Talk:Jeremy Thorpe

List of media appearances
I have removed the long list of bullet-pointed media appearances. There were way, way too many, and they do not add to the understanding of Thorpe. If a reliable source (such as one of the books listed in the references) can be found that says "Thorpe was portrayed in many documentaries and satirical sketches, such as X, Y and Z", that could be added at the appropriate point. But not just listing them all. The mentions of Dr Who, for example, while mildly interesting, probably belong in articles on those episodes but are emphatically NOT relevant to a biography of Thorpe. My own personal inclination is to remove the "Popular Media" section and burn it with fire, but I can see the necessity for including what is there at the moment. I will not revert over this, as I find edit warring tedious, but I would appreciate it if the matter was discussed here before anyone replaced that bizarre footnote. Sarastro (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hands up on pushing it into a footnote - that was me after my removal of the information was also reverted. Also not wanting to edit war, I went for the second option of pushing it all into a footnote, but my preference is just not to have much of it at all, except where truly relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. My view is that outright removal is the better option. If possible, the gist of the footnote could be added as one sentence if a reference which covers all of this could be found. In fairness, it is perhaps a point that could be made if he was frequently satirised or something similar. I've got a copy of Bloch's biography somewhere, I'll see if it says anything that we could use. Sarastro (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. I agree. I would delete all of the "In Popular Media" section. The link back from A Very English Scandal is enough.Graham Beards (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Most politicians don't have Channel 4 Secret Lives documentaries or editions of BBC Panorama, made about them. I think these two items could reasonably be restored, if appropriate WP:RS source(s) are available. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloch's book does not really mention anything about Thorpe's "media reception" other than the usual coverage of the scandals. However, he explicitly mentions Peter Cook taking the piss out of Cantley at the Secret Policeman's Ball, which is something that could be added if that was thought worthwhile. Somewhat surprisingly, he makes no mention of the Mangold documentary that I can see; I would also agree this could be added if we can find a decent source (not in that abomination of a media section, but both of these would fit in the trial section). I disagree on Secret Lives (though I could be persuaded); I don't think it is notable that he featured in some documentaries unless those were particularly important or earth-shattering. The Mangold one I think would qualify on these grounds given that its broadcast was stopped. Sarastro (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also notice some of the information about Peter Cook is in the Thorpe affair article. Nothing on Mangold's documentary there either though. Sarastro (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarify the shooting
Newton took a shot at Scott, this is conceded by all.

Whose idea was it, Newton’s or Thorpe’s?

The article does not make this clear, but perhaps it is not clear anyway. A summary of the different stories, and when they were offered, would improve the article. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:6CB7:7F91:945F:DC9C (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Are edits such as this improvements? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . This person is a known persistent vandal. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Harry the house‎ for latest incidents. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Private Life
Almost every wikipage has a section on private life, but not this one. Why not? Rustygecko (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the article provides detailed coverage of a private life that became all too public.--Jburlinson (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)