Talk:Christian and Nick Candy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarism[edit]

Some of the sentences in the main paragraph sounded weird, and a google search [3] shows that they were lifted from this article. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.64.131 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit out of date now. Quite a bit has happened since the original article was written. Various bits of their empire have gone tits up and they are in litigation re the Barracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.80.163 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Court[edit]

See the London "Metro", of 19/5/2010, on page 9, where it is noted that CPC Group is suing the Qataris in the High Court for £81,000,000 for breach of contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were laying all their complaints on Prince Charles. It is fair to blame Prince Charles for all of it. It is his fault that people still wear 70s glasses.--85.164.223.159 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noho Square[edit]

I've sorted out the NoHo Square article but haven't got time at the moment to do anything here. It's misleading to imply that they had 100% of a £1.5bn asset at NoHo Square - they had a 33% stake in the £175m deal to buy the original site, but it was going to need another £800m or so capex to do the development. When Kaupthing went bust, the Candys swapped their stake in NoHo for Kaupthing's stake in the 9900 Wilshire project in Beverly Hills, with a cash/shares adjustment - the talk at the time was the hospital site was valued at <£100m, and Stanhope finally did a deal at ~£50m. This whole article could do with a sortout though, they are reasonably high-profile with the Barracks thing. Le Deluge (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noho? Where does a such name come from? What bad dream did Le Deluge wake up from?--85.164.223.159 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Barracks[edit]

Note the Chelsea Barracks development has collapsed and the case has gone to court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8096854.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.217.100 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that if I had the dosh to either live or invest in this place, I would not. Where are these people who can prove me wrong?--85.164.223.159 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seem[edit]

The brothers seem to be half English and half Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is turning into a lot of spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significance?[edit]

I find it really hard to believe that 'the Candy brothers' should actually have a Wikipedia page. As the extremely limited info on the page would seem to attest, they are of very little consequence. There is next-to-nothing of interest in this article and, while different articles on One Hyde Park or other projects they've been involved in might be useful, I cannot see any significant contribution here. I think this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.86.240 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the brothers are worth anything at all. $365.5 million is not much different to £330 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their web-site says that they have dealt in billions, without saying that they made a profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their web-site has stopped boasting about the billions, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.118 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent desired addition[edit]

There are many issues with this content - sourcing is one of them and the dog stuff seems designed to be a bit poking fun. this is not supported in the provide citations etc - Christian Candy, through his vehicle Solomon Capital, expanded his operations into the mining sector during 2010. Solomon owns a large stake in Metals Exploration Plc (AIM: MTL), a gold and molybdenum miner operating in the Philippines[1]. In 2010 Solomon made a 13 pence per share bid for Metals Exploration Plc[2]. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed content is well sourced and entirely accurate. Chris Candy may not like it, but reports of allegations of violations of the City Code are very material, and Solomon did what it did, and he knows it. Yes, perhaps the detail on his effete little dog and his aircraft registration may have been otiose (and have been removed) but the all the inserted information is entirely accurate and verifiable. The idea that less information is the fundamental premise of an Encyclopaedia (the clue is in the name) is ridiculous – what is happening here is an entry is being massaged by editing out (or, absent that, an attempt made to remove the article) simply because its subject doesn’t like what he reads. So, please do not remove this information again. But you will, because you are either Chris, or in his pocket, and as we both know, he can be a very angry man.WikiID300 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your clear opinionated WP:COI is not welcome here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am opinionated. Thank you. I am naturally ambivalent on your opinion as to whether I am welcome to a third party operated electronic forum. Much more relevantly; I do not remove factual, verifiable content simply to massage an entry in the favour of an individual.WikiID300 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did remove the factual item, again, as predicted, this time claiming that it was because the City Code Allegations were unsupported (despite illogically taking out Candy’s loss making history as well). Actually, all I said was the allegations were made, which is supported. In fact, how do you know that the allegations themselves are unsupported (as you claim in your edit?). If you can verify that, then please do. I would be willing to bet a kidney on the facts of the matter, given the climb down by Solomon after they were made (Solomon giving accepting shareholders the right to rescind). It hardly points to the allegations being unsupported, does it, now?WikiID300 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Mistaken identity[edit]

Christian Candy married Emily Crompton in 2010. It appears that she is often mistaken in the press for Lady Emily Compton, daughter of Spencer Compton, 7th Marquess of Northampton. I have therefore edited the page according. Please see here for info http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7e163a8-860e-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html#axzz4916yLFX. This is Lady Emily Compton, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1206839/The-Compton-girls-feud-ex-factor.html, a different person entirely. Thanks, Jaktheladz (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman[edit]

"Cayman" is a rather odd name to give to anyone, whether it is the name of a car or a tax haven. I suppose "Monaco" is the name of a car as well. All this giggling can end in disaster. It has already, with the court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.118 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

To me this Page is confusing as it refers to 2 living persons and treats them as the same entity. Disambiguation guidance on Wiki would be welcome. It refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, as the main topic of an article and as subtopics covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. This article appears to be too large a topic, too broad in its aims, assuming brothers are the same entity so overall it seem undesirable to keep a single wiki entry. Sufficient citation(s) sources to support one page for Christian Candy and Nicholas Candy. Suggest joint activities remain covered too (post 2011 discussion) - paragraph in each wikipage. Inconsistent with other wikipedia precedents e.g. Baldwin brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_brothers). Venus and Serena Williams have separate pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Williams) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams).

Thanks

Dignity1988 26th April 2018

Orphaned references in Christian and Nick Candy[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian and Nick Candy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From The Guardian: "Guardian cartoon of cow in relation to Priti Patel sparks outrage amongst diaspora in Britain". The Hindu. 9 March 2020. Archived from the original on 11 September 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  • From Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom): "A Short Guide to the Ministry of Defence" (PDF). nao.org.uk. National Audit Office UK. September 2017. Retrieved 19 September 2018.
  • From 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Bielieskov, Mykola (21 September 2021). "The Russian and Ukrainian Spring 2021 War Scare". Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved 25 November 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_and_Nick_Candy&oldid=1206530831"