# Talk:John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

No mention of what he died of? Seems odd not to include that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.24.210 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 

It would flesh the article out to have just a little more on the wife.  ThePeerage.com cannot count as a relaible source, since it cites Wikipedia, but it does provide good leads. It says here, citing the 1998 Complete Peerage, that she was the daughter of Douglas H. Fisher of Marbella, Malaga, Spain.  An obit of John in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo says she was vegetarian and a non-drinker, and her father was a "constructor afincado" (builder? property developer?). It seems an unlikely pairing.  Are there any reliable English sources for these?  The Independent obituary by Jessica Berens, which I've just found, says "Francesca Fisher, to whom the marquess was briefly married, was driven halfway over a cliff in the Bentley and left hanging there like the last scene of The Italian Job". (NB it doesn't say who was at the wheel, but gives it as one in a list of examples of life-threatening japes that happened to his entourage.) Although that should be a reputable source, it is mentioned in passing without quotation or dates.  A sentence or two about her, how they met, would add to the article.  One can assume he was under pressure (internal or external) to marry. Why did he choose her, and why did she accept him?  BrainyBabe (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nine years in, I think that's still a good question. Any answers? Valetude (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. There are already six sentences in the article about her, including content from the obit in The Independent about parking the Bentley on a cliff. The article mentions she didn't drink alcohol. I'm not opposed to using information from El Mundo to speak about her more. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, nine years on the article has been completely rewritten from the ground up, so opinions based on information back then are as useful as wondering whether Gordon Brown could win an election. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just reverted the deletion of this sentence:

His maternal half-brother, George Lambton, said the family had no hard feelings about the disappearance of the money.
The sentence had been removed by User:Carr1, with the edit summary that it was not accurate.  The core content policy of verifiability states that:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
If a reliable source can be found to state that the families are feuding, by all means include that, subject to WP:BLP (which obviously doens't apply to the subject of this article, but may to other family members). BrainyBabe (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentences have been altered again by the same editor.  For the record, the Independent article I got the material from says:
His half-brother, George Lambton - their mother was the first wife of the 6th Marquess - said there were "no hard feelings" from the family at the fact that the money had all gone.  Mr Lambton, 43, a Conservative councillor, added: "He made the most of his life; he packed more in his 44 years than most people do in their whole lives. But he definitely mellowed a bit in the last five years."
I had previously written:
His maternal half-brother, George Lambton, said the family had no hard feelings about the disappearance of the money.
and that had been changed to:
His maternal half-brother, George Lambton, said the Lambton side of the family had no hard feelings about the disappearance of the money.  This cannot be said for the Hervey side.
The addition of "the Lambton side" is not stated in the article given as a reference.  It might be a reasonable assumption, but there again it might not. Best not to guess.  Any suggested rewordings consistent with the source would welcome here.  The sentence "This cannot be said for the Hervey side." is nowhere given or implied in that or any source I have looked at, and cannot be allowed to stand. It is an unsourced statement masquerading as a sourced one, and so I am going to revert the changes now, putting a notice on User:Carr1's talkpage to that effect. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have scratched my head at what to do with the names in this article. First-hand accounts in the sources from friends and colleagues seem to use "John", but that isn't consistent with our general guidelines on writing for nobility. I have gone with "John" for early life (particularly since "Hervey" can be confused with any number of family members, especially his father), then "the Earl" post 1960 and "the Marquess" post 1985, though occasionally still using "John" where this can still cause confusion. I can't think of a better way of doing this - can anyone else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Pleased to be working with you, Ritchie333. This looks good on my intial check and I found the subject interesting as I never heard of him and know very little about lesser nobles. I intend to have this review done by the end of the week with comments about anything that needs addressed so you can fix, if applicable. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
I magically was able to make a quick glimpse of the ONDB and I didn't see the "wastrel" line although I did see it in one of the other sources. The title fits, regardless, so I feel safe with it. I don't have access to the stuff from The Times so I'll AGF on those. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
You can walk into any British library nowadays and (provided you have suitable ID) get a card that will allow you access to the Gale Group archives, including complete back issues of The Times. Of course, if British libraries are on a different continent, that's a bit more difficult..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
Everything is reflected in the source material.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Fair use on the subject's image is established. The other is within creative commons. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The Independent says the subject was also "Baron Hervey of Ickworth... and Hereditary High Steward of the Liberty of St Edmund" These titles aren't mentioned; I would think they were relevant somehow. The Guardian says he learned he contracted AIDS in 1986, not HIV. It think your interpretation is correct as I don't think there was much in the way of treatment for full-blown AIDS back then. The Easy Anglian Daily Times (page 27) bears this out. I don't think there's a good way to change it; I'm just noting it. This article passes GA criteria as I see it. This was a fun read and you've done a good job with the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. Basically I've now got hold of one of the two book sources mentioned in "further reading" and I'll get the other one at some point, so we can move forward and go for the big brown star. There's a small bit of incidental detail (his mum was a constant in his life, but after 1959 the details are sketchy, and what exactly was his relationship with the young Rupert Everett?) that none of the main sources use and hence isn't in the article yet, and I think the other titles you mention here will be listed there. If they aren't on the main Marquess of Bristol, they definitely should as that's the main place for them. Certainly most sources just refer to "Earl Jermyn" or "Lord Bristol", and his titles get glossed over a bit. I did double-check the "wastrel" quotation and the shotgun incidents. Anyway, thanks for the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on this article on and off for ten years; I'm glad it's got to GA. I note that the reviewer can't see the ODNB but assumes good faith. Just for the record, and because I do find the 7th marquess utterly compelling, I'll copy a couple of snippets from there. It begins:

Hervey, Frederick William John Augustus, seventh marquess of Bristol (1954–1999), wastrel, was born on 15 September 1954 .....
Of all the hundreds of ODNB biographies I've read, I cannot think of another that uses such a pungent term for a one-word life description. Where other subjects would have "sculptor" or "politician" or "saloniere", the biographer can find no positive activity to ascribe to him. The bio only has two paragraphs. The second sentence of the second one turns "speak no ill of the dead" on its head:

Bristol was notorious for mean-spirited practical jokes
And the biographer concludes with a cautionary note to us:

Bristol's chief legacy, besides the ruin of his family's fortunes, was a gift to obituarists, who made an imaginary genetic link with the eccentricities of assorted eighteenth-century Herveys.
That's us told, then. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across this article about six months ago when I heard mention of Lady Victoria Hervey, wondered "what on earth is a lady doing on TV?" and read up about the Herveys, of which John is the most fascinating (though his father, Victor, comes a close second). It's difficult to know how to summarise the Marquess' life. On the one hand, some of the wacky things involving helicopters and shotguns are just stuff of the bizarre life of the upper-class, the lack of fatherly love and the drug dependency is genuinely sad, throwing the family fortune down the toilet and a genuinely nasty streak, particularly post-marriage is not at all nice. A complex character, indeed. PS: I can access the ODNB through my library card (see above conversation) and although I didn't add "wastrel" (did you do that, CC?) I did check it was genuinely there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The word "wastrel" was added in parentheses and with strict reference to the ODNB a couple of edits after my first contribution. I'd added a brief paragraph about Bristol's "remarkable dissoluteness"; another editor seems to have been spurred by this to look up the subject in the ODNB, which I don't think I had access to in 2006. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)