Talk:J. Arthur Rank

Untitled

I discovered two sites on Wikipedia and at least three sites on similar reference systems on the Internet which all had more or less the same text word for word regarding J. Arthur Rank. What has now been posted by me is a total rewrite of the entry that was there and it incorporates a lot of new research that I have not been able to find together in any one place. The format is new, the text is new and the research is original but well founded in documentation. This should remove all doubts that others have expressed about similar listings concerning the Rank entries regarding potential copyright infringement. This material is now new and original to Wikipedia and it does not exist anywhere else. MPLX/MH 19:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where were doubts expressed? This page seemed to have evolved naturally. Indeed I made some of the earlier contributions. Mintguy (T) 08:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In doing research into the family of Lady Yule and into the founding of Pinewood Studios, it became obvious that for some reason several web sites on the Internet had almost word for word text about J. Arthur Rank. Copying without attribution has been going on and I could not decipher which was the original. In any event these texts were muddled and no attempt was being made to do original research and put together a basic article. Since writing my original comments which also appeared on related sites in connection with this topic, others like yourself have come forward to claim that the Wiki was the original and that other web sites on the Internet (who try to mimic Wiki) have merely lifted the Wiki text and reproduced it. I hope that this answers your question. MPLX/MH 15:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cockney Legacy Section

Thanks for this article ! But, does anyone find this section completely outrageous ? It's not referenced so I have added the right templates (as well as for the whole article). Maybe it's true, I don't know, but it won't be encyclopaedic until referenced. DJ Barney 02:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true - there are several references to it in popular culture, including the Morrisey album, Rank, and a scene in the Austin Powers' Goldmember film specifically discusses the slang. In fact a simple Google search comes up with many references to the slang. I will be reinstating the mention.--Zoso Jade (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As of today there's no mention of Cockney Legacy and I have no idea what that means. Ileanadu (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems strange that the business seem to be so successful and then declines without any explanation. It also seems curious that it is started by Joseph Rank who was a Methodist and ends up selling every useful activity and becomes a business devoted to gambling! 89.195.138.51 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

the phrase j.arthur lives today in london english/neo-cockney for some geezer jerking off i.e. rank rhymes with wank - original wanksta!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

I'd like to remove the Popular Culture section. The info about gong parodies would be better off at gongman or Rank Organisation and the rest of it is unsourced. Opinions? Rojomoke (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Rojomoke (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the gong references are about, but when you search the internet "gong" is frequently listed along with his name. Also, the only mention of "gong" in the article is in the title of the book cited in the Reference section:

J.Arthur Rank: The Man Behind the Gong

Why isn't there any reference at all to gongs in the article?Ileanadu (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

His name was mentioned in the British show New Tricks, Season 6, Episode 4 in relation to the Director who is a person of interest in the case they are investigating. That's why I looked him up Ileanadu (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Baronage

It says in the article that this title became extinct upon his death. Is that because he had no sons? That might not be clear to us Yanks & others and maybe should be briefly mentioned. If he was the first and only Baron Rank, then why bother calling him the "1st Baron Rank" in the title? Ileanadu (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)