Talk:Paul Flowers (banker)

Naming - banker?
He spent three years as chairman of the Co-operative Bank, yet has spent 40+ years as a Methodist minister and at least 15+ as a Labour councillor. Made headlines post his resignation from Co-op for (allegedly) being filmed buying drugs, so again not a banker then. Hence the naming convention on this one as a "banker" seems wrong. Not sure what it should be yet, but don't move until discussed further. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the point, and I'm open to suggestions on the topic. Nice work expanding the article, by the way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think his notability is less about being a banker, and more about his association with the co-op movement. In fact, some - including the Treasury Committee of the UK House of Commons - have questioned his credibility as a banker. Jpmaytum (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Co-operative movement
This page really needs close monitoring by people with a knowledge of the co-operative movement. As the individual is currently in the news - with events unfolding rapidly - many journalists from usually good sources are still finding their way through the issues, often with some inaccuracies or misunderstandings creeping in to their stories. I'm sure it will resolve with time. Jpmaytum (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Paul Flowers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting restrictions on spent convictions
If you are a UK editor (or visit the UK) thinking about mentioning a spent (old) conviction, you probably should read this, and consider if you would have a reasonable defence to any defamation claim. Rwendland (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that (the bit you removed ) - as this has been widely reported in the British press (broadsheet as well as tabloid), then they clearly believe this falls under at least one of the justifications (it is true and is clearly fair comment, as it relates to the more recent misadventures of the Crystal Methodist). That said, I won't be touching this with a bargepole just in case. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC))


 * I suspect it would be safe, if multiple UK newspapers report it. But like you I'd rather not take the risk - and this may end up sub-judice anyway, when I think any jury would not be told. Best play safe I think. Rwendland (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

CoOp and the Labour Party
"On 31 March 2012, the Co-op Group donated £50,000 through the Labour Party to support the office of shadow chancellor Ed Balls's office.[4] On 1 April 2013, the Labour Party took out a £1.2m loan from Co-op Bank, to be repaid by 2016.[4]" - Is this relevant either to Flowers biog or even relevant to the current scandal? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If its so dubious, why is it in the BBC, Channel4 and the broadsheet coveragebroadsheet coverage? Secondly, why's Ed Millibland trying to hiot back over it? And thirdly, it seems the inquiry will include this within its brief. If there are references linking them all, then why not? Just because some - including Jimmy Wales - don't like anti-Labour stuff included on Wikipedia, there's no need to edit it out on neutrality grounds. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's potentially libellous and under BLP rules should be removed immediately. There is nothing in the references that say that Flowers was involved in either the donation or the loan; its inclusion in an article about Flowers infers such and is an attempt to try and infer some kind of doggy and backroom dealings involved. It's potentially libellous and is in violation of several of wikipedia's policies. --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it's libellous it's not relevant to a Flowers biog. We need to ensure bias doesn't creep onto this page. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. At best, it's a piece of WP:OR by implication.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm afraid bias and political point scoring do unfortunately appear to be creeping in. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The political point scoring, synthesis and implication are very much outside of Wikipedia and these questions should be reflected in the article with proper attribution. JASpencer (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am apolitical. Flowers is gay. Every time I try to post this fact it is deleted. What's going on? There is no shame in being gay. Are the pro-Labour supporters deleting the section? If so I wonder why? Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I should add to the previous remark that Mr Flowers is not openly gay. Apologies. Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Private Life
Is Mr Flowers married?Fletcherbrian (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a section on this?Fletcherbrian (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned Flowers is gay.

Why is this information being deleted? This information is of interest to historians, is in the public interest, and is not libellous. The religious website "The Church Today", December 2013, states: "It has since emerged that the openly-gay Mr Flowers resigned from his position as Labour councillor in Bradford in 2011." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherbrian (talk • contribs)
 * "Openly gay" means he has explicitly come out as gay. You would need a source establishing that he has made such a statement.  An assertion by another party (even if in a good source) is not sufficient.  Also: please learn to sign your posts.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your help. Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Duck test indicates Flowers is gay. Fletcherbrian (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete this article
Why is such a marginal criminal character profiled on Wikipedia? This article should not appear here. Any reference to this individual should appear on the article "Co-operative Bank". 86.168.57.251 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable argument for deletion under WP:BIO1E, but he was also Chairman of a significant bank which makes him reasonably notable without all the high-profile news. As the WP:BASIC notability criteria "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" is passed I'm inclined to keep the article. Rwendland (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Material from Co-operative Bank article
A piece on Flowers was added near the beginning of The Co-operative Bank article (last para of the intro) by Zhu Haifeng. Most of it was more biographical than specifically appropriate to the Bank. It was fairly well referenced with news items. I considered summarising it and moving it here. However, the piece was reverted by Nomoskedasticity, who commented "Certainly does not belong in the lead; some might be appropriate in the body -- determine via discussion on talk page, please". The piece can still be found at the old revision here. Subsequently Zhu Haifeng has posted a similar piece here. Given the issues above I'm wondering whether the material is of enough significance and whether it is defamatory. Should it be moved, left in place or deleted? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Crystal methodist"
I removed a sentence from the article noting that the drugs revelations had led to Flowers being referred to as the "crystal methodist". Nomoskedasticity has reverted my removal. I'll agree it is well sourced, but I'm not sure it is "encyclopedic". It feels like the fact that he has been given a snarky name by the press isn't exactly encyclopedic material or "responsible" writing as BLP requires. It feels more like trivia and hardly in the spirit of BLP. I may be overly sensitive on this though—others may feel differently. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the coverage of that particular term as applied to him is so extensive that it belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - contradictory info ('Retired' but apparently still 'Active')
In the Infobox, as of 3 January 2022 his occupation is described as "Retired" but his 'Years active' are given as "1975-present" implying he is still active as a banker and/or Methodist minister. There is no information on his life in this article more recent that his removal from the roll of active Methodist Ministers and ban on financial service employment by the FCA in 2017/18. Many would be surprised his part in the Co-op Bank's loss did not lead to appearance in the law courts and possibly prison.Cloptonson (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)