Talk:Darren Grimes

Lead too short - September 2020
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)

Poor Quality - April 2020
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020
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?" Grimes did not challenge the comment. Former Chancellor Sajid Javid called the comments "racist" and said that they serve as "a reminder of the appalling views that still exist". Garhut233 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Is this content you think should be added to the article? Twitter and Youtube would not usually constitute good sources. See 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)
 * Closing for now as this needs much better sourcing (WP:RS). Daily Mail can no longer be used on Wikipedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Police investigation
I explained here why I made the changes I did to the lead. To recap: a) the lead is a summary of the article and it is undue to include so much here. b) "politically motivated" and "sinister and foolish" are opinions and must be referenced as such, not written as though they are facts. Please explain why you disagree. SmartSE (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Tweet in article
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I understand what you're saying re: Twitter hullabaloo - but Grimes obviously thinks it's a noteworthy event - he's been on Talkradio pontificating about the pushback he's received, which was also covered in the Daily Express and he's still tweeting about it today. :) He's not often covered outside of the tabloids to be fair, usually the Daily Express, which is only one notch up from the Mail. Umm, I don't think Jone's tweet  equates to "loads of context", it's just a single response which reflects the general feeling & I've given my rationale for why I chose that specific tweet. I don't believe it's excessive and I don't think there's a valid policy-based reason for excluding it. But that's just me. :) I've suggested using a different tweet - Adil Ray, Ayesha Hazarika? Could've been worse, I could've quoted Tom Sherrington...... --DSQ  (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Hanjaf1 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Conservative?
Shouldn't the lede describe him as far right? (86.149.119.205 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC))
 * Presenting on GB News doesn't make a person far right automatically, but it is suggestive. Nangaf (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023
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 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'.  2A01:4B00:A82C:1800:C991:213:9834:CE8D (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

crafty wank
This is a page about Darren Grimes so it is strange that there is no mention of the crafty wank saga that took place on social media around him, his enjoyment of said crafty wank, the exposing of his enjoyment of the crafty wank, and his threats of legal action against those who exposed his love of the crafty wank.

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

I’ve always wondered why the crafty wank saga isn’t documented. It’s such an integral part of why he is ‘famous’. 2A02:C7C:767E:C900:F037:AC2D:1AFA:22D4 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)