Talk:Shami Chakrabarti

Investigation claim

I have done a search on the web for the claim that she was investigated and found nothing. Unless someone objects, I plan to remove the claim. Eiler7 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If no credible references can be found for this, the claim should be removed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything on LexisNexis. —Whouk (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the official policy, I am removing the claim. See WP:V for more details. Eiler7 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Shame! 78.151.27.210 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I do not believe this article is written from a neutral POV, and is biased favourably towards Chakrabarti. --163.1.38.194 09:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. This article is neutral.--84.9.46.37 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems to be biased, and I think its the lyrics of the song that give that impression - perhaps they should be replaced with a link to the appropriate page on a lyrics site? Davfleming 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the lyrics and replaced them with a link, I would argue this makes the article conform to neutral POV. Davfleming 19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why my IP address has become linked to this thread, and only looked her up because she is currently,as I type,on Radio 4's "Any Questions". However she appears to have been promoted beyond her capabilities, and has made absolutely no contribution to tonights programme. She dodged the first question saying " I'm not an economist" despite graduating from L.S.E. --86.143.109.62 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Belated reply) Your IP address is possibly dynamically assigned by your ISP (unless you specifically requested a "static IP" a dynamic IP address is likely to be what you have) so another user may well have had "your" IP address in the recent past. Incidentally, graduating from LSE doesn't make you an economist; Chakrabati studied law at LSE. I'd go further and argue that even graduating with an economics degree doesn't make you an economist: I have a history degree but would never describe myself as an historian (I work in IT). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect editor Nick Cooper has a conflict of interest. On looking at his web pages: if he doesn't know her then I am an Eskimo. 78.151.27.210 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's biased in her favor. 92.12.142.177 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Guardian article

I can find no article in March in the Guardian in which Shami Chakrabarti refuses to condemn the terrorist attacks. Can others please check. Nicolharper 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sister?

Is SC related to Reeta Chakrabarti? 81.107.44.230 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she isn't. See Telegraph interview Fifth from last question. Grievous Angel (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful and educational as this clarification may be, I found it offensive that somebody thought it would help to put up a "She is not related to Reeta Chakrabarti." on the page (I believe the protocol is to confirm somebody's relation in case it exists, not assume that all non-white persons sharing the same surname are automatically related unless expressly clarified otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.30.155 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well said, it is ignorant but that's the way some people are. Therefore shouldn't this section be removed? Multiculturalist (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What section? Apuldram (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Relax, it was removed long ago. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No I'm referring to this thread here in the "Talk" section. It just seems idle and ignorant speculation. Still I suppose if we have to have that sort of thing it's better here than in the article itself. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous detail?

I am concerned that we should not publish detail which identifies the family of someone whose work and prominence exposes them to personal risk. The lady said on Radio 4 that she has been officially advised to work under her maiden name for her family's safety; and in this case there is negligible public interest in her surname or husband's identity.

(Please would someone Wikilearned explain to me how to find the appropriate policy or procedure to cover this point? If you agree, perhaps you could also expunge the surname from past pages) Jezza (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. If she wants a reclusive life she should withdraw from public life. Anybody in the U.K. who purports to tell us how to live should live by the same rules as our polititians. Who is she in danger from? "Disgusted" from Tunbridge Wells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.62 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently from the police in vestigating Damien Green. I expect they get most of their information from wikipedia.--Streona (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of WikiPolicy, not opinions of the lady. W:BLPNAMES says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." There is no significant value in the husband's name, he is a low-profile figure, his name is totally irrelevant to understanding the subject, and so his privacy, let alone safety, should prevail.Jezza (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's considered to be quite a significant figure, her "hero" and someone with a very similar profession to her. It's not as if Chakrabarti is some sort of private individual who never mentions him either, if she's going to seek publicity by giving in-depth interviews to national newspapers about her family life then this makes a very strong case for including such material here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If Chakrabarti is in personal danger, she will be given suitable protection. As, one presumes, are many lawyers who deal with dangerous criminals. 78.151.27.210 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Involvement in the SDP

It is a cast iron fact that Chakrabarti took an active role in the British Social Democratic Party. She actually said as much during one of her appearances of the BBC comedy quiz show Have I Got News For You? and in due course I will attempt to locate the precise edition in order to provide a source, although it will not be easy. I and many others - including Shirley Williams, Dr David Owen, Sue Slipman and Daniel Finkelstein - remember her very well as an enthusiastic SDP activist. Why then, on 8 March 2010, did Meeplet choose to delete this fact with the words "deleted because information incorrect"? To deny this aspect of Chakrabarti's political socialisation is to deny a fundamental part of her history and identity. Her early thinking was, in fact, very mainstream SDP - a party which was right wing on economic issues but left wing on social issues. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The valid reason for deleting it is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). You need to find a reliable source (WP:RS), and I'm afraid blogs don't cut it on that score. If we accepted blogs in general as sources, we'd end up with loads of nonsense in WP. Rwendland (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. The guidelines for verifiability indicate that a newspaper blog by a professional is acceptable.

Shami Chakrabarti has said that she was never a member of the SDP or an SDP activist. Walkwounded (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

She has said nothing of the sort.Multiculturalist (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have heard her asked directly at a public meeting (prompted by Guido Fawkes inaccurate post) and she has denied it - surely you have to have some verifiable facts before you make statements about someone? Walkwounded

The fact she was active in the SDP is verifiable - and is properly referenced and sourced. If you're ever at a public meeting with Shirley Williams then ask Shirl - she'll confirm this! The two of them got on like a house on fire. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that 'ask Shirl' is how it works - this is starting to come across as something personal and malicious. If the woman herself denies it and it isn't verifiable the same way everything else is, it should stay off. [user: Walkwounded] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkwounded (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that 'I have heard her asked at a public meeting' is how it works, either. You have once again removed properly-sourced information about her involvement in the Social Democratic Party. Why do you consider a reference to her SDP past as 'personal and malicious'? If that sort of behaviour concerns you then it is curious that you did nothing to remove Sabgerno's erroneous comment that she became pregnant while working at the SDP Headquarters. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiculturalist, can I draw your attention to these elements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy:

1. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person ... "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.
2. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; ...; that relies on self-published sources ... the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals
3. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s)
4. and from Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

On this basis I shall remove this content you have added until you provide a WP:RS for it, rather than a blog entry as the source. If you persist in restoring it without a WP:RS I will remove it without further comment, and I encourage other editors to do likewise. If this is continued I will ask for admin intervention - can I remind you again of 3 above. Rwendland (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes..and also from Wikipedia:Verifiability:Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals

So blogs are acceptable. Wythy (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has now reinstated a reference to her membership of the SDP, this time with a credible source (not sure how you found that link, Shakehandsman, but well done). It is only a brief reference and, I would argue, a proportionate one. Hopefully, we can all agree that this particular matter is now closed. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A good credible source. But as the SDP decided to dissolve (1987) when Chakrabarti was 17 or 18, this must of been a sixth-form interest (it actually dissolved a year later, but unlikely to get new members that year). I really do think this is barely worth mentioning. Rwendland (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to wait until "17 or 18" before joining a party. She joined just after her sixteenth birthday, and attended the 1985 & 1986 SDP conferences. (At the latter, she was interviewed for a broadcast of the BBC's World Service). She was also Vice-Chair of the London Region Young Social Democrats and was well known to party leader David Owen and party president Shirley Williams, so the extent of her involvement was significant. For the record, the party did not vote to dissolve until towards the end of 1987 (via a members' ballot and the Portsmouth conference) and did not formally do so until early 1988. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to get involved in this but the Essex link doesn't seem to mention the SDP? Not sure what's happened here.Aceblaster —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

It's in the second sentence: "She was previously an active member of the Social Democrat Party and then worked as a barrister at the Home Office before joining Liberty in 2001."Multiculturalist (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the material disappeared from the original ref and I replaced it with a different page from the same site.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It has now disappeared from that page as well. Is it just me, or is someone deliberately trying to destroy any reference to her involvement in the SDP, and if so why? I hope Rwendland and Shakehandsman will not allow those who are trying to remove factual information to now remove the short sentence highlighting her previous membership of the party, otherwise where will this all lead? That she was involved is now surely undisputed, it's just that we may no longer have a "reliable" source.Multiculturalist (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a website redesign leaving no copies of Annual Reviews before 2007-2008. Printed copies will still be available in various libraries of course. You can still see the old design in Google's cache at the moment e.g. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:es6Tm7CVbjYJ:www.essex.ac.uk/review/05_06/finance.aspx+site:www.essex.ac.uk+Annual+Review,+2005-2006&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk NebY (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want an even better source, and something which looks very interesting, try Zerbanoo Gifford's book "The golden thread: Asian experiences of post-Raj Britain" (Pandora Press, 1991) which contains a profile and information from a contemporary interview. (Zerbanoo Gifford was an active member of the Alliance, though from the Liberal Party.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she knew Zerbanoo. I see another left-winger who cannot bare to accept that his/her hero was once involved in the hated SDP, has decided to re-write history by claiming that Sharmishta was only "briefly" a member. That's a value judgement, so I've added the actual dates she was a member in order that readers can make up their own minds. She was actually a member for nearly one third of the party's existence.Multiculturalist (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Your inclusion of dates for membership is much better than "briefly". I have restored the clause you removed "but left before she was 18", as that is relevant. Apuldram (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but it seems a bit superfluous as the party had merged with the Liberals a few months before her 18th birthday so she could not have remained a member even if she had wanted to. Anyway, have left your amendment intact. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry case

People should be aware of the recent SPI relating to editors of this page. Quite a few recent contributors are now banned and it may well be worth reviewing some of their edits more closely (at the very least some material is unsourced and their additions elsewhere breach copyright). The relevant SPI is here [1]--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In keeping with this, people should be aware that the section about her links with LSE is misleading and, I suspect is primarily inspired by an attempt to embarrass LSE because of the Gadaffi controversy.She did not sever her links with the School. She was a keynote speaker at an LSE public event in JUne 2014 (

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/06/20140603t1830vSZT.aspx). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.48.227 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim to know the full story here, but reliable sources state she has severed ties with the LSE. Your point that's she gone there to speak at one event doesn't disprove such a statement in the slightest - I'm pretty sure anyone can still participate in such an event and still retain their independence from the LSE, there's no indication that it was for LSE staff only.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More likely that the LSE have severed ties with her as she brings into disrepute anything with which she is associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.110.231 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Songs about Shami Chakrabarti

There are two songs written about Shami Chakrabarti. Given that she is a lawyer and human rights advocate, not a model or actress, I find this kind of strange and wonder whether it should be mentioned on the page? In particular, the fact that one of the songwriters is Jonathan King, now in prison for child sex abuse, makes this even more interesting. 105.14.12.144 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Many public figurees have had songs written about them. The songs are not usually notable or worth including in a Wikipedia article. Exceptions like 'The Grand Old Duke of York" and a medically incorrect one about Hitler have been given their own Wiki articles. Apuldram (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The original comment was hardly worth answering. Trying to imply an "association" with Jonathan King is clearly just a lazy attempt at a smear. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

liberty in the 70s?

What place does the activities of liberty have in the biography of someone that wasn't around at that time? I'm struggling to see the relevance and having that title is pretty much a smear. Views please. --ℕ ℱ 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than the fact that she personally issued the apology, none at all. A link in "See Also" would suffice just as well I guess. CalzGuy (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If the section were removed, someone is bound to accuse W or Liberty of a coverup. IMO it is better to air the dirty linen with her apology, which shows she wasn't afraid to speak out about earlier mistakes made by the organisation she later ran. It shows an apect of her character that is relevant. Apuldram (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is really relevant to Liberty, but not to a biography about Chakrabarti. I'm going to remove the section, and if someone strongly objects they can take up the discussion here - I'm sure that is the right thing to do with concerns over BLP material. --ℕ ℱ 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shami Chakrabarti. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.essex.ac.uk/review/05_06/hongrads.aspx

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421063324/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5174991/Damian-Green-raid-police-search-emails-for-Liberty-head.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5174991/Damian-Green-raid-police-search-emails-for-Liberty-head.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 07 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Shami Chakrabarti → Shami Chakrabarti, Baroness Chakrabarti – adherence to convention that peers and peeresses are referred to as such in title of article – Bocaj12 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Bocaj12 and Timrollpickering: Peers who are well-known before going to the Lords & whose title uses their surname generally aren't renamed as such. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tim. Surely WP:COMMONNAME trumps any stylistic requirement. She is and probably always will be plain Shami. CalzGuy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chakrabarti is well known and was assessed as one of the 100 most powerful women in the UK under the name Shami Chakrabarti. That is how she is commonly known. A move to Sharmishta Chakrabarti, Baroness Chakrabarti would not be useful. Many other peers have retained the name by which they are commonly known as the heading of their Wikipedia articles (for example Neil Kinnock, James Callaghan, David Owen, Nigel Lawson). Apuldram (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons articulated above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons outlined above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Son

Both I and Jilljack1952 think that the son going to Dulwich should be in the article, it has been noted here, here, here, and here. However Nick Cooper and Apuldram disagree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is extremely pertinent and so long as it is done in a non-judgemental way and it doesn't identify the boy, then I don't think it is a problem. CalzGuy (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be kept in. Wythy (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC) What's with the pussyfooting? I too am of South East Asian blood. Is that it? If so, no big deal. Get over it. Wythy (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My original objection was generated by the use of the word hypocrisy, which was an editor's personal opinion. The version by Absolutelypuremilk is neutral, and allows readers to form their own view. I like it, but, to protect the boy's privacy, I would prefer that the name of the school is replaced by an independent school (or by public school or private school). I don't see the relevance of naming the school. The statement would then become
Chakrabati was married to Martyn Hopper, a litigation lawyer, from 1995 to 2014 and their son attends an independent school.
Apuldram (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming the school emphasises the point of her saying one thing and doing the opposite. Why is naming the school a problem to you? Wythy (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the school is identified in multiple public sources, not including it here will do nothing to protect the boy's pricacy, and may well heighten the thought that there is an attempted cover-up going on. CalzGuy (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Was that comment to me? I agree with you. Yes, it does appear that there's an attempted cover-up of her choice of school. By whomever, and that's not necessarily Chakrabati. Wythy (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to only framing her sending her son to a private school as being a wholly negative thing? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? Explain in detail; I am more stupid than you. 1969chas (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand the issue, then you shouldn't be editing it. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And because you know Chakrabati, you shouldn't be editing the article.78.151.27.210 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not deny you know her. That is as good as an admission that you know her. 78.151.28.118 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I challenged you to prove your accusation. Still waiting. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got a better , more recent photo?

Current photo is old and a bit strange, not a portrait style headshot as per wikipedia biography guidelines. Anyone got a better , more recent photo? Govindaharihari (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And one that doesn't look a bit strange? Steady on. 78.151.27.210 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In a discussion on my Talk page Govindaharihari and I came to the conclusion that it was best to follow the Manual of Style MOS:LEADIMAGE advice:

"Lead images ... should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"

and

"Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution ..."

So I believe we came to the view that none of the current low-quality Chakrabarti images we have should be used, and we will simply await a good quality image becoming available. I'll do this on the article page. Rwendland (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't support no image when we have one, it may not be the best but it is not a WP:BLP violation. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just downloaded a flickr photo c:File:Newspaper Review (13034466154).jpg. Once it passes Flickr review (no problem expected), we can rotate and crop into an acceptable quality photo. Could be wait for that? Rwendland (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There are editors who probably have a conflict of interest. Please investigate. In particular Nick Cooper. 78.151.27.210 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not deny you know her. That is as good as an admission that you know her. 78.151.28.118 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi 78.151.27.210, do you have any evidence that Nick Cooper has a WP:COI? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

78.151.27.210/78.151.28.118, unlike you I am not hiding behind a IP number. I use my real name here. You are free to present evidence that you think supports your claim that I have any connection whatsoever with Chakrabarti. Be sure you get the right "Nick Cooper," though. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What is her religion, if any?

This is relevant. She defends many Muslims. If possible put it in the article. Jilljack1952 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I have included impeccably-cited details which have a direct bearing on whatever religious views she may hold. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Is she a Privy Councillor?

Her photograph is captioned "The Rt Hon SC" but this descriptions is only available to Privy Councillors. I can't find any trace of her appointment. She is swollen headed enough already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.98.77 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your description of the style only being available for use by those sworn to the Privy Council is partly correct. Everyone who uses the right must be a Privy Councillor except peers below the rank of Marquess. Barons, Viscounts, and Earls may use the style, even if they aren't Privy councillors. It is just the same as how Marquesses use The Most Honourable and Dukes use His Grace. The only way to denote a peer who is also a Privy Councillor is if they suffix "PC" after their name, which is why Chakrabarti's title is Rt. Hon the Baroness Chakrabarti CBE, and Peter Mandelson's title (for example) is Rt. Hon the Lord Mandelson PC. Best — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shami Chakrabarti. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307141755/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23928702-probe-into-lse-libya-link-after-director-quits-over-gaddafi-funding.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23928702-probe-into-lse-libya-link-after-director-quits-over-gaddafi-funding.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shami Chakrabarti. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018173818/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/48919 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/48919
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718005600/http://www.glam.ac.uk/shami-chakrabarti to http://www.glam.ac.uk/shami-chakrabarti

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Restoring infobox format

I have restored the format of the infobox to the format used in Wikipedia for other members of the House of Lords who have or have had important posts, for example: Natalie Evans, Sayeeda Warsi, Joyce Anelay, Michael Heseltine and many others.
In paricular, it is essential to restore the honorific prefix The Right Honourable (to omit that is rude) and the word The before the title Baroness. I have also corrected the title of Lord Phillips. Apuldram (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we don't go based on what is proper or rude here. We have guidelines like common usage, and Chakrabarti has — notably — been referred to by her name consistently even since her ennoblement. (And if we go by what would seem to be her preference, then to include The Rt Hon next to her name would give the mistaken impression she's a Privy Counsellor.) Also, Phillips is The Lord Phillips of Sudbury, not The Lord Phillips — if you're going to go around "correcting" things, you should first be sure that you know what you're talking about. DBD 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here: Shami v Baroness (since peerage announcement) DBD 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether she uses the title or not, she holds it, and it must be displayed as such. If she did not want the title, she did not need to accept its conference. Because the title comes with certain privileges, specifically, a seat in the House of Lords, there can be no justification for its omission in an encylopaedia. Of course, because her common name remains 'Shami Chakrabarti', this will remain the article title. The infobox is a different matter, however. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And which Wikipedia policy supports that opinion?CalzGuy (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox exists to display reliably sourced information, including titles and styles that a person is entitled to. The title and style of this person are reliably sourced. RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Life peerages & infoboxes

Please do come along and discuss at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Life peerages & infoboxes DBD 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Phil Shiner section.

BLP articles are supposed to be edited conservatively. I think it's questionable why a section which looks designed to air the opinions of two former army officers[2][3] with rather pronounced views and not spotless reputations should be included, particularly in a way which looks, to me at least, unbalanced. I recommend deletion of the section.     ←   ZScarpia   14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)