Talk:Rose Hanbury

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

Requested move 15 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCBRITPEER are in collision here, and editors assign different weights to them. No such user (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Hanbury → Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley – WP:NCBRITPEER states "Articles on the wives of hereditary peers are generally headed {First name} {Married name}, {Title}". Richiepip (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME guides us towards the name she is commonly known by. The wives of hereditary peers tend to be less famous than Hanbury and she seems to be very well known as "Rose Hanbury" more than what is proposed above.
And while WP:NCBRITPEER is a convention, WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. CT55555(talk) 23:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under the article naming policy, the specific naming convention of NCBRITPEER takes precedence over the general policy of preferring common names. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names clearly would also apply to their wives, so WP:NCBRITPEER does not here conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Reliable sources seem to use Cholmondeley while the tabloids call her Hanbury. Fifireid (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC) — Fifireid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Google trends, global analysis of the past 12 months supports my assertion that "Rose Hanbury" is overwhelmingly more used than "Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley" or "Rose Cholmondeley" https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Rose%20Hanbury,Rose%20Cholmondeley,%20Marchioness%20of%20Cholmondeley,Rose%20Cholmondeley CT55555(talk) 19:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the quality of the sources, Architectural Digest uses "Rose Cholmondeley" and at least Town & Country adds "Marchioness of Cholmondeley". I doubt the tabloids calling her by a name that has not been her name since 24 June 2009 has anything to do with that being her common name (was she really well known before her marriage?) and more some them being uninformed on the proper way to refer to a peeress of the realm, something that is not at all aided by her Wikipedia article being titled the wrong name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifireid (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct name here is that preferred under the Wikipedia article naming policy. Your opinion that it is wrong notwithstanding. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not my opinion it is English common law. Fifireid (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? Is there some judge in England that will be demanding what we call this article? lol. "Summon CT55555 with haste, he undid that redirect against English common law!" CT55555(talk) 05:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCBRITPEER. ("Rose Hanbury" should redirect to "Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley".) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged romantic association with Prince William[edit]

A number of non-deprecated sources have reported that Rose Hanbury may have been in a romatic relationship with Prince William in 2019. This might legitimately be included in this article. From a global perspective, this may be the most notable thing about this subject. Any thoughts, Wikipedians? Emmentalist (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this already, but was nervous to include because it seems tabloid and I maybe not aligned with WP:BLP norms. But I'm not sure. When you say "non-deprecated" is that synonymous with "reliable", or is it in the middle of depreciated, non-depreciated, and reliable? CT55555(talk) 13:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly that. Here's a good reference point. And here's an example of a non-deprecated source in respect of this story. [potential libel removed by Meticulo (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]. Interestingly, the fight between Princes Harry and William publicised in the media this week is said by some sources to have followed Harry's intervention on the matter of Prince William's alleged affair; he is reported by some to have pointed out the harm their parents' affairs did to them. I have not seen this in a non-deprecated source, but if true it is certainly notable. My view is that that should not be mentioned here unless a non-deprecated source is available. The story of the affair, complete with [potential libel removed by Meticulo (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)] is another thing. I think it might be correct to report reports of the affair but might not quite be right to refer to [potential libel removed by Meticulo (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]? Emmentalist (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Meticulo, re: your edit. There's no question of potential libel - the article refers to something and the cited Wikipedia explains what that something is. That said, I agree that the latter is probably unnecessary. Do you have a view on whether the alleged affair should be mentioned in the article? I'm struck by how un-WP:notable the subject is beyond her relationship with Prince William and his wife. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A relevant link in the context of the libel claim: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/pegging-prince-william-rumor-sex-act-1392678/ CT55555(talk) 14:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Emmentalist, I suppose my view is the alleged affair shouldn't be mentioned in the article yet, mostly due to the lack of reliable sources so far and the extra caution needed for biographies of living people. I'd say we're best guided by WP:BLPGOSSIP, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.". Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC) My view has changed. See comment below of 18 April 2024. Meticulo (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've read your suggestions and I think you're right. I do, quite seriously and genuinely, thank you for the education. I haven't been editing long and am enjoying it very much. I think I've allowed my instincts to overcome my knowledge of editing here on this occasion, though. I've edited elsewhere, and had articles merged, on the basis that some figures with UK titles have no reason to have Wikipedia articles (i.e. WP:notability). When I came across this one, it seemed like the only reason the subject should have her own article is that, well, enough said. There are better sources, btw, which are not contested at Wikipedia, but I think it's best to do as you suggest and let it lie unless there are new developments. Even then, I'm moving on to more useful things. The focus should be on the quality of the article and I 'might' have forgotten that for a moment. Thanks again, @Meticulo, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reports about that "alleged affair" do keep cropping up in the Spanish Press - e.g. https://www.elespanol.com/corazon/casas-reales/20230221/guillermo-rose-hanbury-historia-infidelidad-prolongada-tiempo/742925834_0.html - (so perhaps there are also similar articles in other European countries? - adding to the one from the American Daily Beast referenced above) ... Of course the key question here is: "Do we regard EL ESPAÑOL as a reliable source in the Wikipedia context"; [this 'online newspaper' features at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Espa%C3%B1ol ] ... My personal inclination, for what it's worth, is to be cautious about including it in the main article --DLMcN (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That^ article in EL ESPAÑOL adds that "The Daily Mail, The Mirror o The Sun aseguraron que el futuro Rey habría sido infiel a su esposa con la modelo, Rose Hanbury ..." >> However, the Spanish verb structure used there, i.e. "... habría sido infiel" actually means "would have been unfaithful"; [how are we supposed to interpret that?] ... I have not seen the relevant reports in those British tabloids, incidentally. --DLMcN (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DLMcN "would have" is a rather literal referring. Various Romance languages, including Spanish, use the conditional to indicate information that hasn't been confirmed, so the translation here would be something like "is rumoured to have been unfaithful" or "has reportedly been unfaithful". 105.232.57.24 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@105.232.57.24 *a rather literal translation 105.232.57.24 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment is that we cannot included it based on this source, as it notes it is quoting British tabloids. We need to find the actual source and assess that, I assume something unreliable. But I cannot say I am certain. CT55555(talk) 20:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that the 'story' is just "fake news": https://www.msn.com/es-es/entretenimiento/other/ni-cena-rom%C3%A1ntica-ni-censura-la-incre%C3%ADble-historia-de-las-dos-fake-news-sobre-rose-hanbury-y-el-pr%C3%ADncipe-guillemo/ar-AA17XBhU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cf9a439d1632435998a45dcaf4092767&ei=360 --DLMcN (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on I think the ongoing nature of the allegations mean it should now be in the article.
It’s now been reported to be linked to the Princess of Wales’ absence from public life (following surgery), there are suddenly biographical articles in the non-tabloid press on Rose Hanbury that hint towards her involvement, and outright statements in non-British press that mean whether the allegations are true or not, the newsworthy nature of the significant press coverage of them means the allegations should be included;
Per WP:BLPGOSSIP:
”Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.”
It is now widely alleged in numerous news reports, including from publications that are included in Wikipedia’s reputable sources list, that they had or are having an affair.
The veracity of the allegations isn’t relevant - the newsworthiness of the mass of reports IS, and isn’t gossip, in accordance with WP:BLPGOSSIP
I had an edit written earlier that was removed that adhered to the policy and guidelines, and I tried to persuade that user of the argument and they said so argue it in Talk; hence I’m here. I propose the article edit from earlier today is restored because at this point the article NOT having any mention of the allegation makes Wikipedia look biased - there are literally tens of thousands of reports on this including the biggest news outlets in the world. That alone justifies mention (tho in keeping with policy, only of the fact allegations have been made, without comment on their veracity and including the denial of them from royal sources) 86.146.159.55 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission the articles "hint towards her involvement" which is WP:BLPGOSSIP. Your SCMP source overtly says at the beginning "While there is no concrete evidence to suggest the future king of England did the supposed deed", L'Officiel speaks of "Unconfirmed rumors", Cosmo says "(very likely false) rumors about an alleged affair with Prince William", the Shefinds article just repeats gossip from online sources. All of this is clearly unsubstantiated gossip and therefore violates WP:BLP. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the addition to the article were a statement about the allegations, yes, it would violate the policy. But the addition isn’t commenting on the veracity of the claims - merely pointing out that 50+ major news organisations have reported on them. You seem to be hung up on the nature of the allegations. That’s irrelevant. It’s the fact the media (reputable, non-tabloid media) have reported about it that is relevent. The media allegations are the subject of the addition, not her potential adultery… 86.146.159.55 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPGOSSIP clearly states "Avoid repeating gossip." WP:NOTGOSSIP states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." Hanbury is not notable because of these rumors therefore the above quoted policies take precedence over google hits. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this whole talk section published on the article? SkysingerGregala (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. This talk section and the article itself are two separate things. Meticulo (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It takes 5 seconds to check the edit history on the page to see that, yes, the entire talk section was published to the main article on accident.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Hanbury&direction=prev&oldid=1213327976 SkysingerGregala (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my view and now think mentioning rumours of an affair in the article would be justifiable, given the extent of recent media coverage. Perhaps something minor in the Personal Life section along the lines of, 'Hanbury has denied having an affair with William, the Prince of Wales, saying through lawyers that such rumours were "completely false".' Citations could include this Business Insider article and one or two of Harpers Bazaar, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire or Elle. Meticulo (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) --- And as far as WP:NOTGOSSIP is concerned, I'd point out that the policy also says, "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." At this point, I'd say many readers who come to the article are highly likely to have an interest in this facet. And as far as WP:BLPGOSSIP is concerned, I'd argue that the criteria for inclusion have been met: there are reliable sources to the fact that Hanbury has issued a denial, and this would be relevant to a disinterested article about her. Meticulo (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reinsertion of edits[edit]

User:Unfriendnow keeps re-adding the same edits. I agree with User:Willthacheerleader18 and others who have retracted them, but I feel it's worth spelling out why:

1) Replacing "Bill Smith, 5th Lord Smith" with "The 5th Lord Smith" and a pothole link is needless - all it does is obscure the personal names of people relevant to the narrative. It's an old-fashioned style, and entirely out of keeping with encyclopedic writing. 2) The source provided for the claim about Caroline Longman does not mention Rose Hanbury anywhere, which means that the sentence that keeps being added is at the very least a violation of WP:SYN.

So please stop. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_Hanbury&oldid=1223622475"