Talk:Emma Thynn, Marchioness of Bath

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Polygnotus (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 7 January 2025 (BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 2 days ago by Polygnotus in topic BLP

Mess

This article was a giant mess, I cleaned it up a bit but it still needs work. I am moving the following to the talkpage:

Extended content

==Positivity and forgiveness== The then [[Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath|Marquess]] and [[Anna Thynn, Marchioness of Bath|Marchioness of Bath]] were not present at her wedding; the groom's father was engaged in a family dispute about Longleat's artwork at the time, while his mother was prohibited from attending after making racist remarks regarding their marriage.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="townandcountrymag">{{cite web|url=http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/news/a3707/ceawlin-thynn-emma-mcquiston-marriage/|title=Ceawlin Thynn Emma McQuiston Marriage – Ceawlin Thynn Feud With Marchioness of Bath|website=Townandcountrymag.com|accessdate=29 November 2017|date=8 September 2015}}</ref> Subsequently, Emma Thynn and her family were reportedly estranged from her mother-in-law.<ref name="telegraph4">{{cite news|last1=Jamieson|first1=Sophie|date=6 September 2015|title=Rift at Longleat over 'racism' towards Britain's first black marchioness|website=The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11847323/Rift-at-Longleat-over-racism-towards-Britains-first-black-marchioness.html|accessdate=29 November 2017}}</ref> Thynn claimed in an interview that although she had been on the receiving end of [[snob]]bishness, particularly among the much older generation, she was not easily offended and tough-skinned, saying that she wants the her mixed-race marriage experience to be part of [a] conversation of positive change, and that its wonderful to hear people’s reactions to it.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Slater |first1=L. |title=Lions, tigers and heirs: Longleat's chatelaine Emma Thynn on the fabled estate's next chapter |url=https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a43736817/emma-weymouth-longleat-interview/ |access-date=2024-01-03 |publisher=Harper's Bazaar |date=2023-04-29 |quote="It has been an interesting experience to be part of this conversation of positive change, and wonderful to hear people’s reactions}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=F. |title=Emma Weymouth wedding snub: How Viscount’s own mother was banned from lavish wedding |url=https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1179561/emma-weymouth-wedding-snub-Ceawlin-Thynn-mother-banned-strictly-come-dancing |access-date=3 January 2022 |publisher=UK Daily Express |date=5 October 2019 |quote=Emma added she was tough-skinned and “not easily offended.”}}</ref><ref name="telegraph2">{{cite news|last1=Britten|first1=Nick|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9964110/A-social-jungle-for-first-black-lady-of-Longleat.html|title=A social 'jungle' for first black lady of Longleat|date=April 2013|accessdate=29 November 2017|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref> She said in August 2024 that the conversations she has had with [[Charles III|King Charles]] regarding his son [[Prince Harry]] cemented her belief in forgiveness adding that King Charles' "capacity to forgive his son - [[Prince Harry]] - is undimmed".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sharpe |first1=C. |title=Marchioness of Bath Emma Thynn on real reason she 'would never give Meghan Markle advice' |url=https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/marchioness-bath-emma-thynn-real-9512139 |publisher=© 2025 Local World |date=27 August 2024 |quote="How do you regain the trust? I don't think Harry ever can. But from the conversations I've had with the King, I would never say their relationship is irreparable. "The King's capacity to forgive his son is undimmed.}}</ref>

I have no clue what its trying to say but this is clearly not suitable for a BLP. Polygnotus (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

BLP

@Willthacheerleader18: You added irrelevant personal medical information and information about non-notable children into the article. Please don't do that. See WP:BLP. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hypophysitis is a serious medical condition. Why is that "irrelevant"? It's reported in a WP:RS source and might have been widely reported? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is an encyclopedia, we don't list the diseases BLP subjects may have had on their articles unless there is a reason to. Weird how this is far more likely to happen to women than men (what is the last time you read about the reproductive health of a male BLP subject on their wiki article?). What is the point of mentioning it? And just because its mentioned in a newspaper does not mean we have to mention it as well; they don't follow our rules and their goal is to sell newspapers. Polygnotus (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not suggesting a "list the diseases". I'm suggesting that this is a rare, and thus notable, medical condition. If it was widely reported, I see no reason for it to be excluded. I haven't checked. I think promotion of an awareness of health issues is overall a good aim. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
We are not going to "raise awareness" of diseases by mentioning every disease every BLP subject may have had. And of course the fact that someone with no medical training is aware of the existence of a disease they know nothing about does nothing to help those who actually suffer from that disease. If it has been widely reported has little to no bearing on whether it should be included or excluded; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your local weather forecast has been widely reported, but there is no Wikipedia article about it. I agree that the medical condition itself is WP:NOTABLE, and we have an article about it, but the fact that this person may have been diagnosed with that condition is not. Polygnotus (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not sure I was advocating "mentioning every disease every BLP subject may have had" or creating an article about "my local weather forecast." Looks like we'll have to agree to differ on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, after reading your userpage, I think we can agree that Putin needs to rot in a cell for a long long time. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Polygnotus: I did not "add irrelevant personal medical information and information about non-notable children into the article", I reverted your edit which removed well-sourced information. If there is consensus that that information, although widely reported, is irrelevant then that is fine by me. But let's not make false accusations here. Thank you! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

See your edit which adds irrelevant personal medical information and information about non-notable children into the article. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, a reversion of your edit which removed cited information from the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reverting removal is addition, according to mathematicians who are not to be trusted. Polygnotus (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I hate math! Haha. Heard. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, unfortunately, in the Wikipedia Big Book of Sins, reverting often can be seen as "adding". A bit like a game of pass the parcel, whoever's left holding the information when the music stops.... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yup. Or like double negatives. Polygnotus (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well I ain't done nuffink. So there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
In American English double negatives are (often? always?) used for emphasis, which is funny if you listen to police interrogations. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply