Talk:Richard Sharp (banker)

Disambiguation
I'm wondering if it's worth changing the title of this article to "Richard Sharp (UK banker)" and of Richard Sharp (executive) to "Richard Sharp (US executive)" just to aid disambiguation. If Richard Sharp is indeed confirmed as the next BBC Chairman he's likely to be increasingly the subject of WP searches. --Lost tourist (Talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for claim that accusations of bias against the BBC are false?
The accusation that the BBC exhibits left-wing bias is categorically stated to be false in this article without an apparent source. Political bias within the BBC is a large and complex issue and probably shouldn't be tackled in this off-hand way within this article, but if it is to be tackled then it needs some robust sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.157 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

to
piers Galveston 88.83.100.19 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Gary Lineker controversy
There is no clear evidence linking Sharp to this. The section should be removed. S C Cheese (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The main site for this is now appearing on Lineker's page. I have edited this article to reduce it to comments on Sharp's reponsibilities. S C Cheese (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Mention of the cartoon
You should not have re-instated the trivia about the cartoon. It’s not pertinent – it’s not even about Richard Sharp. The story is about the Guardian and Martin Rowson’s cartoon. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sweet6970, who do you think the cartoon, described as being a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon", was attacking? Who did The Guardian make their grovelling apology too? This news item was linked to Sharp across the media, both British and international.
 * Given the weight of reliable sources behind this story and that is 100% related to the subject of this article, I propose reinstating this extraordinary event in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My thoughts about who the cartoon was attacking are not relevant, and who the cartoon was attacking is not the point. Explain to me what information about Richard Sharp is given in your text, and where this is stated in a (non-opinion) source. (Note that the Spectator is an opinion piece, so doesn’t count for this exercise.) I see that material on this incident has been added to the Martin Rowson article, where it is relevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970, which text do you men by Explain to me what information about Richard Sharp is given in your text? All I did was restore content added by someone else that you deleted.
 * Is your objection to the inclusion based on the current wording and sourcing? If it is, then as the subject of the cartoon is easily verifiable, and as the weight of reliable sources carrying this event is considerable, then I'm sure we can agree on how best to phrase it, and which of the plethora of sources best conveys the general consensus of those sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I referred to ‘your’ text because you were the last person who added it. The text in question is On 29 April The Guardian apologised and removing a cartoon by Martin Rowson from their website, which depicted Sharp as a rich Jew, saying it "does not meet our editorial standards" after it was branded a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon".
 * My objection to the text is that it says nothing about Richard Sharp. It is about a cartoon in the Guardian. This article is about Richard Sharp. The text is also inaccurate, as it speaks as if the cartoon ‘depicted Sharp as a rich Jew’ when this is disputed. But this is beside the point, which is that there is no information given about Richard Sharp. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970 so, for example, the cartoon "The Rhodes Colossus" has nothing to do with Cecil Rhodes in whose article it appears... it's just about Punch magazine? Maybe that's why it has it's own article? And the image on the front cover of Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011 has nothing to do with Muhammad, it's just about Charlie Hebdo... after all, no one got hurt, did they? Etc., etc., etc. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970, ok, not my text then, but the text I restored, thanks.
 * As for the content of that text, what do you suppose "Sharp" refers to in this part of the text: a cartoon... which depicted Sharp? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The cartoon The Rhodes Colossus is not mentioned in the article on Cecil Rhodes – it is merely used as an illustration. So I think you have proved my point there.
 * If I am reading the cartoon correctly (I have it in front of me, but I find Martin Rowson’s cartoons difficult to decipher) the cartoon also features a caricature of Boris Johnson. But no-one has added reference to the cartoon in the article on Johnson. As far as I am aware, Mr Sharp has not made any public comment on the cartoon. The BBC news report says he declined to comment. If he had made an official complaint, then this might be worth a mention in this article.
 * And if Richard Sharp had been murdered, that would get mentioned in this article.
 * I ask again: what information about Richard Sharp does the text give?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, "merely used as an illustration". That's not a mention, lol. Why is it there at all? Maybe because it's 100% about Rhodes. Johnson is at the basis of this whole sleazy story (no surprise), so that's probably why Rowson included him. And I'm not sure Muhammad made any comment about the Charlie Hebdo cover, did he? As far as I know, prominent political cartoons aren't meant to "give information" about their subjects. They are just meant to poke fun. The controversy over this one has very widespread coverage. Whether Sharp himself has made any comment at all is irrelevant. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970, the information that the text gives about Sharp, and which could be elaborated upon further, is that he is depicted in the cartoon - here: The Guardian apologised after removing a cartoon by Martin Rowson, which depicted Sharp as a rich Jew. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's true. The article currently doesn't say he's a rich Jew, I guess. 86.184.129.86 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

BBC internal inquiry
Is this continuing? S C Cheese (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

End of term as Chair
My updating of his position has been reverted. The article is now misleading. The Occupation field is no longer accurate. What's the correct way of bringing the page up to date without a reversion battle? Thanks S C Cheese (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like you did it anyway, but should have updated it in the article body first and replaced the ols source with the new there. I fixed it here. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)