Jump to content

Talk:Baron Teynham

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baron Teynham. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Include Published Allegations in Accordance with BLPCRIME

[edit]

I would like to propose including a brief, neutrally worded mention of widely reported allegations concerning the subject. These allegations have been covered by multiple reliable sources, including: • Infobae • Infobae • Univision

The events in question were also documented through video and audio recordings that circulated widely in mainstream and international media.

I refer to BLPCRIME, which allows inclusion of such material when it is: • Documented by multiple reliable sources • Written in a neutral tone • Relevant to the subject’s public profile

An example of proposed wording:

‘‘In 2021, David Roper-Curzon, 22nd Baron Teynham, and his heir, Harry Roper-Curzon, were the subject of international media coverage widely following public allegations of racism and domestic abuse made by Harry’s ex-wife. The claims were widely reported by international news outlets and video evidence.’’

Non-English sources are permitted under Wikipedia’s sourcing policies when they come from reliable publications. I am happy to provide accurate English translations as needed for verification and review, or users may also view automatic translations through Chrome.

Given the scope and credibility of the coverage, and its relevance to the subject’s notability, I believe inclusion of a well-sourced mention is appropriate and compliant with Wikipedia’s standards.

Feedback is welcome. Aksnahar (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aksnahar I would strongly suggest you create an individual page for Henry Christopher John Ingham Alexis Roper-Curzon, as done with others listed on this page. As this is out-of-scope for the current page which is more-or-less dedicated to the lineage of the title. There it can be tested if they fall under WP:PUBLICFIGURE where by WP:BLPCRIME would then apply and this most likely would no longer be a WP:BLP issue. It would also correctly add "relevance to the subject’s notability", the subject being the person themselves, not a title or land/house. This is taking into consideration that you have edited the pages for the grounds itself, linked to the title.
If you are going that route, the sources may be deemed unreliable. Your first notes "if the authenticity of these recordings is confirmed" and there isn't a follow up or confirmation past that, which calls into question if it was ever confirmed. The second quotes a now removed TV Azteca interview, which doesn't help the validity of the articles linked. The final link is a summary of a panel talk show and combined with other un-attributed quotes about it. None of them have a directly attributed journalist attached to them as well, which if they did, would help. See WP:V and WP:RS for more on Verifiability and Reliable sources.
In particular I would use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to check your sources (or future sources) due to the above. The notice board is used "to discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement".
If WP:BLP becomes an issue with the new page, it may fall that your attributions to this talk page also end up falling under WP:BLP and should be removed (as WP:BLP covers talk pages as well). SummersRising (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will disclose that I have been corresponding with Aksnahar via VRT, and they asked me for my thoughts. I figured it was best to share them publicly.

I think ChatGPT misunderstood what BLPCRIME says (one reason why AI is no substitute for humans!). It is absolutely correct that the information we include needs to be documented by multiple high-quality reliable sources, relevant, and written neutrally. But that is the case for everything considered controversial about living people, and obviously this is controversial.

BLPCRIME says that—in addition to those requirements for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and being relevant—we should give serious consideration to excluding the content about people who are not public figures. I'm ready to believe that this could be presented neutrally, and that those are reliable sources. Infobae was already (albeit briefly) discussed where editors came to the conclusion it is generally reliable, and Univision is the United States' largest provider of Spanish-language content, and comes up with a high credibility rating from mediabiasfactcheck.com. The question is whether these individuals are low-profile. I am not 100% sure, though I ultimately think they are low-profile. At the end of the day, we do not have an article about either of the Roper-Curzons. I doubt a high-profile white man from Britain would be without an article. So we would need to give serious thought to excluding the information. What benefit would there be in adding the information, which outweighs the presumption in favor of excluding the content? (We don't consider "raising awareness" to be a valid reason to include information on Wikipedia.)

I'll finish by saying I am certain there are other articles which do not comply with these rigorous standards. But, to use a metaphor, just because some people get away with crimes does not mean we should simply disregard the law. In this case, we should fix the other articles violating our BLP standards, not introduce additional problems.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most titleholders do not have separate pages, their personal life is included in their titles page. This page is the Baron Teynham page, a title held by David Roper Curzon who is the Baron Teynham. Since he is the titleholder, the article is essentially about him as an individual.The controvery is about him and his son, the heir to Baron Teynham. Both meet the standard of a public figure, not only due to the hereditary title but also because he has been covered by major media outlets as an artist. For example, the BBC featured his work as a sculptor, and The Telegraph published as well among others. See here example. Both have been the subject of international coverage in mainstream outlets like Infobae and Univision, where there is even a publicly available video and audio evidence on the abuse and racism ocurred. This I believe is pubic interest and should be some sort of mention on the matter on the page, under personal life or pubic allegation or modern day. If there is an issue on the sourcing, I am happy to share some more. There are many other articles and media references available on this topic. Thank you Aksnahar (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For all the title holders within the last 154 years, they all have an individual page, before that I would hazard a guess they weren't notable enough to warrant them needing a Wikipedia page or there just isn't information on them to flesh out a page. So I don't fully understand why you're trying to make it out that they don't need their own page. Either their well known enough for WP:PUBLICFIGURE to apply along with WP:BLPCRIME, which would mean they're well known enough to have their own pages, or they're not well known. But taking on-board the admin hint that maybe this should be sorted here and not spool up pages that could widen WP:BLP issues, lets try and sort this here for now and iron out the issues.
The meat of this page itself is about the title and changes to it (name structure and appointments etc). Not personal accusations tentatively related to it. There simply isn't a need to add a new controversial section for the sole purpose of "raising awareness" of a members actions unrelated to the titles overall history (which has not changed significantly for some times). See possible WP:UNDUE issues arising from this. The house and title are VASTLY old, adding in a section as big as you're aiming for alone may fall under that alone for this page (and grounds).
As per WP:V and considering the content of the articles you're wanting to source, even if the companies are reputable some quote now removed content which may well be due to legal libel issues. @HouseBlaster would you agree with the sources + contexts should first be passed by WP:RSN? And then for onto WP:BLPN to see if they would agree the subjects are notable enough?
WP:V itself states "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.". Considering the 3rd party sources are quoting articles that have been removed from 2nd party sources, is that something we need to take into account here? SummersRising (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if the sourcing was brought to RSN; I am not equipped to handle in-depth analysis of Spanish-language. And I suspect that asking for outside views at BLPN is the best way to determine whether to include this information. I'm not sure what you mean by removed from 2nd party sources. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion @HouseBlaster, I rushed the last part as I needed to shoot out the house. The univision looks to be a tertiary source WP:USEPRIMARY, "shared these audio recordings with a Mexican magazine and program" ... "The topic came up on the Sin Rollo panel". It's reporting on the reporting, and maybe even an extra step if the panel was also reporting on the reporting itself and adding in their own comments on-top. It's tricky as the secondary sources are not linked and the panel section quoted has been removed for it's site entirely.
I'll throw this into BLPN first, if it's okay there, then adding context into RSN for comment. Mainly so I don't get into trouble myself. SummersRising (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at BLPN; Aksnahar (and anyone else watching this conversation), your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Baron Teynham. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latest RSN discussion about Infobae was around 5 months ago, here. It was a short discussion, but the consensus among those who opined, seems to indicate it is a reliable source. Not sure about Univision. Having said that, I think this content is UNDUE for this article, since it is primarily about the title itself and the history. Since there is no article about the subject of these allegations, I don't think it is due to try and shoehorn the allegations into this article, which feels a little bit like WP:RGW to me. FYI, coming here from BLPN. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baron_Teynham&oldid=1293346846"