Talk:Chris Packham/Archive 1

Ross Kemp
Someone has written that he's married to Ross Kemp. Which obviously he isn't I can't see how to delete it, as someone else seems to have corrected it, but then it still shows as Ross. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just takes a while to refresh. It's gone now 131.111.186.95 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Background
The article says that he attended University of Southampton School of Biological Sciences, does anyone know whether he got a degree and in what? For all the reader knows he went there for freshers week and thought 'nah' and went home. Bit more info needed and a citation. Mimi (yack) 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chris Packham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719152537/http://hampshire.greatbritishlife.co.uk/article/chris-packham-photographer-presenter-inside-out-13845/ to http://hampshire.greatbritishlife.co.uk/article/chris-packham-photographer-presenter-inside-out-13845/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715203740/http://news.stv.tv:80/scotland-decides/news/1324609-snp-to-vote-against-tories-on-fox-hunting-ban-in-england-and-wales/ to http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1324609-snp-to-vote-against-tories-on-fox-hunting-ban-in-england-and-wales/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome diagnosis
While anyone agile enough to perform an Internet search would be able to find reliable source links to prove this article’s subject: 1) had been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome in his 20s during the 1980s ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3566970/Chris-Packham-reveals-great-hopeless-vacuum-battle-depression.html and https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/30/wildlife-presenter-chris-packham-struggle-depression ), 2) had “the realisation” of his Asperger Syndrome in his 30s during the 1990s ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/suicide-agony-springwatchs-chris-packham-7865392 ), or 3) had been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome in his 40s during the 2000s ( http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-05-18/chris-packham-on-coping-with-aspergers-grief-and-why-he-owes-his-dogs-his-life-2 ), such a conflation of seemingly simple facts might confuse most WP editors. Or, most WP editors might ignore such confusing statements as another example of the slight inaccuracies of the British tabloid media. But, would those inaccuracies change the basic fact of the subject’s diagnosis? Under WP policies and guidelines, they shouldn’t if a conclusive statement is made by one or more reliable sources. Reading tea leaves isn’t among the recommended practices of WP editors. Therefore, understanding that WP editors have recently challenged the legitimacy of the Daily Mail, the Radio Times article of May 18, 2016, appears to be the most reliable and recent statement about the subject’s diagnosis wherein it states that “After ending his sessions with the therapist in 2005, Chris Packham was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome.” This statement is conclusive, and best comports with all the other known statements published by other sources. It is also the most likely accurate statement about the matter. As such, I have made the relevant edits to the article to reflect these facts.73.131.228.245 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article's accuracy, but don't mistake the current state of a rarely-edited biography for being some great, deliberated consensus of "WP editors"! It looks like one editor added last May that Packham had self-diagnosed, another later changed it to say that he had "been diagnosed" (without offering any new sources), and I simply moved the wording back towards self-diagnosis to match the sources that were in the article.
 * For what it's worth, the Mail and Guardian articles that talk about him being diagnosed in his 20s mention an interview in The Times - it's presumably this one, which only gives us an ambiguous "when Packham did the test for Asperger’s syndrome in his twenties, he ticked near enough every box". There's probably more about it in his biography, which would be fine as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When I referred to "WP editors," I meant only that there is some degree of whim in WP edits made about diagnoses of many kinds, especially those of the autistic stripe; after most WP editors aren't diagnosticians. I certainly didn't intend to denigrate them, only to encourage a broadening of their survey of related reliable source references. It is true that the body of sources regarding the subject's probable diagnosis of Asperger syndrome show conflicting claims and evidence (see those that I cited above, it can become maddening), but there is enough evidence to meet the standard imposed by WP policies and guidelines (neutrality, notibility and a conclusive statement by reliable secondary or tertiary source). The fact that the subject's recent book, and the fine Times article you cited (thank you), appears to include references to his Asperger syndrome suggests that at least one Times editor as well as the book's editor probably vetted the Asperger syndrome claim at least to their satisfaction. This would good enough to satisfy the WP policies and guidelines to conclude the diagnosis if not the actual date. Perhaps, in the future, a more reliable date will be confirmed.73.131.228.245 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, he says in Chris Packham: Asperger's and Me "I wasn't diagnosed with Asperger's until I was in my forties" (at approximately 11 minutes, 47 seconds) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article currently says (sourced to Radio Times): "As his work with the therapist concluded in 2005, Packham was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome." In 2005 he was aged 44. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I didn't make myself clear in my previous comment, did I? I was confirming, from the horse's mouth, what the article currently says regarding his late diagnosis ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * .. coolios, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal info
Not clear to me that all the information in this section in encyclopedic. Some of it, maybe. Have asked for input at BLPN as well, via a simple link asking for people to come look.

He is the older brother of fashion designer Jenny Packham.
 * Personal life

Packham found his time at school very difficult, being socially excluded and regularly bullied by fellow pupils. In his teenage years he became obsessed with the care of a kestrel, which he took from the wild and the death of which was a severe low point in his life. At university he embraced the punk rock scene.

He lives in the New Forest with his pet poodle, Scratchy. For over ten years Packham has been the partner of Charlotte Corney, owner of the Isle of Wight Zoo, although the couple live separately. He also enjoys a strong and active relationship with his stepdaughter Megan who studies Zoology at university.

Packham has suffered with Ménière's disease since the his late 30s. In 2003, at the age of 42, Packham began seeing a therapist after the death of his dog, Fish. As his work with the therapist concluded in 2005, Packham was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. He also revealed he has suffered from severe depression and has twice contemplated suicide. In October 2017, he presented a BBC Television documentary about his condition, Chris Packham: Asperger's and Me. In the programme Packham examined critically the approach taken to autism and Asperger syndrome in the US.

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * By all means point out which parts you consider "non encyclopedic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. if anyone really wants to try and "understand" Packham I'd suggest they forget this article and just watch the documentary. Have you watched it yet?
 * p.p.s. I think your deletion is wholly uncalled for and disproportionate. People can quite easily "come look" while it's still, all perfectly well sourced, in the article. But whatever. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a "deletion"; i fully expect some of this will go back. It is taking care with a WP:BLP article and with our mission to be an encyclopedia and not a celebrity magazine Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're probably more used to seeing poodles in the tabloid sleb goss columns, aren't we. But you realise how much that dog means to Packham, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * responding to the question about what is encyclopedic... he is notable for his work with animals. Stuff that is not about that shouldn't be here.  His partner, his daughter-in-law (?), his mental health and health struggles... none of that stuff should be here in my view.  I guess his sister being famous is OK.   The Asperger's special should be with his other TV work. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I think you've wholly missed the point, that the series of candid interviews and documentaries in which he has featured, has deliberately put his Aspergers at the centre of how he sees himself as a person, quite regardless of his success in television, which he seems to regard as largely accidental. Aside from his partner Charlotte, his step-daughter Megan would appear to be the most important person in his life. Not sure why that's considered "unencyclopedic stuff". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't agree. You added this content. This is why I have asked for others to give input. It will take some time. When others have weighed in, we will see where things stand. Thanks in advance for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you might mean "one of four editors who added content to an existing section"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I came here from BLPN. I agree with Jytdog's removal however, some of the information could be worked back into the article. My suggestion would be to restore the Personal life section with the following information:
 * Packham lives in the New Forest and is the older brother of fashion designer Jenny Packham. For over ten years, Packham has been the partner of Charlotte Corney, owner of the Isle of Wight Zoo, although the couple live separately. He also has a stepdaughter, Megan.
 * Packham has suffered with Ménière's disease since his late 30s. At the age of 42, Packham began seeing a therapist after the death of his dog, Fish. As his work with the therapist concluded in 2005, Packham was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. He also revealed he has suffered from severe depression and has twice contemplated suicide. In October 2017, he presented a BBC Television documentary about his condition, Chris Packham: Asperger's and Me. In the programme, Packham examined critically the approach taken to autism and Asperger syndrome in the US.
 * Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all verifiable info which Packham has chosen to put in the public domain - often repeatedly so. I am going to restore it; it can then be improved by normal editing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Meatsgains, I trust that, before making your suggestion, you read all the sources and watched the video? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please allow the conversation to continue. "It is sourced" doesn't address BLP and NOT issues which are about scope of articles, not verifiabilty.
 * The proposed trimmed version is a bit better but I still don't see how it is encyclopedic to say whether he lives with his current partner or not.
 * The "step-daughter" thing is a bit difficult. According to this RadioTimes article Megan is the daughter of a woman he was involved with for many years and is not involved with anymore, and he has been close with Megan for many years. Step-daughter-ish for sure, and he calls her that.  Should we, in WP's voice? (RadioTimes doesn't call her that)
 * When discussing medical stuff we generally don't say "suffer" per MEDMOS.
 * I am not sure we should count how many times he has considered suicide or recount the MDD, suicidal ideation, or the meniere's.
 * The Asperger's is obviously in since it was the whole focus of the TV special and now a major part of his public identity and well tied into his work. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw the Aspergers and Me video is available only in the UK so be aware that the rest of the world cannot watch it. Not a great thing to rely on for significant amounts of content. (There are pirated versions around but who knows how long they will be up) Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm "allowing the conversation to continue". I'm really not sure how editors will be able to make judgements about the BLP appropriateness of the material in the video without actually watching it. Have you watched it? The availability of the video as a source for readers is a separate question. I agree it's not ideal, but we use plenty of sources which are not immediately available all over the encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop asking people if they watched the video. Anybody who is competent reviews sources of content they are discussing. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if they live outside UK, where it's not available, it seems. A simple "yes" or "no" would do. Just so we know where we all stand. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Saw this at BLPN. The most recent removal of this content included an edit summary which says This is BLP stuff. I don't see any violation of WP:BLP whatsoever, it adheres to "Wikipedia's three core content policies": WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. It's certainly not unsourced or poorly sourced, it's not contentious, sensationalist, nor is WP spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". Yes, it's a candid documentary, but it was made with his participation, his sister's participation and his partner's participation who discussed the problems Asperger's has created in their relationship. His admission and him discussing having Asperger's Syndrome is noteworthy and relevant, reliable sources have well-documented this aspect of his personal life, so in my opinion, this content is encyclopedic and should be included. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The BLP issues go to how deep we go into people's personal lives in WP. There have been several massive ANI cases about this sort of stuff, like this one.  What I am asking for here is that we discuss it and when we get some sort of reasonable consensus for what is appropriate, that this be added back to the article.  The question goes beyond "is it sourced?" to "is it encyclopedic"?  The encyclopedic value of stating that he "enjoys a strong and active relationship" with Megan is very questionable to me, for example.  Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop edit-warring to remove, wholesale, this perfectly reasonable content. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are perfectly well intentioned, Jytdog. But consensus seems to be moving against you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. you don't need to remove an entire section just to question six words?
 * I did a partial restore. It may be a compromise. I tossed a couple things that seem irrelevant (the stepdaughter, for example) and toned down the dramatic adjectives.  Maybe that will work for everyone.  Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the focus must always be on the sources and the quality of the sources. If we have decent quality sources, then there are only a finite number of reasons why we may choose not to use them at all, collated at What Wikipedia is not and its corollary Fringe theories. The argument that particular content is un/encyclopedic is sometimes useful, but will always come down to individuals' opinions. In general it's difficult to see how a well sourced aspect of a subject's personal life can be unsuitable for a biography. I much prefer to look at sources as dispassionately as possible and try to determine all of the important points made in them. These are the sources that have been removed in the revert:
 * Having viewed/read through those sources, I must admit I can't see much of the content added by as unsupported or undue, given the quality of the sources. Much of the background to his depression and how he has coped seems to me to be very relevant to an understanding of him as a person. His personal relationships are also important in that understanding. The Radio Times is the weakest source, IMHO, but it doesn't state much that isn't also sourced among the other citations. My advice would be to re-read the sources and re-instate whatever is well supported, taking scrupulous care not to reflect the sometimes tabloid language used in some of the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Montanabw for your partial restore and thank you RexxS for your supporting comments. Jytdog - I'm really not sure of the value of comparing the debate here with the giant AN/I hoo-hah over repeated removal without discussion of debatable BLP material by User:Hillbillyholiday. But anyway, just to re-cap what seems to have been lost here: Packham's "obsession" with the kestrel; the fact that he and Charlotte Corney are partners not just "associated with each other"; his suicidal feelings; and his strong relationship with stepdaughter Megan who's also studying zoology. These still seem to me to be facts that Packham sees as important to him, and which he has expressed in these words. But I'm quite prepared to accept that the article here can't contain every little detail, nor does it have to express things in the same way that Packham himself has expressed them - I guess that's what TV documentary films are for. So the section seems pefectly ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Having viewed/read through those sources, I must admit I can't see much of the content added by as unsupported or undue, given the quality of the sources. Much of the background to his depression and how he has coped seems to me to be very relevant to an understanding of him as a person. His personal relationships are also important in that understanding. The Radio Times is the weakest source, IMHO, but it doesn't state much that isn't also sourced among the other citations. My advice would be to re-read the sources and re-instate whatever is well supported, taking scrupulous care not to reflect the sometimes tabloid language used in some of the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Montanabw for your partial restore and thank you RexxS for your supporting comments. Jytdog - I'm really not sure of the value of comparing the debate here with the giant AN/I hoo-hah over repeated removal without discussion of debatable BLP material by User:Hillbillyholiday. But anyway, just to re-cap what seems to have been lost here: Packham's "obsession" with the kestrel; the fact that he and Charlotte Corney are partners not just "associated with each other"; his suicidal feelings; and his strong relationship with stepdaughter Megan who's also studying zoology. These still seem to me to be facts that Packham sees as important to him, and which he has expressed in these words. But I'm quite prepared to accept that the article here can't contain every little detail, nor does it have to express things in the same way that Packham himself has expressed them - I guess that's what TV documentary films are for. So the section seems pefectly ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Having viewed/read through those sources, I must admit I can't see much of the content added by as unsupported or undue, given the quality of the sources. Much of the background to his depression and how he has coped seems to me to be very relevant to an understanding of him as a person. His personal relationships are also important in that understanding. The Radio Times is the weakest source, IMHO, but it doesn't state much that isn't also sourced among the other citations. My advice would be to re-read the sources and re-instate whatever is well supported, taking scrupulous care not to reflect the sometimes tabloid language used in some of the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Montanabw for your partial restore and thank you RexxS for your supporting comments. Jytdog - I'm really not sure of the value of comparing the debate here with the giant AN/I hoo-hah over repeated removal without discussion of debatable BLP material by User:Hillbillyholiday. But anyway, just to re-cap what seems to have been lost here: Packham's "obsession" with the kestrel; the fact that he and Charlotte Corney are partners not just "associated with each other"; his suicidal feelings; and his strong relationship with stepdaughter Megan who's also studying zoology. These still seem to me to be facts that Packham sees as important to him, and which he has expressed in these words. But I'm quite prepared to accept that the article here can't contain every little detail, nor does it have to express things in the same way that Packham himself has expressed them - I guess that's what TV documentary films are for. So the section seems pefectly ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Having viewed/read through those sources, I must admit I can't see much of the content added by as unsupported or undue, given the quality of the sources. Much of the background to his depression and how he has coped seems to me to be very relevant to an understanding of him as a person. His personal relationships are also important in that understanding. The Radio Times is the weakest source, IMHO, but it doesn't state much that isn't also sourced among the other citations. My advice would be to re-read the sources and re-instate whatever is well supported, taking scrupulous care not to reflect the sometimes tabloid language used in some of the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Montanabw for your partial restore and thank you RexxS for your supporting comments. Jytdog - I'm really not sure of the value of comparing the debate here with the giant AN/I hoo-hah over repeated removal without discussion of debatable BLP material by User:Hillbillyholiday. But anyway, just to re-cap what seems to have been lost here: Packham's "obsession" with the kestrel; the fact that he and Charlotte Corney are partners not just "associated with each other"; his suicidal feelings; and his strong relationship with stepdaughter Megan who's also studying zoology. These still seem to me to be facts that Packham sees as important to him, and which he has expressed in these words. But I'm quite prepared to accept that the article here can't contain every little detail, nor does it have to express things in the same way that Packham himself has expressed them - I guess that's what TV documentary films are for. So the section seems pefectly ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Having viewed/read through those sources, I must admit I can't see much of the content added by as unsupported or undue, given the quality of the sources. Much of the background to his depression and how he has coped seems to me to be very relevant to an understanding of him as a person. His personal relationships are also important in that understanding. The Radio Times is the weakest source, IMHO, but it doesn't state much that isn't also sourced among the other citations. My advice would be to re-read the sources and re-instate whatever is well supported, taking scrupulous care not to reflect the sometimes tabloid language used in some of the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Montanabw for your partial restore and thank you RexxS for your supporting comments. Jytdog - I'm really not sure of the value of comparing the debate here with the giant AN/I hoo-hah over repeated removal without discussion of debatable BLP material by User:Hillbillyholiday. But anyway, just to re-cap what seems to have been lost here: Packham's "obsession" with the kestrel; the fact that he and Charlotte Corney are partners not just "associated with each other"; his suicidal feelings; and his strong relationship with stepdaughter Megan who's also studying zoology. These still seem to me to be facts that Packham sees as important to him, and which he has expressed in these words. But I'm quite prepared to accept that the article here can't contain every little detail, nor does it have to express things in the same way that Packham himself has expressed them - I guess that's what TV documentary films are for. So the section seems pefectly ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Packham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725134530/http://www.tauntons.ac.uk/contentThreeColumn.aspx?contentid=163 to http://www.tauntons.ac.uk/contentThreeColumn.aspx?contentid=163
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202013706/http://populationmatters.org/2011/population-matters-news/population-matters-welcomes-chris-packham-patron/ to http://populationmatters.org/2011/population-matters-news/population-matters-welcomes-chris-packham-patron/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Packham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706111258/http://www.saga.co.uk/saga-magazine/2013/january/chris-packham.aspx to http://www.saga.co.uk/saga-magazine/2013/january/chris-packham.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Peoples Walk for Wildlife, London, 2018.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2019
Add, after 2009, in first paragraph: He is the older brother of fashion designer Jenny Packham. (www.jennypackham.com). Chris is a passionate campaigner for the protection of wildlife. He was diagnosed with Aspergers (https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/42/chris-packham-aspergers-and-me).

Change, in Early Life section: Packham was born in Southampton, Hampshire.[3] As soon as he was crawling he was outside collecting ladybirds, caterpillars, tadpoles and mosquito larvae and as he grew his home and garden were filled with insects, reptiles and other wildlife. With the support of his parents he spent as much time as possible exploring outside, visiting nature reserves and zoos.

It was when he was 12 years old that Packham developed his passion for birds and egg collecting. He met a man called John Buckley who turned his fasciantion for birds and their eggs and nest into useful scientific work. After a couple of years he embarked on his first proper scientific study – The Population and Breeding Density of Kestrels in the Lower Itchen Valley. This was written up in his last year at secondary school and won the Prince Philip Zoology Prize a couple of years later.

Packham was educated at Bitterne Park Secondary School and[4]Taunton's College[5] in Southampton and studied kestrels, shrews and badger in his teens and undergraduate years at the University of Southampton, where he received Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology.[6] After graduating, he cancelled his study towards a Doctorate of Philosophy to train as a wildlife cameraman.[7]

During his teens Chris embraced Punk Rock and played in a band. (https://louderthanwar.com/chris-packham-top-10-punk-rock-post-punk-gigs/) Koahdm (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2019
At the end of the Views section, please add: Packham organised the writing of a manifesto for UK wildlife in 2018 which he delivered to Downing Street viaThe Peoples Walk for Wildlife. The event raised awareness of the loss of wildlife in the UK with around 10,000 people turning up to march from Hyde Park to Downing Street. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/22/hundreds-march-on-whitehall-to-call-for-end-to-war-on-wildlife)

Packham set up Wild Justice in February 2019, a not for profit company limited by guarantee which aims to ensure the legal system in the UK protects our wildlife (https://wildjustice.org.uk/) Koahdm (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Adjust terminology
As I cannot do it myself, in the views section line 'He has worked to raise awareness of the illegal persecution of raptors in the UK,' should be changed to the more formal 'birds of prey' to make extra clarification for reader (I was a bit confused by the phraseology) --Will d601 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have also linked, thanks. Matches the headline in the reference, although there now seems to be something up with that RSPB source. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Programme on Primates
I did not see anything in this article on a programme Chris Packham presented on BBC One called "Primates".Vorbee (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to fix that. Here's a source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/apr/26/primates-review-monkeying-around-with-chris-packham Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2020
Please add following section (suggested name: Opposition to High Speed 2):

Despite his environmentalist credentials, Packham opposes the construction of the electrified High Speed 2 railway, which is being built between London Euston, the West Midlands and Crewe, on the grounds that wildlife habitats and woodlands are being lost. Despite the final go-ahead for the project being given by the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson in February 2020, Packham has undertaken legal action against the Government, most recently at the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) after having lost a bid for a an emergency injunction and a judicial review at the High Court. He told the Guardian in April 2020:

“These are ancient woodlands that used to provide a safe and stable home to an abundance of wildlife, parts of which are now gone forever,” he said. “The works are completely irreversible. Yet still we fight on, as we must try to protect all the other precious flora and fauna which is at risk from the HS2 project.”

In addition to his campaign against HS2, Packham has also undertaken paid work for Jaguar Land Rover, promoting the Discovery range of cars, participating in a podcast to as part of the company's marketing activity. Paulprentice (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not WP:NPOV wording. Please rewrite this in a more neutral tone befitting a WP:BLP. Melmann 10:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added in about HS2 and the Jaguar Land Rover podcast, though in two different areas of the article since they aren't really linked. I think both are important information however. NemesisAT (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021
In the information box on the right hand side, Megan McCubbin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McCubbin) should be added as Chris's step-daughter in the 'Family' section. Kerlmann (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a Rough_legged Buzzard visiting our area,
Is this of interest to Twitters? 89.240.108.0 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not try Twitter? Or maybe ring Chris up and tell him. But not here, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * probably not 84.71.38.32 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)