Talk:Rupert Gwynne

"readded descrip of Adams. no reason to delete it"

There is every reason to delete this description. It contains an unsupported statement that his brother was the "lover" of Adams. There is no concrete evidence for this. The brother's article adds a qualifying "probably" referencing a book written in 2006 but giving no justification. "Probably" isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia when making contentious allegations. The term "close friends" is a reasonable statement which allows those who want to to draw whatever conclusions they wish to do so. Adams was not a convicted serial killer whatever we may think and so again a contentious point is brought into an article where it does not belong. The article is about a man whose term as Member of Parliament slightly overlapped the arrival of Adams in the town. Leaving mention that his brother was a friend of Adams was a concession to those with a morbid fascination with the case, but there if "no reason" to load it with contentious/salacious details that have nothing to do with the subject. Motmit (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• On, for example, this page of the author's website it says "a homosexual relationship existed between Adams and a powerful local politician, who had protected him for over thirty years." Now for some reason it doesn't mention Roland Gwynne by name here, but it does in the book - a whole chapter is devoted to Roland Gwynne. The statement here though is quite definitive - there was a relationship and they were lovers. Now, it is worth mentioning their relationship in this article because, though Rupert died two years after Adams' appearance in Eastbourne, Adams exploited his relationship with Roland and used it to hide his activities (murdering). The fact that he was so close to the mayor of Eastbourne was important, but Roland certainly got extra cache from being the brother of the late MP. The fact that Adams is mentioned without description is slightly silly - why mention somebody when the reader doesn't know who it is? A short description is therefore helpful and Adams is famous, after all, for being a "suspected" killer (5 books have been written on him because of this).

Btw, in saying "there is no concret evidence" for them being lovers - do you claim personal knowledge of the case? The chapter in Cullen's book leaves little reasonable doubt regarding the relationship. Malick78 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is concrete evidence then it should be given in the Roland's article and no one would reasonably object to that. If not then Wikipedia must not present the reader with unfounded conclusions. The best and most sensible thing to do is to present full information in the home article and if this leaves little reasonable doubt left then the reader can draw his/her own conclusions. Presenting contentious information in other articles as fact where it is not subject to full consideration counts as Wikipedia:coatracking, which is highly deprecated. If Roland drew cache from being the brother of an MP that is an item for Roland's article, not Rupert's. There is, however, a case for including some neutral information under Rupert as people may look up the wrong brother. Motmit (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that reading throught this, I very much agree with some of the comments of Motmit. There is no concrete evidence that Bodkin Adams and Roland Gwynne were lovers, merely a bit of educated guesswork. But more importantly, the inclusion of any mention of Adams in relation to Rupert Gwynne seems spurious. Their lives were almost entirely unrelated, bar the fact that Adams developed a close friendship with Rupert's brother Roland years after Rupert died. The mention of Adams in this entry (as well as several others) has the feel of a line that has been tagged on by someone particularly interested in having Adams mentioned wherever possible. Looking at the many entries created by Malick78, it seems that a large number of them are devoted to members of the medical profession who were (or possibly were) serial killers. That's obviously fine, but it's important that one's particular interests do not have undue influence when compiling encylopedia entries, which should be balanced and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an MP's brother had a lover who seems to have been protected from prosecution by his lofty connections is certainly relevant. That Rupert died two years after Adams moved into the area (and in suspicious circumstances! The death certificate said "No PM", showing that someone suggested it was necessary) is info a reader should be given. Malick78 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly postmortems are not requested just because foul play is suspected, there can be many reasons why one is called for. Secondly, if one was requested but then denied, doesn't it suggest that on further reflection foul play was not suspected? Alternatively Rupert Gwynne may have specifically requested to not have a postmortem. We cannot be sure either way. It is extremely sensationalist to suggest that merely because "No PM" was written, that this is somehow linked to foul play and/or Bodkin Adams. If you read the ED biographies by both Cooper and Chaney, it is clear that Rupert Gwynne became very ill in the months leading up to his death. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and as such should be based on facts and interpretation of those facts, not speculation or conspiracy theories. I do ask that some restraint be shown here so that the entry reflects the spirit and ethos with which Wikipedia was founded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, one cannot say that Roland Gwynne "had" a lover when it has not been definitively proven. Cullen merely makes a case for it. There is no concrete hard evidence, merely some educated guesswork. It is irresponsible to present a theory as fact and then place that in different entries, and my understanding is that Wikipedia frowns on such behavior.

• In 1924, Post-Mortems were very unusual, especially for an MP and one with a history of ill health. Of course it's strange that it was even considered. Cullen (have you read her book, btw?) says "it is tempting to think... the doctor was uneasy about the cause of death and called the Coroner for his advice" (Cullen, p629. It's only tempting if there is suspicion. Roland "who had never been close to him" (p629) was the last to see Rupert alive, had no money and gained significantly (inheriting the estate, while Stella and daughters were merely "allowed" to remain at Wootton). So it's relevant and worth mentioning so readers know a little more about the circumstances. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep it.

• As for lover or not, the text said "may have been". Not that Roland "had" one in Adams (though Roland definitely was gay). You seem to be misrepresenting the case here. Malick78 (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the main text says "may have been", but in the running commentary above you distinctly say "The fact that an MP's brother had a lover" - it is that to which I was objecting to. You are taking Cullen's theory and presenting it as a de facto truth, when it isn't. Cullen's book is very good in parts, but the chapter on Roland Gwynne is badly sourced, in part because she doesn't make the effort to check the veracity of the (mainly) secondary sources she uses. For instance, the Douglas-Home book on Violet Gordon Woodhouse (Rupert Gwynne's sister) is written by her great niece, who's grandfather (Neville Gwynne) was disinherited in favor of his brother Rupert. Given such a family link, can one consider this to be a truly objective source? The book itself is excellent, but there is much speculation in it.

• I have trimmed and compacted this somewhat, as it seemed too much to me. In particular, bringing the words 'alleged' and 'homosexual' into conjunction seemed unwise to me, when 'suggested' and 'sexual' would have done the job. William Avery (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)