Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cosmo Gordon Lang is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2009.

Pulled[edit]

The page included the following:

"In 1943 Lang wrote "The Mongolian Master and his Disciple-in Quest of the Little World of White by Frater Om-soc" - the author "Om-soc" being "Cosmo" spelled backwards. The 8 page one-act play was privately printed and is considered to be a spoof on occultism in general and the poet/ magician Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) in particular. Apparently Lang knew both Crowley and the author Arthur Calder-Marshall (1908- ) in whose autobiography "The Magic of My Youth" Lang was mentioned."

According to the British Library catalogue, "The Mongolian Master" was written by Cosmo Trelawney. (I have not found much on the web about this Trelawney but he appears as an editor of a collection of Crowley's writing so presumably an associate.) I have therefore deleted the passage as probably a case of mistaken identity. I would however be very interested in knowing of the source for the assertion, even if it isn't correct, or any other Lang biographical snippets. Aardwolf 18:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Full name[edit]

The official website must have made a mistake (they probably confused him with his successor). For example:

The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 2nd instant, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom upon The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Cosmo Gordon Lang, G.C.V.O., D D., late Archbishop of Canterbury, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON LANG OF LAMBETH, of Lambeth in the County of Surrey. (London Gazette, 3 April 1942) Proteus (Talk) 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality[edit]

David Starkey, in his documentary "Monarchy", refers to Lang as "homosexual, probably non-practising". The Times also refers to him as being gay: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1147059.ece. Does anyone know if there's any proof of this? --The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Family?[edit]

Did he never marry? Looking at the comments in the above section I guess not. This should be brought out in the article somehow. I am not sure if the gossip about him should be included, unless he professed his love for a man, I think it would be inappropriate to include the speculation of others regarding whether or not he was gay. NancyHeise talk 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

'Tithe War', 1935-36[edit]

One issue the article doesn't mention is Lang's alleged hardline stance over the so-called 'tithe wars' in 1935-36, when tenant farmers in East Anglia refused to pay tithes to the Church of England in protest at what they regarded as an undemocratic form of taxation. A cinema newsreel item covering the event (referenced in this article) accuses Lang of encouraging the seizure of property and eviction of farmers from their homes. This article from 1933 gives the impression that the issue had been live for a few years previously. LDGE (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Article expansion[edit]

During the next few weeks the article will be expanded to a full length biography. The non-free portrait has already been replaced with a PD photograph, and more images are to be added. The main sources for the additional text will be Lockhart's biography of Lang, Iremonger's biography of William Temple, Hastings's History of English Christianity 1920-1985, the Oxford DNB, other church histories, and various books dealing with the abdication crisis of 1936. There are also numerous reliable on-line sites relating to specific aspects of Lang's life and career.

I can confirm (per Nancy's comment) that Lang remained unmarried. The question of his sexuality, or of speculation about it, needs to be handled with discretion. The tithes dispute will definitely be covered; in 1935, over this issue, Lang's effigy was burned by demonstrators in Ashford, Kent. Editors are welcome to suggest other content, and/or to comment on the expansion as it unfolds, though the idea is to send the article to Peer Review when it looks to be in a suitably advanced state. I have begun the process by posting a provisional expansion of the lead, though this could change as the article develops. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Progress: As of 3 August the expansion has reached 1908, the year of Lang's appointment as Archbishop of York. Progress is a little slow at the momemt, due to other commitments, but I hope the draft will be complete by around 12 August, thence to peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the underconstruction banner to the sections which still require major work. I have also experimentally deleted the infobox, which contined no information that wasn't either in the adjacent lead, or in the tables at the end of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the whole point of the infobox is to be an extremely brief summary of the article, I tend to agree that to a large extent it's redundant to the lead, but I beleive it's used on every other ABC, so for consistency I think we're stuck with it. David Underdown (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we are "stuck with it". Infoboxes are a choice, not a requirement (as is repeatedly emphasised at FAC). However (see below) I'm not warring on this. Unless a consensus develops otherwise, it stays. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Infobox detail may be redundant to the text but is a useful place to be able to see the information at a quick glance without having to read through the article. If your argument were true then we would strip out infoboxes from every article. I suggest it is reinstated. Keith D (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a body of opinion in Wikipedia that thinks precisely that about infoboxes. I don't feel that strongly. However, I am writing an article that I hope people will read...and you're telling me I need to provide an infobox so people won't have to read it! (I'm sure you didn't really mean that) Anyway, the box is back, for better or worse. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would exactly mean that. Having an infobox at the top of the article that, for instance, gives me the full dates of Lang's tenure, mentions his predecessor and successor, and notes that he was archbishop of Canterbury seems like a useful thing to have. john k (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The negligible benefits gained by including an infobox are far outweighed by the aesthetic gain when it is absent. If the horror must be included, it would do less damage at the end of the article. The inclusion of a right-facing image in the infobox simply adds insult to injury. Rotational (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury or archbishop of Canterbury[edit]

One minor point, the changes as they go so far seem to be using archbishop of York, bishop of Stepney etc, I know this is the style that ODNB uses, but then they also don't cap eg duke in duke of Westminster. Wikiepdia certainly recommends Duke of Westminster, and titles of Archbishops etc normally seem to follow that practice to me (the other just looks wrong to me, but I appreciate that may jsut be perosnal preference). I think even The Guardian, which is generally very restricitve on the use of capitals prefers Archbishop of Canterbury etc. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I started following the ODNB style, although it feels wrong to me, too. I was going to raise the matter here, to see what others think. My personal choice would be to use bishop and archbishop, uncapitalised, when referring to church titles, but Bishop of ..., Archbishop of ..., etc, when referring to church offices. How does that seem? Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be my preference too. David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The practising Cosmo Cantuar story[edit]

This anecdote is restored for a second time. The reason for deletion is said to be that a "reliable source" is required. The source is, as the footnote indicates, Anthony Howard, one of the most reliable journalists of his generation and the official biographer of Cardinal Basil Hume. The anecdote also serves to balance the article, relying as it does largely on a single, rather reverential, source. Ragbin (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know who Anthony Howard is; his personal reliability is not the issue. As I said in my note to you, the source has to be retrievable in some form. It's no good saying that Howard said this on the radio, if no one can actually check what he said. Is there a recording, or a published transcript that can be referred to? In any event, anecdotes should not be reported as fact. If the source can be verified, one might say "The story is told that..." etc
As it happens, a similar story is told by Lockhart, p. 127. I was proposing to include it, with suitable caveats, later in the article. In Lockhart's version the signature practice occurred not at Oxford, but during Lang's incumbency at Portsea. Lockhart recounts it as "one of the stories people were beginning to tell about Lang", so it has to be treated with appropriate caution.
You say the article relies on "a single, rather reverential source". For the early part of Lang's life, which is all that is written thus far, Lockhart is pretty well the only detailed source available. His book is dated in style, and certainly sympathetic to his subject, but I don't think it is "reverential"; Alan Wilkinson, who wrote the ODNB entry for Lang, draws heavily on Lockhart's biography and maintains that it has stood the test of time. As Lang becomes more of a public figure, there are more sources upon which to draw. There will be plenty of material that will "balance the article".
I have adjusted the story to conform with published sources, and have relocated it chronologically. If you have other Lang material that can be cited to reliable published sources, I'd be pleased to hear it. Thank you for your interest in the article.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Source organisation[edit]

Do we really need to give full details of the London Gazette refs in both the refs and notes section, and sources? It seems a bit clunky to me. I've always thought the point of the Sources bit was to avoid giving full details each time when referring to multiple pages of the same book, different pages from different issues of the Gazette is a bit different, particularly since we can link direct to the source in each case.

It has been my habit, on all articles, to provide a complete list of sources used, even though with on-line sources this repeats information in the notes and refs section. The two sections, Notes/references and Sources, have different functions. The first lists each in-line citation, the second is a general list of all sources used in compiling the article. There may be different views on the necessity of this, but I find it useful, and worth the rather tiresome effort. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, we currently split links to the ODNB across several different notes, with different page numbers - I'm not clear how these page numbers have been worked out, they're not given in the online version, are they actually from the paper copy? David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The page numbers are from my printout from the online version. You are right, they don't appear in the on-line version itself. There are 26 citations to the long ODNB article; I will change the page numbers to ONDB section headings. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am sending the article to WP:Peer Review to obtain comments, if possible, from the wider Wikipedia community, and would be grateful if any future observations could be recorded there. You obviously have an interest in the article, since you've been tracking it ever since I started the expansion, and have contributed several corrective edits. I would be interested to have your broader views on this treatment of Lang's life - is the balance right, does it do him justice, etc? I look forward to your contribution at the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial place?[edit]

ODNB says St Stephen's Chapel (Westminster), our article (except in the infobox where I changed it at some point), says St Stephen Martyr, Canterbury Cathedral, cited to Lockhart. Now, I know that chapel was restored in his memory since I took the photo, but I think we need to resolve this somehow. David Underdown (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Lockhart is very specific in his narrative: funeral at Westminster Abbey, body then moved to Canterbury, a second service followed by cremation. After lying overnight in the Chapel of the Old Palace the ashes are taken to the Chapel of Our Lady Undercroft, and are then committed "in the Chapel of St Stephen in the North-East transept; and there they now lie, close to the tomb of Archbishop Chichele ... within the Cathedral which Lang had loved so well." St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster, was evidently destroyed by fire in 1834. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
ODNB error then, makes more sense of the fact the one in Canterbury was restored in his hnour anyway. David Underdown (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography...[edit]

Is not only a subscription online service but also a set of printed works, and in either form is a perfectly fine source. Subscription databases and other subscription only services are allowed as sources as long as they are noted as such. Since I didn't take the source out, I am not sure where to readd it in, as it should be. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that subscription websites are not permitted as sources as it is not possible to cite the source in the accepted manner. If you believe otherwise please provide the Wiki information to support this. Until then I request that any references which rely on subscription services should not be included. Afterwriting (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's NOT just a subscription service, however. It's also a print work, so even if there was a blanket prohibition on subscription services, it would not apply in this case. Meanwhile, I will dig for the information on subscription services. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that WP:V does not say anything at all about subscription services being disallowed. In fact it specifically requests sources from University Presses, which Oxford University Press is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
See Reliable Sources noticeboard Archive 18, Archive 8 - where the subject is ONDB, Archive 31, Archive 13. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links but these only appear, however, to be opinions and not authoritative. My reading suggests that vague references to information on searchable websites does not provide sufficient information to be a reliable source unless actual information from the printed version is also included ( such as page numbers ). Afterwriting (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Afterwriting, I think you're wrong and the consensus at FAC is against you too. All of my bishops' articles include links to the ONDB, and they've passed FAC with no problems with that. Are you perhaps looking at WP:EL for the basis of your information? That doesn't deal with sourcing, it deals with the external links that accompany the article, as a "further reading" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to be proved wrong. But I cannot understand how just poviding a link to a website that requires searching can be acceptable. Surely more information should be required? Although I haven't yet found anything that officially forbids such references I also haven't found anything that officially states that it's acceptable either. Afterwriting (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by your statement "just poviding a link to a website that requires searching can be acceptable" ... the link is to a complete article on the person. There is no searching required, the link goes directly to the relevant article. You could also list the print version in a bibliography just referencing the article title without giving page numbers, and it would be a valid form of bibliographical entry. The entry for Lang's article gives the title of the article, which is given in full bibliographical detail at the bottom of this article as "Wilkinson, Alan (2006). "(William) Cosmo Gordon Lang (1864–1945)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 26 July 2009. (subscription required)" and if you were writing a scholarly article and referencing the article you could go "Wilkinson, Alan (2006). "(William) Cosmo Gordon Lang (1864–1945)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press." which would be a perfectly legitimate reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ealdgyth on all counts. Wikipedia is not a compendium of free internet information, we often have information not available online, or available online only by paying money. It is nice when something can be verified with one click, but it is not always the case. Sometimes you have to go to a book, or choose between paying money to an archive service or going to a library to examine microfilm. Very surprised at this discussion and the parallel one at WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm happy to be proved wrong. The problem was that when I clicked on the link it didn't go to the article on Lang - I suppose it might have done so if I was a subscriber and already signed on. I would still appreciate an official Wiki statement, if possible, that states it's okay to use such sources. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand such things more adequately as most editors are not experts on the inticacies of Wiki policies - so I'm surprised at your surprise about this discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Afterwriting, you are misinformed on this account, and I wonder where you formed this opinion? There is no policy or guideline on Wiki that requires that sources be available online or that prohibits using subscription services; that would prohibit the use of many superior sources. For example, note that most medical FAs are sourced to journal articles that are rarely available online but are indexed at PubMed, and links are provided to the abstracts only, while a subscription is often required to access the full journal. This is no different than sourcing an article to a book, which doesn't have to be available online. If you have reason to doubt that a source is being represented accurately, please remember to AGF, but you can always request a quote to back up the text from a source you can't access. Please do not continue removing sources, as there is simply no foundation in policy for your concern. An "official Wiki statement" is not needed on this topic: it is up to you to justify your misunderstanding with a foundation in policy or guideline: where do you find any policy on Wiki that requires that sources be accessible online? There isn't one. Books, journal articles, library archives, many such sources are fully acceptables, and courtesy links to databases such as PubMed are routine and acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem is, wiki policies don't work that way. Policy is the highest level of guidance, but it doesn't normally rule on this sort of detail. Guidelines are where details are given, along with the WP:RSN, where you asked the question. If consensus on the RSN is that it's allowed, it's probably as close to an official pronouncement as you'll get, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the link. My removal of it was in good faith because - as stated above - it *doesn't* go to the article on Lang unless, presumably, someone is already signed on to that website. Also, it would seem reasonable to assume that Wiki forbids reference links to subscription websites as much as it does with other external links. It seems that I am wrong about this. I also now appreciate that the reference provided adequate information on the actual printed article. Afterwriting (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, After. I understand you thought you were doing the right thing, so no worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One, as everyone else has said there is no prohibition on subscription sources being used as references, as has been affirmed time and time again. They are not suitable for use purely as external links. Second, if your are not logged in, you are taken tot he login page first, but then having logged in you are taken straight to the required page. More generally Afterwriting, if you're in the UK, all you need to do to get access to the online ODNB is join your local library, and to login you jsut type your local authority name and ticket barcode number in, and hey presto. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

weapons of mass destruction[edit]

Maybe this piece of trivia could enter the article:

The first use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

GeometryGirl (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not trivia, it is an extremely useful quotation, which I will be pleased to use in the article. I probably won't use the quote verbatim, as the article is already pretty long, but the remark ties in well with Lang's stated opposition to obliteration bombing during the Second World War, so I will add some text there. Thanks for the contribution. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing[edit]

If Lang's 18 years from ordination to archbishophood hasn't been equalled since, you might want to change "without precedent" to "unparalleled". That also serves to set off more clearly Lang's ability to climb to the top of the clerical greasy pole so quickly and his failure to do very much there once he got there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't quite been equalled since, but William Temple did it in just under 20 years, so perhaps "unparalleled" is a bit strong. I'll ponder a bit more before altering this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked at Temple, but then figured you'd probably be more familiar than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Worcester Police Station foundation stone image[edit]

I have removed this image, added 26 September, for the following reasons

  • The event it illustrates is insignificant in the history of Lang's archepiscopacy.
  • The image is unrelated to the text and fulfils no purpose towards understanding of the aticle.
  • The article is plentifully illustrated; ad hoc additions of further images with a Lang connection lead to image clutter.

If the downloader feels that there is a case for including the image, other than its mere availability, he/she is invited to make it here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the uploader; and the addition was nether ad hoc nor clutter. The image says something about he kind of secular events to which Lang was prepared to lend his name. It also acts as evidence that he used this full three names. Furthermore, it is more specific to him than many of the generic images in the article, such as the modern-day image of buildings where he once lived or worked; or the image of the signatories to the Munich Agreement, in which he does not appear to be included; or the sadly contradictorily-titled "King Edward VIII, after his abdication". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Brian that this doesn't particularly add to the article. The others photos can of course be re-examined (though I don't recall any adverse comment on the choices of illustration during the recent FAC) Images of places where he lived and worked help the reader visualise what sort of life he led, but he will have laid the foundation stone or carried out opening ceremonies many times in his career, so there seems little reason to single this one out. In addition, the dark stain in the stone across "Archbishop of Canterbury" makes the image very unclear at the standard thumbnail size (though I'm aware that my photo of the chapel at Canterbury is far from technically perfect). David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
To Andy Mabbett: Thank you for pointing out the contradiction in the Edward VIII caption which I have remedied. Lang was a major player in the abdication controversy; his remarks in support of the Munich agreement were likewise controversial and important. These images serve to show that as archbishop he was associated with major historical events. With respect, the laying of the foundation stone at Worcester was not a major event. Other images, such as the Glasgow Barony, Balliol College, Cuddesdon Church, etc., all had a particular significance at some time in Lang's life. I don't think that can be said of the foundation stone. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Morningside[edit]

In the Childhood and family section reference is made to "Morningside, outside Edinburgh". Was Morningside regarded as being outwith the city as late as 1868? Even if so "Morningside, then outside Edinburgh" might be better. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Post War section[edit]

I understand what post war means however the time period described in the article is what is know in western society as the Interwar period, with the Post-war period being that following 1945. Should this not be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Tomorrow is his birthday; why is it on the front page today? Pais (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because "tomorrow" was Hallowe'en" Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image clutter[edit]

The "Lang in 1910" image has been replaced by the more interesting "Jerusalem" picture, but restoring the 1910 pic and putting it in the bibliography section is a bit pointless, and also means five images of Lang in the article, which is rather overdoing it. I've removed the 1910 image which serves no purpose. If there is case for using it beyond mere availability or decoration, please make it here. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the 'Jerusalem' picture at this edit. I found it at Commons, and I thought it was rather neat to illustrate the text I was adding into the article to do with the Battle of Jerusalem celebration. However, I don't really agree that the 1910 image "serves no purpose". It's the only photograph in the article showing what Lang looked like as a young man, and I moved it into the 'Bibliography' section because most of Lang's books were written before 1910, when he must have looked pretty much as in the photograph. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: We put the 1910 portrait in place of the York Minster picture, which is largely decorative anyway. The 1910 photo shows Lang as he was when he became Archbishop of York and would be well placed there. Also, we delete the "Lang after the war" picture, which is contemporaneous with the Jerusalem picture. Overall that would solve problems of relevancy and clutter. Brianboulton (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Putting the 1910 picture in the place of the York Minster one seems a good idea, I can live with that, but I don't agree with deleting 'Lang after the war'. While I understand the notion of 'image clutter', the guidance is surely that good articles should be suitably illustrated, not that illustrations should be cut to a minimum. In any event, it seems a pity to lose images of the subject of the article to make way for pictures which can be found on linked pages. Is the picture of Edward VIII more relevant than 'Lang after the war'? To reduce 'clutter', maybe a gallery at the foot of the page should be considered? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced York Minster with a slightly larger 1910 image. For the moment I have left the "after the war" image in place, though I am unconvinced as to its necessity when we now have Lang in his Jerusalem robes taken at the same time and looking much the same. This is a featured article, not a good article, and its promotion was agreed on a consensus of editors, so changes have to be handled with care. Yes, I believe the picture of Edward is more relevant than another picture of the subject when four are found in the article already; Lang was a key figure in the abdication. A gallery is not appropriate to this article - see WP:IG

Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

WP:TITLE states one applicable policy as: use the common name. Now, according to my understanding, in most cases, that common name is constructed from given name and surname, which in this case would be: the fellow's given name was Cosmo and his surname was Lang. Would someone like to explain why that policy is not applicable in this one special case? ✝DBD 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, if one quotes the actual nutshell summary of WP:TITLE it is Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. I also note that the common name (by definition) is what is commonly used to refer to the person, and not just your understanding of it. If you look at the references (which are both reliable and in the English language), he is always referred to as "Cosmo Gordon Lang" or "(William) Cosmo Gordon Lang", but none of the refs used here call him "Cosmo Lang". Some people are commonly known by three names, like George Bernard Shaw or John Stuart Mill or William Jennings Bryan. I note your own user name appears to be composed of three names, so I assume the idea of people with more that two names is not unfamiliar to you. ;-) Do you have any reliable sources that refer to him as just "Cosmo Lang"? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Lang, Cosmo Sign.jpg
My own name is composed of two names — a forename and a compound surname. There are more than 17,000 Google hits for "Cosmo Lang", which suggests that it is reasonably common for him to be referred to as such. However, the trouble is the academic references call him Cosmo Gordon Lang, so we have, and so there are many thousands more Google hits for that title. Was Lang's forename "Cosmo" (i.e. was he called Cosmo) or was he called "Cosmo Gordon"? I would contend that Cosmo Lang is recognisable, unambiguous and consistent with usage in a large number of English-language sources. I believe that simplicity is an intrinsic merit in article naming — so why is it that Cosmo Gordon Lang would be preferable to most readers? ✝DBD 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And how about the signature image which shows that he signed Cosmo? ✝DBD 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to add a little levity. Thanks for the expanation, but your name is not really what this discussion is about. Let's look at each of your points. First off, there are about 105,000 Google hits for "Cosmo Gordon Lang", which is over 6 times as many as for "Cosmo Lang". If Google hits are the measure for "consistent with usage", then the most common name should be used, not the one with 1/6th of the hits. As quoted above, the summary is consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources - I note that you choose to drop the word "reliable" and disparage academic sources, but article MUST use reliable sources (and does) and academic sources are among the most reliable. There is a redirect from "Cosmo Lang" to this article, so typing in either title gets the reader to the article. Second, the article follows the WP:MOS and refers to him as Lang almost all of the time. The 1937 article from Time (magazine) quoted in the article refers to him as "Cosmo Gordon Lang", which is also recognisable, unambiguous and consistent with usage in a large number of English-language sources. Simplicity is mentioned only twice in WP:TITLE, but usage is mentioned 16 times. Finally, the signature you quote is "Cosmo Cantaur", which is the standard signature for an Archbishop of Canterbury (first name, Cantaur). As a final note, this has been through WP:PR andWP:FAC and no one raised the name issue (though the FAC quotes the Times calling him "Gordon Cosmo Lang" in 2003. To me there is no question that the full name should be used as the article title. I don't like it is not generally a valid argument on Wikipedia. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal in The King's Speech (2010)[edit]

I added a sub-section on this portrayal. Is it "fair and balanced"? Would you agree? Bearian (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I find the added section intrusive and, more importantly, irrelevant. The section is not about Lang at all, but is a summary of comments on Derek Jacobi's performance as Lang. As such, it belongs in the article about the film, or the one about Jacobi perhaps, but absolutely does not belong here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I read the addition to the article before reading this, and then read all of the reviews cited (and a few more reviews not cited here). I agree that this does not deserve its own section in the article and that the section is mostly on Jacobi's portrayal of Lang (which does not belong in this article). Having read the reviews, none of them devote more than two sentences to Jacobi as Lang, and most have only one sentence. I can see having a sentence in this article that is something like "Lang was portrayed by Derek Jacobi in the 2010 film The King's Speech." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy with that. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too. I will edit it, with the citations remaining. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have regularised the citation formats, and retained two of the five - five citations for a simple statement is obvious over-referencing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AbpCosmoLang.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:AbpCosmoLang.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Description of Hewlett Johnson[edit]

I have amended the description from "communist" to "pro-communist". As indicated in the Oxford DNB, Dean Johnson never joined the Communist Party, despite chairing the board of "The Daily Worker".Cloptonson (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Archbishop's Appeal," Times (London), 28 December 1937, p. 9.