Talk:Hugh Bonneville

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

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up the article a bit, and improved the structure. Hope it's OK, drop me a message on my talk page if not. Tom H 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-injunction[edit]

Is Wikipedia bound by this? Egg Centric 13:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not because WP is outside UK jurisdiction. But you are if a UK national. As it is, there is no reliable source to confirm or deny any rumours which may be around. Philip Cross (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: In English law there is no such thing as a UK National. There is Scottish Law and the law of England and Wales. That is why Bonneville can be named in Scotland, but will incur the wrath of a London judge if named in England or Wales.
I don't think there would be a problem including this as long as you can cite a source. Sue De Nimes (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is bound by our policies including biographies of living people and verifiability. If there is a super-injunction out preventing publication of information then it stands to reason that that information can not be included on Wikipedia as it can never be sourced to reliable sources. Woody (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In an article for the Sunday Times, Rod Liddle strongly hints that Hugh Bonneville has taken out a super injunction. Since this is the closest you will ever get to a reliable source during the length of the super injunction can it be considered a reliable source? If so can the page be edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.149.63 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't settle for hints and speculation, it still amounts to gossip. Until we have a source that explicitly states the subjects of super-injunctions we cannot include the speculation on Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can count three references on this page. How much of the other information should I remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.149.63 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to today's newspapers, he is banned from watching Doctor Who in his house after his nine-year-old son got scared by the Daleks.[1] His son is named as Felix in the article (without a citation) and this probably fails WP:BLPNAME. Since the article is fully protected at the moment, I can't remove it though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the IP, anything that is potentially controversial and anything that is defamatory needs to be removed per the policy that has been linked numerous times on this page and is in the big red banner at the the top of this page. To Ianmacm I have removed the family section accordingly. Woody (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". So I take it that if its complete bs then as long as it is not contentious it can be put on a BLP? This seems to be double standards to me. I recognise that there are no reliable sources for the injunction but there are no sources for 90% of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.149.63 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious doesn't just cover the standard "he has two heads" stuff, it is anything that someone contends. If someone argues about the veracity of some information then the editors of page need to come up with a reference. Articles are all works in progress, it is an ideal standard that we are working towards. It will eventually have everything sourced when editors can get round to it. Woody (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is somewhat undersourced and statements like "He speaks fluent French" seem to have come from his IMDb profile.[2] At least he would not be suing for defamation if this is wrong. The super-injunction has no reliable sourcing, so it cannot be mentioned unless and until this changes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more amazing hint-dropping in today's The Mail on Sunday. Also interesting is the part saying "Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons."[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's incredibly blatant. Almost as good as the way a certain other one of the injunctions was constantly being blasted as "shameless"...Egg Centric 08:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate the mail, I've got to admit that the "Ryan Giggs" comment at the end it awesome--82.38.172.194 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another day, another hint dropped in the Daily Mail: [4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I get the sense the foreign media is about to name the lot of them (including, I hope, certain very rich chaps of Indian descent not just the kiss and tell bunch ;)) so am clarifying with Jimbo what the Wikipedia legal postion is. Egg Centric 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the trainspotters who are still interested, this is on page 11 of the current Private Eye (No. 1289).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More up-the-cuff sniggering in the Daily Mail here, particularly in the final sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Littlejohn tries his hand here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny watching some of you pretending that you have rules for verifiability. When material is removed elsewhere because all it has is someone's highly opinionated blog as a source, or is no more than 'I once met someone who told me this', the rules go out the window and keeping the content in place is all that matters. Basically, Wikipedia is a pile of hypocritical excrement.ZebAndTheWebOfBeb (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article http://observer.com/2016/05/beloved-british-family-man-burned-by-escorts-breach-of-contract/] seems to talk fairly freely about the incident. Seems like Wikipedia is being censored by over-zealous editors, especially when there are plenty of reliable sources available. It seems like this is verifiable and could be worded factually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.114 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I've restored the "known professionally as Hugh Bonneville" wording as his real surname is Williams; Bonneville is one of his middle names. The closest example I can think of to follow here is Angelina Jolie (although unlike Jolie, Bonneville hasn't legally changed his name). He describes Hugh Williams as his real name in this interview. January (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMR controversy[edit]

Could we have some amplification on the role of Mr. Bonneville with the current measles epidemic in Wales. The film "Hear the Silence" is not described in the article. The importance of current events is described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/25/measles-cases-south-wales-outbreak-up The idiocy of the film is described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/14/broadcasting.science Did Mr Bonneville approve of the film and if so is he prepared to apologise to the parent who believed the message of the film. --Tomkirwan (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will need to provide reliable sources that directly connect Bonneville to anything that is happening. your connection of a film to a disease outbreak to a death is not sufficienct -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hugh Bonneville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Re this edit: this would need a reliable source, and a supermarket tabloid would not be one. There may be a stampede for the edit button if the person in this news article is named, but it would fail BLP guidelines if the only sourcing is the tabloid press.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a non-surprise! (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.187.73 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall saying this about Savile or Harris. As for Mr Bonneville, what may or may not have happened would not be added to an article if the only sourcing was a tabloid newspaper. This is what WP:BLPSOURCES says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Bonneville. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TV Debut[edit]

At the beginning of the article it states Bonneville made his debut on television in 1994 in an Episode of The Memoirs Of Sherlock Holmes. Then at the bottom clearly lists four TV appearances (some in multiple episodes) from 1993, predating that so-called 'debut'.145.130.113.142 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_Bonneville&oldid=1206370459"