Talk:William Child Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

Page content substantially removed
What is going on with this page? Someone claims that the earl has personally asked him to remove content. As far as I can see, the material is not libellous, is substantiated (could be better referenced) and some of the material is strictly historical genealogy e.g. his descent from a British king.

wikibiohistory 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Earl is concerned about some security aspects of Wikipedia whilst he is happy for the detail currently there to be posted, he is not happy for so much as was previously there. Whilst, of course, most of this information is available, it is basically an attempt to reduce his web exposure in this context.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkysfc (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 October 2007 — Gorkysfc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

BLP
Hi. Regarding the material in the current version of the article, I see one significant assertion the sourcing for which violates WP:BLP—the birth of a daughter, which reflects to a posting on a newsgroup. I found a source for the engagement and propose that the current text should be replaced with "On January 16 2003, he wed Marianne Simonne De Guelle (daughter of Peter and Jeannette) in St Martin de Grouville, Jersey. ". That is, if reference to his wife is to remain at all.

With respect to what material should be included, WP:BLP does us encourage us to respect the privacy of individuals, even public figures. If the Earl objects to the exposure of his private life, we should within reasonable limits respect that. For example, unless his daughter has been widely publicized, reference to her might be removed (and certainly should be so long as its source fails WP:BLP). What information do you object to including in this article, Gorkysfc? I can look at your previous version, but I think it might be helpful to be specific. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely uncomfortable with the precedent possibly being set here. As a Quaker, I am profoundly in favor of civility to all persons; but a desire to keep a low profile does not strike me as anything we are under any kind of obligation to accomodate. It could become a back-channel way to exert censorship pressure. Personal trivia irrelevant to whatever makes him notable may in fact be removed; but the onus is on the part of the requestor, in the case of anything not incorrect, to make the case for the removal of cited facts. -- Orange Mike 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that any precedents are being set yet. :) The information on his daughter should certainly be removed so long as its only source is a newsgroup posting, but I agree with you that we are not required to remove referenced material just to help a public individual maintain a low profile. I think specifics would be helpful so we can more easily determine if the information that Gorkysfc wants removed is relevant to notability. Looking at the changes made, I wasn't quite able to figure out the criteria. For instance, why cut the reference to "Mosley, Charles; editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, vol.2, p.2097", when the information that it supported is allowed to remain? Why leave the subject's childhood education, but cut "On the death of his father, from a heart attack, on 19 March 1998, he was briefly styled Viscount Grandison (in accordance with the family's tradition whereby each heir is alternatively styled Viscount Villiers and then Viscount Grandison)"? Personally, I'd like to understand the rationale. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a problem with this too. If the subject has an entry in Burke's and Debrett's or from an International or National Who's Who, I am not sure that we can leave out information about his succession drawn from there. I can certainly leave out the name of his daughter, but that of his wife becomes tricky when it has been publicly reported in The Times. (If he did not wish her name to be known, should it have been printed in The Times and in peerage reference works?  As for the Grandison/Villiers switch, it is fascinating information (comparable to the Shelburne/Kerry switch in the Lansdowne family -- wikibiohistory (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as WP:BLP is strictly adhered to, the subject does not get to dictate what goes into an article and what is kept out of it, subject to other policies such as WP:V via WP:RS, of course. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Ancestry table
This table contains the wrong name for his paternal grandmother and her ancestry. Please see articles for his father and grandfather for the full story. I'll change the table. Icairns 2 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)