Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury

11 July 2013
Photo has been deleted; new one to follow?!Super48paul (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources
In this edit you removed a citation of the Mail on Sunday concerning Bonham-Carter's parliamentary expenses claims, on the basis that tabloid press sources are unacceptable in BLP articles. The expenses claims are well-sourced to The Guardian. I cited the MoS as a source for the controversy that the expenses claims had caused. In the next edit you removed another citation of the same MoS article concerning Bonham-Carter's relationship with Lord Razzell. The relationship is not controversial, and the second source confirms that Bonham-Carter has declared it in the House of Lords register of members' interests. I cited the MoS article to indicate that the relationship was long-established, and in my view this is acceptable source for this. In this edit you also removed text that made the following sentence meaningless, please take more care. Both of these citations are in line with the WP:BLPSOURCES policy in that the material is not sourced only to tabloid journalism. Political reports in the tabloid press should be treated differently from celebrity gossip, and are not necessarily "tabloid journalism". (For example, Paul Foot's campaigning reports in the Daily Mirror should be citable.)

I will restore the text that you have reverted. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should absolutely feel free to restore the material with non-tabloid sources if you can demonstrate a consensus here in talk to do so. You should absolutely not restore material sourced to tabloids. --John (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , who is an administrator, has responded to my post here by issuing a "Mandatory notice" on my talk page. I think this is unwarranted. Here he appears to be asserting that we are required to demonstrate a consensus on the talk page for any change to a BLP article. Is this a rule?


 * As I mentioned above, one of John's reverts has removed text that made the following sentence meaningless. Can we demonstrate a consensus for changing this paragraph?
 * Bonham-Carter has declared the relationship in the House of Lords Register of Interests.
 * There is no indication of what relationship is being referred to.


 * Allowing for John's apparent view that all citations of tabloid newspapers are banned in BLP articles, I propose this source for this relationship dating from at least 2008.
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2435740/Party-loving-peer-Lord-Razzall.html


 * We also need a source to support the statement that Bonham-Carter's expense claims were controversial, as the cited Guardian article does not state this. I suggest the following report:
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/news/revealed-the-peers-who-claim-the-most-expenses-6836862.html
 * Is the London Evening Standard banned from BLP citations as an exponent of tabloid journalism? Is there a list of unacceptable sources?


 * How extensive does the discussion need to be to "demonstrate a consensus". Can I go ahead if there are no replies after 24 hours? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok to use the Telegraph to cite the relationship. On balance, if the Standard is the best we can get, not ok with using that to cite a "controversy". --John (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury. 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/20141111140254/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/25252/Jane-Mary-Bonham-Carter-BONHAM-CARTER-OF-YARNBURY to http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/25252/Jane-Mary-Bonham-Carter-BONHAM-CARTER-OF-YARNBURY

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) 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)