mentioned in an article about him? The whole thing is styled as the "Regan matter". While the article as a little vague about exactly which member(s) of the group paid the money, I don't see any problem with saying that Regan, as part of the group, paid money. He was seen as the central and defining member of the group. I would welcome views from other editors on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
I mistakenly suspected copyright infringement when text was borrowed from the Trans Antarctic Expedition website.

I apologised to User Jiminy12345, who drew it to my attention that it is not infringement, as there is a grant of licence:

However, unfortunately, this kind of licence grant cannot be accepted at Wikipedia, which normally only accepts CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, and Public Domain contributions. The reason is that it is our aim, as an encyclopaedia project, to produce articles that can be freely re-used, even for commercial purposes and in derivative works (such as books, CDs and other websites). The words "reproduced accurately" in the expedition website licence grant mean it does not permit derivative works.

If the expedition website were to be re-licensed under an accepted Creative Commons license, the material could be considered (as long as there is consensus that it is encyclopaedic, and not, for example, promotional.) We would, of course, have to credit the author.

This is covered in more detail at Donating copyrighted materials.

There are also concise explanations at
 * foundation:Terms of Use (see the second section, headed "Importing text") and
 * 1) COPYRIGHT

So, regretfully, I again deleted the section on the Bio-Inspired Ice Vehicle. To restore it, any volunteer may write the information from scratch in their own words.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to number of criminal trials and settlement of civil litigation
The policy on BLP's, particularly that as to NPOV, should be adhered to. The essential fact is that Regan was aquitted, no more, no less. The settlement of civil litigation seems a non-point: people settle litigation without admission of liability every day and I have never seen a reference to a matter of this kind in any other BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergy945 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you can't pick and choose what goes in by whether it flatters Regan, who I assume is your client in this matter. Everything is well cited and neither disproportionate nor overstated. The Co-op affair remains the principle reason why Regan is notable. It needs to be covered in a reasonable depth.
 * This is a vandalism issue being dressed up as a content dispute. Please stop trying to censor the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no way my edit can be described as vandalism.Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I am merely adhering to the policy on BLP's. Your own editing history indicates you have an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergy945 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing accurate, referenced and relevant content from articles does compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, hence it is vandalism. I have no axe to grind here and I am not the only person to have reverted your removal of the content. You have clearly learned how to use Wikipedia terminology to dress this up as a content dispute but there is no substantive dispute here, just vandalism. I will continue to restore the content you keep removing unless somebody arises a valid objection to it. Simply citing the BLP policy as an excuse to censor an article is not acceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
Is it appropriate to mention the number of children or the name and occupation of Regan's father? A source for the latter is http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/apr/13/1.

An unregistered user has changed six children (sourced in 2008) to seven without a source. Anyone have a source for seven? This article has enough well-sourced things the Regan family wouldn't want to read: a rumoured 7th child would rub in salt.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

AIM listing?
Someone please research this more deeply. I can't easily reconcile this edit summary "Corvus Capital Limited never listed on AIM. Corvus Capital Inc was listed on AIM and was put into voluntary liquidation"[] with the 2007 Telegraph article.

As background, OpenCorporates.com lists only a couple of registrations named Corvus Capital: an LLC in Delaware, and an SA in Panama

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Regan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314131342/http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/future/ to http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/future
 * Added tag to http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases/press-releases-2003/andrew-regan-acquitted-of-theft-of-%C2%A324-million.aspx
 * Added tag to http://news.coop/news/Miscellaneous/562
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010215622/http://corvus.com/index.php/overview/people/andrew_regan/ to http://corvus.com/index.php/overview/people/andrew_regan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621085456/http://www.juniorpolartraveller.com/sponsors-andrew-regan-foundation/ to http://www.juniorpolartraveller.com/sponsors-andrew-regan-foundation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128092753/http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/ to http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/
 * Added tag to http://www.leaderpost.com/story_print.html?id=4902937&sponsor=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect Statements all across this page
There are several factually incorrect and damaging statements across the entirety of this page which has not been updated in over 10 years!!!. I might add that Regan does not reside in Geneva, Switzerland amongst other entirely false statements. The page does not include his Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Bio-Inspired Algorithms. There are common misconceptions in the Co-Op section of this Wikipedia page which does not state nearly any of the facts, where is the fine that Hambros Bank were given for failing to advise DR Regan with Due Skill, Care and Diligence? (This was the second largest fine ever by the FCA at the time) where is the fact that he was fully acquitted? When I try to add these I am constantly having a delete battle with several people on this page. This page and its false statements are very damaging as they do not represent the true events that took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiminvestor1234 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I imagine that one of the reasons people have been reverting your changes is because they appear not to have been supported by citations to any references. If there are any reliable sources that would support the content that you want to add, please provide them. Similarly, if there are any assertions on this page that are not supported by reliable sources, please point them out. Please do not assert or imply that editors of this article have any animus against the subject of the article - assume good faith and try to work with people constructively. Thank you. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We can deal with specific issues one by one more easily than try to work it all out in one big go.
 * Please can somebody post WP:RS references (not his own website) for specific things like where he lives now, where and when he got his PhD and so on. If he does have a PhD then we can cover this. We won't be referring to him as "Dr" throughout though. We don't do that for anybody else (well, except for The Doctor).
 * Also, are "Bio-Inspired Algorithms" the same as Bio-inspired computing? If so, that is something that can be mentioned in a non-promotional way. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. There is reference here to his Thesis for his Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in bio-Inspired Algorithms. https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/file/942a6461-b62f-4a9a-945b-f6d6e9adbd3d/1/regan2014system.pdf there is also information on completion of this on Corvus Capital's website. The reference to the Hambros Fine can be found here https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12249055.hambros-bank-fined/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiminvestor1234 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

yes, bio-inspired algorithms are the same as bio-inspired computing in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiminvestor1234 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We can use the PhD thesis to show its subject but it doesn't prove he was awarded a doctorate. I'll see what else I can find. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are some links to help us find good sources:
 * Unfortunately there are several other people, including at least one with a PhD, with the same name which makes them quite hard to use. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are several other people, including at least one with a PhD, with the same name which makes them quite hard to use. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It was painful trying to find proof of the PhD but I found this: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4X5DaWcOkYkJ:https://www.brookes.ac.uk/Documents/Students/Research-Degrees/Graduate-College-Newsletter-Issue-4/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk (For some reason, the original PDF, https://www.brookes.ac.uk/documents/students/research-degrees/graduate-college-newsletter-issue-4/, just won't download for me.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

it should be added that his Algorithm forecasted tomorrow's (t+1) directional trend of the S&P500 at 55.1% as mentioned in the PhD thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiminvestor1234 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

citation's 6&11 regarding an "out of court settlement" the links both do not work and are very controversial newspapers regardless. There is no proof Regan was even included in the out of court settlement -therefore this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiminvestor1234 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)