Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Discussions

An option which is not considered above: No change. Continue naming articles according to the present rules, in particular the "most common name used in English" rule. Especially do not rename pages.

In any discussion like this one, the onus is on the proponents to show that change is to the good, and I personally see no gain here - only disruption and confusion.

Zack

The problem is that the current rules are being schizophrenically applied. Wikipedia's naming conventions suggest that the format should be "Forename Surname #th of Titlename", and do not indicate any exceptions, but later on say, after some brief discussion on foreign individuals or some other such thing, suggests that the most common unambiguous English language name be used.

You suggest that this entire idea will lead to disruption and confusion. On the other hand, I think that this will lead to complete order in what is now chaos. Articles, very simply, would have the highest peerage title listed in the article title. What is disrupting or confusing about this? I most respectfully submit that it is the present situation that is confusing - not the proposed one. -- Lord Emsworth 01:31, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

-- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth

Adam 02:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) (rightful King of England)

Your Majesty, does placing your name next to mine indicate your support for my proposal? -- Lord Emsworth 02:40, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Um, I think I recorded votes above. I voted for titles in all cases, even when the titles were bestowed by Tudor-Stuart-Welf usurpers of the rightful Plantagenet line (ie, me). Move them if they are not in the right place. Adam 02:43, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I am dreadfully sorry for causing a misunderstanding. I meant to ask if placing your name below mine meant that you wished to indicate your agreement with my suggestions relating to the form of the polls, the deadline, the quorum, and other elements. -- Lord Emsworth

I agree with your suggestions. Let's get to voting. john 03:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just to note that I'd be just as happy (possibly more happy) with a "very few exceptions" policy (as Stan suggests), as with an extreme all peerage position, so long as some kind of very clear standard can be determined, since otherwise we end up with irritating articles like Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, which is just unrecognizable. But I'm still having a hard time figuring out what such a standard should be, so I'm keeping with the no exceptions position for the moment... john 06:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That would only be irritating in a paper encyclopaedia where you looked up "Castlereagh" and he wasn't there. In this encyclopaedia it doesn't matter a toss, because anyone doing a search for Castlereagh will be taken straight to the article they want. I absolutely fail to see what is the problem with this naming convention. Adam 06:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I don't have a serious problem with it (I voted for it, after all). I just think it gets rather unfortunate for people best known by a courtesy title, like Castlereagh or North, or whoever. But other options are probably worse, so what are you going to do? john 06:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The fundamental question is, does the encyclopaedia exist for the benefit of Lord Castlereagh, or for the benefit of readers? My view is the latter. Readers have two interests: to find what they are looking for, and to learn things. By listing the article under Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, with a redirect from Lord Castlereagh, we enable any reader who wants to read about Castlereagh to find the article in question, even if they have never heard of the Marquessate of Londonderry, and we enable said reader to learn that Castlereagh was actually not a Viscount, but the son of a Marquess who in turn became a Marquess. Thus we have added to human enlightenment and can all go to bed feeling pleased with ourselves. Adam 13:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've voted that the articles should include a reference to their titles if they have any, but I think the question is a little unclear - where will the reference be? In the title of the article, or in the text? For example, I don't think it's necessary to have Bertrand Russell as "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Lord Russell"...although maybe he is called that normally elsewhere. I know I might normally call Julian Byng "Viscount Byng of Vimy," but I suspect non-Canadians may not. Another concern is with people whose actual names are rarely ever used. I don't think I could have told you what Lord North or Lord Castlereagh's real names are...but, I would say their articles should include their real names in the title, so redirecting to Robert Stewart is better. I hope this makes sense! Adam Bishop 15:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the question is about article titles, not just the text of the article. So we'd have Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, and Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy, or what not. The proposal is that the format for all peers be Forename (Middlename) Surname, #th Peeragerank (of) Peeragetitle. I think this probably only proves particularly confusing in the case of people like Castlereagh or North known primarily by courtesy titles. john 19:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have already argued above, twice, that it is not at all confusing, even in these cases. Why not engage with my argument, rather than just repeating the assertion? Adam 01:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, for Castlereagh, it's awkward that the article about a man universally known as "Castlereagh" does not contain the world "Castlereagh" in the article title. I don't think it's a fatal flaw, but I think it's less than ideal. The ideal, of course, would be that there weren't any people who were best known by courtesy titles or by peerage titles different from the ones they eventually attained. Since that's impossible, we'll just need to figure out how to deal with it. There are various ways one might do this. Is just using the highest peerage title regardless the best of a number of flawed solutions? I think so (see: my vote on this issue), but I can very easily see where others might disagree. At any rate, I'm perfectly happy with an article on the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry myself, I just fear that trying to do stuff like that will cause large scale rebellion among people like Hephaestos, and others who aren't normally interested in these kinds of articles. So, in essence, I don't really disagree with you. and if no backlash occurs, I'll be overjoyed that it's all worked out so well... john 02:28, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey, a somewhat different question. There have been various people who have held one peerage title of a certain rank, and then, at some point, inherited another title of the same rank that is more senior. I think, specifically, of Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, who, very late in life, long after his retirement, inherited the Earldom of Winchilsea. I'd hate to see us forced to move the article on him to Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea...any thoughts on issues like this? What's been discussed before is that if the ordinal is different for the two earldoms (or whatever), you just use the senior one, but I think some discretion on this is in order... john 02:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But strictly speaking, John, do you not agree that if it is acceptable to put Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh at Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Lansdowne,

Well, I wouldn't find that acceptable, what with him having been Marquess of Londonderry ;-) john 04:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

then it would equally be acceptable to put Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham at Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea? In other words, would not any argument that would generally hold true for the former also hold true for the latter? -- The Earl of Emsworth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that one Earldom is "senior" to another. It could be older, but that is not the same thing. If he held two Earldoms then he should be called Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham and 7th Earl of Winchilsea. Adam 02:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, the general rule for the precedence of peerage titles of the same rank is: First, titles in the Peerage of England (pre-1707), then the Peerage of Scotland (pre-1707), then the Peerage of Great Britain (post-1707, pre-1801), then the Peerage of Ireland (pre-1801), and lastly the Peerage of the United Kingdom and the Peerage of Ireland (post-1801). Within a given peerage, the titles gain precedence in the order of their creation. -- Lord Emsworth 02:48, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)


Ah yes silly me, I did know that once. So how would you title Finch? Adam 03:02, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If the rule that the higher peerage title be included in the article title, then we would have Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea, but Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham would to such a location redirect. -- Lord Emsworth 03:11, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do, Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, or something, for individuals who inherit a more senior peerage of the same rank to one they held earlier. So we'd then have, Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke, 1st Earl of Montgomery, Charles Mordaunt, 3rd Earl of Peterborough, 1st Earl of Monmouth, and so forth, but their successors would just list the senior title? john 04:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm missing out of this whole debate is what's wrong with Daniel Finch. We don't, after all, have President George Herbert Walker Bush of the United States of America. I don't see why "peerage" titles are any different than office or "life peerage" titles from a Wikipedia page-naming point of view. As generally one would refer to Robert Harley, not to Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, this seems pretty obvious. And in many modern cases the titles are completely superfluous to who the person is, and are just historical vestiges, in which case they shouldn't even be mentioned in the first paragraph, let alone the title. --Delirium 08:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The man was never called Daniel Finch, among other things. He is known in history as the Earl of Nottingham or Lord Nottingham, or whatever. As far as the general question, the basic issue is that, at present, there's absolutely no uniformity as to whether or not the peerage title is to be in the article title or not. The idea is that we create a standard way of doing it so that there aren't consistency issues like that. And since Robert Harley redirects to Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, anyway, I'm not sure what the problem is. Unlike your "President George Herbert Walker Bush" example, peerage titles are not simply titles, but actually a part of the person's name, as we've discussed above. Which is why they're different from office titles. The standard of just completely ignoring life peerage titles is, perhaps, not quite properly correct, but is defensible from the standpoint that 1) it is, nevertheless, a completely consistent standard; and 2) Life Peers are practically never known by their peerage titles. With hereditary peers, most are generally known by their peerage title (although this is sometimes also their surname), but some are not. So we could either choose to be inconsistent, leaving us with the current irritating question of where articles should go, we could choose to be consistent by completely ignoring peerage titles, which would be highly problematic in most cases (Henry Temple would hardly be a useful place for an article on Palmerston), or we can be consistent by just including peerage titles, which only really creates (minor) problems in a very small number of cases (basically people who are known by lesser peerage titles than the highest one they eventually received. (Articles like Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton are not especially confusing - Harold Macmillan redirects there, and "Harold Macmillan" is still present in the title of the article.) Getting back to the question of people like Harley or Disraeli, I'd agree that they're probably better known by their proper names than by their peerage titles. Nevertheless, it is hardly uncommon to see references to Lord Oxford or Lord Beaconsfield, or whatever, to refer to them for the period after the (fairly late) granting of the peerage title. In which case, I think one should always err on the side of giving more information rather than less. john 09:19, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Delirium, check the archives for long discussions of many of these same questions with Hephaestos from a couple of days ago. I think we've probably talked it to death. john 09:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I guess I don't see what's wrong with the inconsistency. If the person is primarily known by their peerage title, use it. If the person is primarily known by their normal name, and has a peerage title merely as a historical accident (as is the case with many of the more minor titles in the 20th and 21st centuries), then just omit them entirely, except as a bit of trivia somewhere in the article. --Delirium 09:31, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
What's your examples for the latter, other than the Third Earl Russell? Most other people who are not known as peers who became them during the 20th (and 21st) centuries were created peers due to their achievements. In any event, the point is that it's monstrously hard to determine whether someone is known by their peerage title or not. In particular, the "figure out what they're most known by" system works particularly poorly for peers, who are known by different names over the course of their lives. I'd further add that, even if it is ultimately decided that we should not include highest peerage title in all article titles, that title should certainly always be present in the first line, when telling the person's whole name, just as we always list a person's whole name. The fact that Mr. Blair's whole name is "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" can hardly be said to be of more interest than the fact that Bertrand Russell inherited the Earldom of Russell from his brother and became 3rd Earl Russell. john 09:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd didn't mean necessarily only peers who became them during the 20th and 21st centuries, but also peers of older origin who simply have them as a historical accident and are now essentially private persons who carry on as most other private citizens do (perhaps as businessmen or something). I think there are some of these, but I can't think of a name offhand. In any case, I think it'd be pretty ridiculous for Bertrand Russell to be located anywhere other than its current location, and would make Wikipedia look like a pretty oddly-organized encyclopedia. As for mentioning titles, I don't like the way Bertrand Russell starts either, as it makes it seem like that was a name anyone actually called him, when in fact it was not a title he used at all (he signed his writings simply "Bertrand Russell"). Omitting it from the first sentence, and having a sentence somewhere later in the first paragraph saying "later in life he officially held the title of [...blah...] upon inheriting a life peerage from his brother, ..." would be better, IMO. Essentially, the issue is that Bertrand Russell (and several other people) have titles, but these titles do not in any reasonable way form a part of their name. --Delirium 09:51, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Life peerages are not inherited. Mintguy 12:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also, this whole issue isn't something particularly special to peerage titles. We have to make a subjective decision whether, for example to locate an article at Anthony Charles Lynton Blair or Tony Blair or Anthony Blair or Tony C.L. Blair based on which names are actually used. This is done all the time, for thousands of articles. I don't see why we can't keep doing so here. --Delirium 10:03, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)


We've already had this debate ad nauseam. That's why we are having a vote. Adam 10:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just wrote an extraordinarily lengthy post about this, but Adam's right, this has already been discussed. I will note that, in the case of Bertrand Russell, two of the three professional general-interest encyclopedias I'm aware of and able to access (Columbia and Encarta) list him under his peerage title, and Britannica, while it sticks with "Bertrand Russell", mentions his full title first thing. john 10:39, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Delirium stated: "We don't, after all, have President George Herbert Walker Bush of the United States of America." The comparison, in my humble opinion, is wholly illogical and inappropriate. In the case of George Bush, the name is properly George H. W. Bush. However, in the case of a peer, the peerage title essentially becomes the individual's name. The Presidency is an office; the peerage is a title, and whenever an individual holds a peerage, an indivdual, when addressing him, would definitely use such a title rather than Mr. Smith or John (with perhaps the exceptions of close friends, etc.) The title becomes a part of the individual's name. -- Lord Emsworth 13:21, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

But this is not always the case. I am not aware, for example, of Bertrand Russell's philosophical contemporaries referring to him in the literature by any title. He is pretty regularly cited as Bertrand Russell or Mr. Russell, or, occasionally, Dr. Russell. If one were to find a paper referencing "the recent paper published by The Third Earl Russell" rather than "the recent paper published by Bertrand Russell", one could be fairly confident that the attribution was meant sarcastically. --Delirium 00:58, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • [1], in which G.E. Moore refers to Russell as "Lord Russell".
    • [2] in which he is referred to as "Lord Russell" in the preface to a compilation of his writings.
    • [3] in which he is referred to as Lord Russell by the LSE
    • [4] in which the book description for his History of Western Philosophy refers to him as Lord Russell
    • [5] in which Lord Russell's secretary refers to him as such in a letter to the New York Review of Books.
In fact, I would wager that, after 1931, he is nearly always referred to as "Lord Russell", and nearly never as "Mr. Russell", which is simply incorrect. (I can't speak to "Dr. Russell") "the recent paper published by Lord Russell" would be the normal way of doing it, I'd imagine, as always with any peer below a Duke. john 01:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • In philosophy (and indeed, in most academic disciplines), "the recent paper published by Bertrand Russell" would be the normal way of doing it. This is somewhat less true of articles published in the early 20th century (when formality was a bit higher, and people would often be referred to as Mr. So-and-so or Ms. So-and-so), but was still true to some extent then, and is nearly universally true today. There are hundreds of examples I could cite, but to pick some of the more famous, you could refer to Alonzo Church's "A Comparison of Russell's Resolution of the Semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski" (from the Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 41, 1978), or the autobiography of John Cowper (who somewhat famously quips, "We all liked Mr Russell very much but thought nothing of his arguments!"). Indeed, Mr. Russell's own autobiography is entitled The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, first published in the 1960s. I'm not sure I see why Mr Russell is incorrect either. It is never incorrect to use Mr., simply sometimes not preferred. This is especially true in academia, where nearly everyone holds a doctorate, but often does not insist on being called Dr. So-and-so. Refer, for example, to the Pomona College philosophy catalogue, in which the various doctorate-holding men and women are referred to as Mr and Ms rather than Dr, which would also be correct. In this case, Mr. Russell himself seems to have expressed no opinion himself, and made no effort to call himself Lord or Earl or by any other such title, that I can track down (certainly nothing but Bertrand Russell ever graced the title pages of his writings!). And when others addressed him in his presence as Mr Russell, I can find no mention of him being taken aback or otherwise finding this odd. --Delirium 09:30, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, he was generally called "Bertrand Russell". But not, so far as I am aware, "Mr. Russell," at least not formally. Peers are not "Mr.", they are "Lord". (And knights are not Mr., but Sir Firstname. Of course, many peers and courtesy peers at this point choose not to follow the formalities, but that does not mean that they do not exist). For instance, in a recent New York times article about Conrad Black, who is a life peer, it called him "Conrad Black" on the first instance, and "Lord Black" thereafter. I imagine that Lord Russell, being a kindly old man, wouldn't be so rude as to correct someone who incorrectly referred to him as "Mr. Russell," but the book descriptions for his own books, as well as letters written by his own secretary to the New York Review of Books, all refer to him as Lord Russell, which suggests that this was his own preferred way of referring to himself, at least formally. A google search on "Mr. Russell" AND "Bertrand" gives results mostly quoting from sources from prior to 1931, when he inherited his title, although some inaccurate representations of him as such from after 1931 are also found. At any rate, this is beside the point. In the proposed Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, "Bertrand Russell" would be prominently placed in the article title, and not hidden in any particular way. This proposed article title would also give an indication of his status as a peer, which, as I think I've shown, is hardly an obscure factoid - he is commonly referred to as "Lord Russell" (And rarely as Mr. Russell, at least formally). I guess my view is that an encyclopedia ought to be a formal endeavor, and aim for formal accuracy about things like this. Especially since, in this instance, I still fail to see what exactly would be bad about putting him at Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, other than that it's longer and a bit more awkward. I imagine once again referring to all the other encyclopedias that refer to him as such will be without purpose. john 10:10, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I fear Lord E will just have to accept the fact that the peerage is such a foreign concept to Americans that they will never really grasp the points he is making. Conversely, one might hope that Americans would have the wisdom to acknowledge that the peerage is something which passeth all understanding, and let those who are familiar with its mysteries have their way on how it ought to be handled. But I am not optimistic about that. Adam 13:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To the American (or any other individual) who chooses to argue that my proposals have been supported only by individuals from the United Kingdom, and is anglo-centrically biased, I point out the varied and international support that it has recieved: Adam Carr & PMA are Australian; John Kenney is American; Jtdirl is from the Rep. of Ireland, and so on. -- Lord Emsworth 14:34, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Being from Michigan, I'd like to second that point. This isn't a problem with Americans so much as a problem with non-historians (or anyone else who has taken the time to examine peerages). Mackensen 17:58, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
But many of these people are more well-known in other fields. Bertrand Russell, for example, is best-known for his work in philosophy, and amongst those active in the field of philosophy, he is known as Bertrand Russell, without any titles. The fact that he held a title is seen as a somewhat interesting bit of trivia, but not worth much more than a passing mention. --Delirium 00:58, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Seeing that individuals arguing "No" and "Yes" on the first and second polls, respectively, have seen fit to make arguments next to their votes, thus potentially leading new voters to see only one side of the argument, I apply to all those who have voted "Yes" and "No" on the first and second polls, respectively, to consider adding their own arguments as well. -- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth

There was a time when people objected to my representing D. W. Griffith as David Wark Griffith on the grounds that he was best known by his initials. Generally adding antiquated titles (or "Sir" or "Lord") in observance of a quaint English custom goes much further than simply expanding initials to what they represent. To be consistent, we should perhaps re-open the question about whether the word "Saint" properly belongs in an article, or are we simply continuing our current practice because many of them do not sit in the Church of England's saintly choir. Harold Macmillan's case is interesting; he did not receive his peerage until he was 90 years old. Most of what he did, notably his prime ministership, he did without the benefit of peerage. Thus, all contemporary references to his will be simply to Harold Macmillan.

Reference has also been made to a peculiar style for President Bush Senior. My preference would be for George II of the United States, but I have no illusions about finding acceptance for that. ☮ Eclecticology 19:48, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)

In Defens

Now, I will consider arguments raised against my positions. Firstly, Eclecticology argues that peerages are "antiquated appendages". I counter by saying that they are decidedly not so: the titles are parts of the very names of the individuals in question, not mere appendages. Furthermore, they are by no means antiquated – they are used to this day.

The aforementioned user also seeks to bring up a point regarding the "antiquated titles" of "Sir" or "Lord" in the article title. I will inform him or her that the former title is never used in article titles. The latter, however, is often part of the individual's name. For instance, John Russell is never known as such. He is always either Lord John Russell or John Russell, 1st Earl Russell.

Eclecticology also argues the point that "Harold Macmillan's case is interesting; he did not receive his peerage until he was 90 years old. Most of what he did, notably his prime ministership, he did without the benefit of peerage. Thus, all contemporary references to his will be simply to Harold Macmillan." Of course, the article will include the words "Harold Macmillan". If one sees Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, rather than Harold Macmillan, then how does one become confused?

It has been argued that using titles is clumsy or awkward. I point out that it is most decidedly more clumsy not to use them in some cases, and to do so in others. The peerage is a difficult institution to understand, and it is far too easy to say that the additions of the titles are trivial. Rather, I find that such additions are most vital to the title in most cases, and at the least helpful in others.

Next, the user Delirium has seen fit to argue that the only criteria should be the commonness of the titles in question. However, I oppose such a point of view. One suggests that it is by no means easy to judge, in several cases, which is more "common". It is not as simple as distinguishing between William Jefferson Clinton and Bill Clinton. Consider, for instance, the example of John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, who was known for a long time as Lord John Russell, but later became an Earl, and even served as Prime Minister under that title. Also consider William Pitt the Elder, whom most people assume was so called for most of his life. Instead, Pitt was referred to for a great portion of his career as William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Rather than writing "Pitt did …", it is commonly written, "Chatham did …" Now, it is quite a difficult judgment call over whether we should name the article with or without the peerage title.

Rbwr has argued, "If "Bertrand Russell" was good enough for the title pages of his works, it's good enough for the title of our article." But "Bertrand Russell" was not good enough for the Encyclopedia Encarta and the Columbia Encyclopedia. It would be, in my humble opinion, an insufficient argument to suggest that whatever title is used on the individual's works would be acceptable automatically. This is not a directory of individuals; this is an encyclopedia – and the most encyclopedic and accurate, but not clumsy and awkward, position should be adopted: I hardly think that Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell would be much clumsier than Bertrand Russell.

The aforementioned Eclecticology also argues (rather sarcastically) that "Reference has also been made to a peculiar style for President Bush Senior. My preference would be for George II of the United States, but I have no illusions about finding acceptance for that." Of course, the user in question is ignoring the fact that the individual's name was never George II, nor was he Sovereign of the United States (though various individuals tend to argue that he acted on various occasions as if he were, but I shall not address such arguments.) On the other hand, a peer's title becomes a part of his very name – it is the basis for almost all address to the peer after he recieves it.

One can summarise this argument thus: Firstly, the inclusion of peerage titles does not cause any further confusion. Secondly, peerage titles are by no means antiquated or mere appendages. Thirdly, it is in most cases inappropriate to compare with non-peers, as such comparisons generally fail to take into account the general nature of the peerage itself. As Dr Carr has argued, the institution is mysterious, and frequently misunderstood by those not familiar with it (but I do not suggest that those unfamiliar with the peerage are ignorant; nor do I suggest that individuals voting against my position are naturally unfamiliar with this institution.) To rush to judgments about the matter would only lead to mass confusion, chaos, and disorder amongst articles relating to the British nobility.

I would hope that no user referred to in my above comments takes offence, as I would humbly suggest that my arguments are merely meant to counter those of the said individuals, and are not intended to be ad hominem attacks.

-- The Right Honourable Clarence Threepwood, Ninth Earl of Emsworth, Viscount Bosham

P.S. Please add comments below here, rather than interspersing them throughout mine.


And things were going so well yesterday. :( Before edit conflict, I had a rather bitter paragraph expressing dismay at some of the comments here, and mildly lashing out at people, but instead I'll just say that I agree with what Lord Emsworth says above, and that I am utterly dismayed with the comments of Eclecticology.
That said, I'd also like to address the more moderate position expressed by Rbwr with the "commonly used, unambiguous name," rule. This is, I think, reasonable, but quite difficult to define in the case of peers. The issue of people who are commonly known by two different unambiguous names at different points in their careers (as Disraeli/Beaconsfield) is worth noting. There's also the issue of people who are commonly known by ambiguous names like "Lord Kitchener", "Lord Nelson", "Lord Mountbatten", and so forth. Which would make more sense, to call them "Horatio Kitchener," "Horatio Nelson," "Louis Mountbatten," which, while unambiguous, are not particularly commonly used, or to use the same standard peerage format we use for other peers? (There's also the position, at one point advocated by Hephaestos, of using the ambiguous name, but I think that's highly untenable) I think the second option makes the most sense, and is most in line with what other encyclopedias do. john 20:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
...to repeat something I've just said on Lord E's talk page: my way is more difficult, as it requires judgment in each individual case (Bertrand Russell is obvious, though). Lord E's way is simple, but too simple. --rbrwrˆ
I think I agree with Rbrwr, although it shouldn't be too difficult, as there probably aren't that many people who are peers but are not known that way. Bertrand Russell is one; I can think of John Buchan as another. But I am still undecided in general, and I will think about it some more. Adam Bishop 22:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I will return to Adam Carr's argument here. Whenever an individual sees Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell rather than simply Bertrand Russell, the individual is not confused as to the identity of the subject. If no confusion or other negative effect (such as clumsiness) were caused by the inclusion of more information, then I think that it would be preferable to give more rather than less information, in this case the title. Certain other encyclopaediae which agree with my position, especially on Russell, are: Britannica Concise, Encarta, and Columbia. -- Emsworth
FWIW, I fully agree with this (and, to a terribly small extent, my dissension from Wikipedia Policy as it currently is), in as much as that I believe that we should try to place articles at a more "correct" name, rather than a more common one, but that, of course, we should have redirects from all names used, common or otherwise. Further, I fail to see what disadvantage such a policy would bring.
James F. (talk) 00:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So you are arguing that the article on Tony Blair should not appear at that location, as that is not his legal name? --Delirium 01:00, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
I see no particular way in which it would be confusing to have his article at Anthony Charles Lynton Blair with a redirect from Tony Blair. But I don't think we're actually arguing for that. john 01:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nicknames and peerage titles are two different things. It is possible, under the new policy proposed, that we have an article title with a peerage title and a nickname in it: for instance, Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, rather than Francis Pakenham. -- Lord Emsworth 04:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the issues are distinct. Not using the peerage title is, I would suggest, more like not using someone's last name than it is like using a nickname. john 04:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just to note that the current official rule on this issue, at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles), is as follows:

1. Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included.

We are only to "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." That is to say, peerage titles are already an exception to the common use rule. But put that aside for the moment. Put aside, also, the fact, laid out over and over again on these pages, that figuring out what the most commonly used a peer is can be hard to determine, since what they're known by is generally not their name at all, but simply "Lord [Peerage Title]", which is inappropriate to begin with. I'd like to get back to Adam Carr's point, expressed long ago, that it absolutely doesn't matter what the person is most commonly known as. So long as there are redirects, and we are careful not to have double redirects, nobody who's looking for Bertrand Russell is going to be confused because they find him at Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (certainly, other encyclopedias don't seem to be worried about this problem). So why shouldn't we use the correct formulation? Why is there so much hostility to this? The peerage title is a part of the person's name, and I can think of few instances where its use in any particular way detracts from an article.

And again, I'd suggest that the extent to which titles are not used is being greatly exaggerated by the people who are arguing against the proposed rule. Most other encyclopedias list "3rd Earl Russell" and "1st Earl of Beaconsfield" in the titles of articles on those personages. Further, Bertrand Russell, although his books are certainly listed as authored by "Bertrand Russell", is also conventionally described as "Lord Russell", and not "Mr. Russell" as Delirium suggested above. In standard historical works, Disraeli is usually called "Beaconsfield" for actions he takes after 1876 (see, for instance, Taylor's Struggle for Mastery in Europe), and Pitt is nearly always called Chatham after 1766. That these people's name changes at some point in their careers suggests that we should use a form which incorporates both forms of their name, which the standard peerage form certainly does.

One further point - many of you who are voting no on Question 1 do not actually seem to support the position described in that question. Advocacy of the "common, unambiguous name" rule would, I would think, fall under the category of voting yes on question 1, and no on question 2. No on question 1 was intended to indicate a (straw man?) position in which titles are not to be used unless absolutely necessary (the position of Cimon avaro, seemingly, but not of several others of you). john 05:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that the users Delirium, Rbwr, Binky, and Deb fall into the category noted. -- Lord Emsworth 12:27, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not sure which way I really want to vote; I've noticed that other articles don't necessarily follow the strict rules, like United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is a redirect), and Australia rather than Commonwealth of Australia. Another example, like the above Beaconsfield vs. Disraeli example, is Paris (mythology); he is more commonly referred to as Alexander in the Iliad, but everyone now knows him mainly as Paris. In talking to other Wikipedians who generally have no interest in peerage titles, it seems that they share the opinion of those who have voted against this proposal - titles of articles should be a common, recognizable name. It also seems that this debate is incomprehensible to them, and it might help if we gave some examples under each question. Maybe moving the vote to a separate page might help too, since this is getting kind of long. Hope this helps a bit. Adam Bishop 06:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Australia are the official short forms of those countries' names. That's quite different. Another question is to what extent this policy would result in uncommon, unrecognizable names, and by whose standards. With people who are generally not known by their actual name, but by an honorific followed by a peerage title (Lord Palmerston, or whatever), there is no obvious "common, recognizable" place to put the article that is also actually correct (unlike Australia, which is clearly the correct place to put an article on Australia). Which has been our point all along. We have one proposed policy which would be consistent and correct, if occasionally resulting in articles at unfamiliar places. We have another proposed policy which would be inconsistent and arguably incorrect (at least for some entries), but which would not result in articles going to unfamiliar places. Given that a) it's really easy to figure out who Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell might be, especially given that b) Bertrand Russell redirects there, and that c) this will be the case for about 98% of cases if we use the full peerage title version with extensive redirecting, I'm not sure why the one concern (articles in familiar places) should trump the others (correctness and consistency). Especially since, as I've noted several times, not only do other encyclopedias generally include the peerage titles in article titles (with occasional exceptions - but Wikipedia could become better than the other encyclopedias by being more consistent, since it's considerably less important for us that articles be where they're expected to be than it is for paper encyclopedias!), but as I've pointed out, use of the peerage honorific, at least, is hardly uncommon for Russell, say, who is frequently referred to as "Lord Russell" (the same cannot be said for the 1st Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor or the 1st Earl of Stockton, who held their peerages very briefly, but they are still indexed that way in many paper encyclopedias).

At any rate, I don't anticipate actually convincing anybody else, so I'll stop for now. john 07:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah, procrustean uniformity. I'm a big fan. Glad to see nobody's actually reading anything we've been saying. john 07:21, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm impressed by Adam Bishop's view that the opinions of people who by his own account care nothing, and therefore presumably know nothing, about the peerage should carry more weight than the opinions of people who do know something about the subject under discussion. On that view I am perfectly equipped to go and vote in a poll on the finer points of the theory of relativity or the use of the participle in Finnish. Adam 12:02, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It appears, from their comments, that most voters seem only to be reading the poll question, and not even considering all of the debate that has so far occurred. -- Lord Emsworth 12:31, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

And this surprises you because...? Adam 12:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I would think the opinions of people who know nothing might hold some weight, since the unwashed masses of ignorant people are the ones who are going to be using the encyclopedia and reading the articles. When someone comes across Bertrand Russell and finds it silly that he is at 3rd Earl Russell, and moves it back to Bertrand Russell, and starts this debate all over again...then what? Why don't we make list of people who could be exempted from this, there can't be that many. (By the way, does anyone ever confuse you for me, since you don't sign with your last name?) Adam Bishop 17:38, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, rather than making a list of exempted individuals, we should come up with criteria, and only then with a list. But I don't feel that we should even begin debating a list until the deadline has passed, and the polls closed, so that we could concentrate on the matter, and also so that we don't now make criteria that would be rendered moot by the result of the polls. -- Lord Emsworth 18:00, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Emsworth that it is criteria, and not individuals, that need to be determined as exceptions. As to the question of someone finding it silly that Russell is at "3rd Earl Russell", the whole point of this vote was so that we would have a clear rule that all peers are at their peerage title, so that people can't do that anymore, or if they did, the change could be reverted without debate (or merely with reference to this rule). john 19:32, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with that, and think it should be on an individual basis. Whether Bertrand Russell should be at Bertrand Russell or Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell is an entirely independent matter that can be decided on its own merits, not based on some standards applied blindly to all articles. In this case, I don't see what is gained by listing him at somewhere other than Bertrand Russell. --Delirium 23:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, then, we would have much inconsistency, would we not? How would a user about to create a page on a peer know whether or not he or she ought to include the peerage title in the article title? -- Lord Emsworth 23:52, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

As long as we maintain the rule that the commonest form of the name should be used in the title of an article, the burden of proof for an exception should fall on those demanding that exception. The long term world-wide trend is clearly away from these pompous indicators of the upper castes. The French did away with these after the revolution, the Germans abandoned them after World War I, and the Indians progressed toward greater equality after the departure of the raj-ocracy. Only the English persist in this practice of walking up the down escalator. This titles are an affront to egalitarian dignity. Although I thought the whole incident humorous at the time, as I consider the present debate I can better appreciate the stand of the Canadian government when it forbade Conrad Black from accepting an English lordship. I have long delighted in seeking to burst American bubbles of superiority, but it is too easy to forget where the Americans learned bubble-blowing. And peerage is a very old bubble indeed.
I was curious to see what the Oxford Style Manual (2003 edition) had to say about the issue. I found surprising little. At 4.2.1 I found, "When mentioned in passing, a person's name usually need appear only in the form by which the bearer is best known. For example, a writer's married name or hereditary title is important only if the person wrote under it. In text, authors should clarify titles and names altered by marriage or any other means only to avoid confusion." Among several examples it gives "Laurence (later Lord) Olivier". As an example of something to avoid it gives "Lord Dunglass (then Lord Home, later Sir Alec Douglas-Home, now Baron Home of the Hirsel)". Under what name do we really know this English prime minister?
I can easily concede that Tom Tweedledum, 1st Lord of Twiddlethumb is unambiguous, but at the cost of an unnecessarily long article title without any justification in disambiguation. Certainly, the matter of someone's titles should be explained early in an article. The thing to remember, however, it that this is encyclopedia for public use around a world where most countries do not have peerages -- not just in England. ☮ Eclecticology 00:20, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

If the man is commonly known as "Lord Twiddlethumb", that should be present in the article title. The standard way this is done is the peerage format we've adopted for most articles in Wikipedia. All other encyclopedias, including Columbia and Encarta, which can hardly be considered to be British publications, do it this way. As far as some of the stuff you say, it's absolutely not true that either France or Germany have abolished these titles. In France, noble titles continue to exist in law, and the holder of a noble title has the right to sue someone else who tries to use their title. In Germany, noble titles were officially abolished in 1918, but have been incorporated into the last names of the people who would hold them, so that the official last name of, say, the head of the house of hohenzollern is Prinz von Preußen (Prince of Prussia). The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, and Denmark all also have noble titles, I believe. Noble titles continue to be commonly used in Italy, whether or not they have legal existence (which I'm not sure about). At any rate, the point isn't whether or not noble titles are a good thing. It's how people should be referred to. Standard practice for encyclopedic article titles, which can be seen in Encarta, Columbia, Britannica, and probably any other encyclopedia you'd care to name, is to use the format Ray Saintonge, 1st Earl of Eclecticology. Given that most peers until quite recently have been known by their peerage titles, which are, as has been repeatedly pointed out, part of their name, the burden of proof should clearly be to show that the person is not well known by their peerage name. john 00:34, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Such a person would be "The Earl of Eclecticology". He would not have a surname, and his name would not be "Ray Saintonge, 1st Earl of Eclecticology". Nor would "1st" be part of his name. The simple fact is that peerage titles as used are not unambiguous: to distinguish between historical holders of titles it is necessary to cobble together a mixture of names, numerals and title that would never, ever, ever have been used to address anyone. -- Binky 00:45, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It does not matter what individuals address a person as. Would John Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland be at Your Grace? Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at Your Majesty? Winston Churchill at Sir Winston? Tony Blair at Mr Blair? George W. Bush at Mr President? George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron at My Lord? Pope John Paul II at Your Holiness? -- Lord Emsworth 00:56, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Such a person would not be referred to as "Firstname Lastname Title of Placename". Lastname and Title are not properly used together, either in address or reference. - Binky 01:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I shall refrain from engaging in this debate because it is not the matter under consideration at present. However, feel free to propose the removal of the last name at the Wikipedia naming conventions page, or even here (but perhaps if one prefers this location one could wait until this poll is over, considering that having two polls right now is quite a mess by itself.) -- Clarence, Earl of Emsworth, or, Clarence (Threepwood), Earl of Emsworth
Binky, yes, you're exactly right, it is necessary to cobble together a mixture of names, numerals, and titles, that a person is never addressed by, and only occasionally referred to by. But this is a completely standard way of writing peerage names, used in most book indexes, in library reference systems, in lists of officeholders, and, yes, in encyclopedias. john 01:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's necessary to do so only when they are not known by some commonly used name. And it certainly can be done by Wikiproject Peerage for uniformity. But if they have a commonly used name, we should use it, and have the chimerical construct be a redirect to it. -- Binky 01:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Eclecticology, as considered as your opinions heretofore expressed might be, I will say that I am most vehemently opposed to them.

Firstly, I will address your point regarding the Lord Home. We know him as Alec Douglas-Home. The title "Lord Dunglass" would be ruled out as a part of the article title because it is not the highest title he was known by. Similarly "Earl of Home" would be ruled out because he disclaimed it. Finally, "Lord Home of the Hirsel" would not be included because present conventions suggest that life peerages be not indicated. Therefore, the answer is easy: the article should be at Alec Douglas-Home. Secondly, in regards of Laurence Olivier, I hardly think that we should use Laurence (later Lord) Olivier. Much simpler as an article title would be Laurence Olivier, again applying the rule relating to life peerages.

Now to the main point. I am utterly disappointed that you disapprove of the peerage. But, nonetheless, they exist. It is not up to users to decide that they are to be removed, as placing them there would constitute their "endorsement". To make a judgment that the peerage is a worthless institution that should not be included in the article titles on that basis is, in my opinion, very non-NPOV. In short, it is wholly inappropriate to suggest that they should be removed because some number (no matter how large that number might be) of Wikipedians feel that the titles are outdated.

-- Clarence Threepwood, Ninth Earl of Emsworth, Viscount Bosham

This debate must get some sort of award under List_of_extraordinarily_long_discussions_about_extremely_unimportant_matters_about_which_hardly_anyone_gives_a_toss,_and_which_do_nothing_towards_resolving_the_matter_anyway. None of the above debate has advanced us one iota, since we all have our minds made up. Only the vote at the top of the page will do that. So let's just can it, shall we? If the vote turns out the way it is looking at present, there will be no real policy anyway, and people will go on naming articles as they please - which doesn't really matter provided there aee redirects. Adam 02:12, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The vote itself would not matter, as polls are non-binding, as I found out yesterday. Even if the policy were adopted, I am sure that one would have to have an elaborate and extended discussion on each and every controversial page move. -- Lord Emsworth
Yep. This whole thing has definitely made me much more frustrated about wikipedia than I have ever been in the past. Ah well. john 02:44, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A top down approach might be more fruitful.

John Kenney says above that he is frustrated. Well, I too am frustrated, and I haven't even participated in the process, except to vote :-[

Ark30inf (who used to frequent wikipedia) said on his departure that many people will not defend wikipedia's principles when their own interests and affiliations are not at stake.

Well, I am sad to say that before today I did not fully understand how dispiriting that realization can be, though I must confess I have myself on many occasions decided against getting involved on grounds of "it's not my fight".

--

I very little care about hereditary titles one way or the other, philosophically I am a believer in meritocratic constitutional monarchy.

But I care a lot about wikipedias institutions and guidelines; and thus it very nearly breaks my heart to see a fundamental overarching wikipedia principle like "use common names" under a threat of being subverted piecemeal via a number of users trying to steamroll a specific change (co-ordinated lobbying on talk-pages etc.).

I am sorry to say that I would have much more respect for the people involved, if they had approached the matter as a case for reviewing the whole policy of "use common names". They might even have enlisted my whole-hearted support (who knows, I have not searched my heart on that matter, nor will I, it seems).

I confess to a dark thought in this circumstance; namely that I think this route may not have been embarked upon due to the people involved thinking that "correct names" should not be followed except with regard to nobility. I specifically note John Kenney having in the past defended "common name" versus "correct name" in the matter of "Oder" vs. "Odra"; "Neisse" vs. "Nysa" and "Danzig" vs. "Gdansk". In fact, he did so in what might be construed as a dismissive manner, even though the distress of the affected parties in the controversy was quite manifest.

In closing, this particular issue is genuinely not important while we have redirects. The question of precedence of wikipedia guidelines, and how/when to diverge from them, is fundamental. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 14:01, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed they are fundamental. May I direct your attention to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions, specifically those relating to Other Non-royal names. Among other things it states that:
Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included.
This is the point we have been arguing all along. Wikipedia makes a specific exception already for members of the nobility, in recognition that they are not treated the same way as commoners. Mackensen 14:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why we are persisting with this interminable circular argument. Adam 15:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Because we don't have an editor-in-chief who can make an arbitrary decision and threaten dismissal of any subordinate who doesn't go along - we have to keep discussing until everyone arrives at a common understanding. It will come to an end eventually; many of the practices that are unquestioned policy today were painfully hashed out a year or more ago. Every day I get warm fuzzy feelings in RC, seeing newbies vigorously enforcing rules that were once battlegrounds of dispute. Stan 18:18, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Common names for individuals are a different matter from common names for places. It might be noted that Danzig is a completely correct name for that city before 1945, and is, in fact, what the city was called at that time. Further, I would say that Oder is the correct English name for that river. The question of what name is commonly used in English for a foreign place name (or personage) is quite a different one from the question of how an English individual is to be described. the conventional English-language practice in encyclopedias, indexing, and so on and so forth is to use the full title. The two issues are not analogous, and your concern for the obvious distress of objecting parties is ridiculous. And, once again, the whole issue for peers is that there is absolutely no obvious way to apply the "common name" rule for someone who is commonly known as "Lord Suchandsuch", which is not a name. which is why all indexes and encyclopedias use the "Firstname Lastname, #th of Peeragetitle" form. Those of us arguing for use of such a form (as a default, whether or not there should be some exceptions, which is a different question, and one which, if you read earlier postings, I have expressed some ambivalence about), are arguing for the use of a completely normal "commonly used" encyclopedic standard. Those of you arguing against this are arguing for a completely idiosyncratic rule not used by any other encyclopedia. john 16:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm having a hard time understanding how there is absolutely no obvious way to apply the "common name" rule in many of these circumstances. Several articles on peers as they stand now explicitly state "commonly known as" immediately after the full name in the first sentence. - Hephaestos 16:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Heh-heh, clever observation. But I'll represent the other side and say that several articles can mention the same "commonly known as" name in the text without fear of tangled redirs and disambiggers. Stan 17:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A problem with common names is that they are too common. It's true that the Third Marquess of Salisbury is often referred to as "Lord Salisbury." However, any Marquess of Salisbury could be called Lord Salisbury, and probably was in his own lifetime once he had inherited the title. Any article will of course refer to him as Lord Salisbury, but the page must be located at Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, to avoid confusion. The Second Marquess occasionally comes up in history; he served in one of Lord Derby's (that's the 14th Earl, mind you) cabinets in the 1850's. To locate articles at "commonly known as" would be messy. Mackensen 18:03, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Are there any non-contemporary works that refer to the Second Marquess as "Lord Salisbury" without a qualifier? - Hephaestos 18:12, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, actually. I have in front of me Robert Blake's Disraeli, originally published in 1966. He refers to the 2nd Marquess as Lord Salisbury, and to the 3rd Marquess as Lord Salisbury, since that was how they might be "commonly known" at the time. But the 2nd Marquess was NOT Lord Salisbury, he was James Gascoyne-Cecil, 2nd Marquess of Salisbury. Mackensen 18:37, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For the sake of comparison, George H. W. Bush is "Mr Bush," and so is his son. "Lord X" is a general term used for the indivduals. If, in a work, only the senior Bush were mentioned, then he would be "Mr Bush" or "Bush," and the same for his son. But if there were more than one Bush under discussion, then the differentiation would have to be made: "Bush senior" or "Bush 42" or whatever else one could come up with. Similarly, "the second Marquess", etc. -- Lord Emsworth 20:04, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

After first mention, he would usually be called Lord Salisbury, I'd imagine, if he came up. Of course, there's probably not too many recent works that talk very much about the 2nd Marquess. As to your first comment, about "commonly known as", that generally refers to courtesy titles. The current Marquess of Salisbury was commonly known as "Viscount Cranborne" before his father died last year, but he was simply Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (or, in his case, actually Baron Cecil of Essendon, since he got a writ of acceleration). This is a strange idiosyncrasy referring specifically to heirs-apparent of peers, and how they are referred to. Thus, the 8th Duke of Devonshire was commonly known as "Marquess of Hartington" (or "Lord Hartington) before 1892, and played a prominent role in politics under that name. After 1892, he continued to play a prominent role in politics, and was known as "the Duke of Devonshire". The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield was commonly known as "Benjamin Disraeli" before 1876, and commonly known as "Earl of Beaconsfield" or "Lord Beaconsfield" thereafter. That is to say, the use of this term does not refer to what you think it refers to. As to people "commonly known as" Lord Salisbury, or Lord Kitchener, or what not, again, these are simply not names.

Looking at this more generally, I think that much of this disagreement lies not around whether we should base article titles around common use, but on what, exactly, common use means. Those of us arguing for proper peerage titles in (most or all) article titles are doing that because this is common practice for how peers are referred to in something like an encyclopedia, or in indexes, and what not - that is, how they are generally referred to in reference works that are going to be talking about a lot of peers of the same name, and have to be sure to disambiguate. Those of you arguing against this are arguing based on something like "common use" in conversation, or in casual reference. This is a different thing, and is, I think, inappropriate to what article titles should be in an encyclopedia. john 18:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am changing my vote on the second question. As I feared when Lord Emsworth proposed this vote, there is clearly far too much opposition, and far too much strongly held opposition, to the idea of having article titles at places which are largely unfamiliar, for this to be a tenable policy, even if, by some fluke, we manage to win the voting on this issue. So I'm changing my vote, in order to be able to advocate for a somewhat more moderate position. I think that, given conventional encyclopedic practice with regards to article titles, that using the standard peer format we've been discussing should be presumed to be the "commonly used form" with regard to the names of peers. It should have to be demonstrated that this is not the commonly used form, as it can easily be, I think, for, say, Harold Macmillan. As I've mentioned on some user-talk pages, I think that exceptions should mostly be in the form of 20th century politicians who received their peerage titles after retirement (as Macmillan, or Asquith, or what not), on people known almost solely by a courtesy title (like Castlereagh), and, arguably, on writers who did not use their title when writing, and are not commonly known by it (Russell or Edward Bulwer-Lytton, perhaps). I'm sure there are other possible reasons that could be demonstrated in individual cases. I think such a policy would probably address the objections that most people have had, while at the same time maintaining appropriate form, in general. I continue to strenuously object to the idea of putting articles at places that are not actually names, like Lord Salisbury or Lord Nelson. john

That sounds reasonable to me, though I don't really object to Lord Salisbury if there were one Lord Salisbury almost universally known by that name, and much more famous than any of the other Lord Salisburys. It is true that it is a mode of address rather than a name per se, but this isn't that dissimilar from ancient descriptions of birthplace now commonly used as names, such as Athenagoras of Athens. But in any case, I don't object to "Firstname Lastname, Peerage Title" as a default location, especially with lesser-known people where it is nearly impossible to figure out what the "commonly used" name is or was. And I agree that exceptions should be largely limited to 20th-century figures, as these are the sort most likely to be essentially "normal people" who hold titles more as a matter of happenstance, while those in previous centuries are more likely to have actually been identified as Duke or Earl or whatnot. --Delirium 19:07, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

But isn't Athenagoras of Athens necessary because we have no fuller name by which to call him? For Lord Kitchener, we have a more complete and accurate place to put him. On the other hand, I do think that things like Lord Salisbury, Lord Nelson, Lord Kitchener perhaps ought to redirect to the article on the most famous holder of that title. john 19:33, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know this goes against the views of probably most people on here, but personally I think Lord Whatever should always point at the title "Baron/Earl etc.. Whatever" rather than a particular noted individual holder of that title. If there are several peerages which share a title "Lord Whatever" then that page should be a disambiguation page. See Lord Berkeley for an example. My reasoning behind this is as follows... As Mackensen has pointed out, all peers would have been known as "Lord Whatever" to their contemporaries. If a person creates an article and uses sources of the period, they might very well refer to lets say Lord Derby and might very well link to Lord Derby without being entirely sure which Lord Derby is actually meant. If Lord Derby linked to any particular individual and we looked at the links to Lord Derby how would we be sure that each link was correct without checking them individually and comparing with other sources? If instead Lord Derby links to the title we can at least realise which pages need disambiguating. Mintguy (T)

Hmm...this makes good sense for people like Derby (or Salisbury), I think, where more than one of them is of note. On the other hand, I think people like Kitchener, or Nelson, are uniquely famous enough among Lord Nelsons and Lord Kitcheners as to make such disambiguation unnecessary. (I mean, does any of us have any idea about the life of the 2nd Earl Kitchener of Khartoum?) john 21:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well I think you should look at the Lord Kitchener page as it now stands. Where is the reference to "Henry Herbert Kitchener, 3rd Earl Kitchener". The man who is the current "real" Lord Kitchener? Mintguy (T)
Ah, well, in that case... john 22:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As for Lord Nelson, there are currently two living Lord Nelsons - Peter John Horatio Nelson, 9th Earl Nelson of Trafalgar (Lord Nelson) and Henry Roy George Nelson, 3rd Baron Nelson of Stafford (Lord Nelson of Stafford) Mintguy (T) 23:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but someone looking for Lord Nelson is unlikely to be looking for either of these gentlemen. Articles on Earl Nelson of Trafalgar (or Earl Nelson) and Baron Nelson of Stafford ought to cover people interested in the subject. But I don't feel strongly about this. john 23:19, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well personally when I hear "Lord Nelson" I think of the pub in Brighton. I think he's more often known as simply Nelson by most people, and what do we find; Nelson is a disambiguation page. If Wikipedia were a general purpose paper encyclopaedia then yes, people would probbly be looking for the famous one (and not all the pubs in Britain called the "Lord Nelson"). But Wikipedia is more than that, it is aiming to be (or perhaps rather more accurately aimlessley heading towards being) an "almost, but not quite complete" repository of human knowledge, who knows what people want to look up? (http://www.googlism.com/when_is/l/lord_nelson/ )Mintguy (T) 08:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to read any more of this. I haven't seen a single point in today's offerings that hasn't been made a dozen times already, at stupefying length, in the debates above. There is obviously no consensus on this subject, as the vote shows. So in effect we are going to vote for "no firm rule" on peerage titles. Therefore I am going to call my articles on peers whatever I damn well please, and anyone who disagrees with me can argue the point with me. I suggest we all agree to do the same, close this discussion down, and go and do something more contructive. Adam 08:49, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage/Archive_2&oldid=1137369886"