Talk:Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article name[edit]

The name "Frank" combined with the title looks very peculiar. If he was better known as the author "Frank Pakenham" (I'm not sure), then perhaps he should be at Frank Pakenham; if he's better known as "Lord Longford", I think he should probably have a more formal-sounding name than "Frank"! It just sounds funny... to me, anyway. -- Oliver P. 01:44 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

It gave me a bit of a jolt when I first saw it.  :) -- Zoe

Frank Pakenham[edit]

Frank Pakenham spent most of his life as just that, Frank Pakenham, during which he

  • wrote, notably Peace by Ordeal, the definitive account (in everyone's eyes) of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
  • served as a minister in a British Labour government.

Late in his life, he inherited the earldom of Longford from his brother, a famous theatre manager. People of our generation would know him exclusively as Lord Longford. Earlier generations would know him as Frank Pakenham, with Lord Longford potentially referring either to the author or the threatre manager, who was famous in his own right, due to his association with the world-renouned Gate Theatre in Dublin (where Orson Welles begun his acting career).

Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford combines both his names. In contrast, Francis Pakenham would be unrecognised. His family never called him that. He never called himself that. People who have read his books would never have heard him called that.

Normally on wiki, when it comes to titles, we use a [{name} {surname}, {title}]. In most cases it is perfectly Ok to use the most technically correct version of a name. But in this case we are dealing with a published author who used and was known by the name 'Frank Pakenham'. To confuse matters more, later editions (like the one I have in front of me right now) after he inherited the earldom use the format

Lord longford
(Frank Pakenham)

But simply calling him [Frank Pakenham] or [Lord Longford] wouldn't be adequate, because each 'name' only refers to part of his career and depending on the age of the wiki user (or of the edition of his books, as a politician or a campaigner for Myra Hindley) might know him as either, or in some cases both names. So unless we set up a set of directs, for [Frank Pakenham] and [Lord Longford (the politician not the theatre manager)], in this case calling him [Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford] is the logical solution (though maybe we should create a [Lord Longford] redirect, as many people might not know that being an earl means you are called Lord).

Who said titles are easy? JtdIrL 06:24 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

PS: I almost forgot. While his books were largely published as 'Frank Pakenham', some later books, notably when he co-wrote the authorised biography of Eamon de Valera, were written as Lord Longford.

I don't agree with your reasoning, JTD. His name was Francis, and he's listed as such in dictionaries of biography. This approach seems to cut across your determined strategy of ensuring articles are labelled under the correct title. (Of course, I did start the article, so it's predictable that I would defend its title.) Deb 17:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that if someone is known by more than one name then all the names should be accommodated in the article, and as redirects, but I don't agree that different names should be merged together in this way. This chap was called "Frank Pakenham", and "Lord Longford", and he was also the 7th Earl of Longford. But as far as I'm aware, he's never been called " Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford", all in one go. (If he has, it's certainly not the name by which people would generally know him.) It seems a bit like calling the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland "Charles Carroll", or "Lewis Dodgson". ;) There are now redirects at Frank Pakenham, Francis Pakenham, Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, and just plain Lord Longford. I think the article should be moved to one of those. (Probably not Lord Longford, though - I suppose that needs to be turned into a disambiguation page at some point.) Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford is my personal favourite, although if it's true that more people know him as Frank Pakenham (I don't, but I'm not familiar with his books, I'm afraid), then I suppose the rules say we should have him there. -- Oliver P. 18:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and that reminds me, we never settled the "Earl Mountbatten" question, did we...? :) -- Oliver P. 18:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I thought we did. We were probably just too lazy to do anything about it. Deb 19:10 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I have seen him called Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, but never Francis Pakenham except in they most formal registers of the sort that call Prince Harry - Prince Henry. Just as we use Prince Harry of Wales, not the strictly more accurate but unknown Prince Henry of Wales, so we should use Frank Pakenham not his official but almost totally unused name Francis. I am quite a follower of rules, but the whole point about rules is to create a uniform, logical, usable structure, that is rigid enough to create a template but capable of dealing with cases that don't fit into the rigid rules. The 'Frank Pakenham' problem is the same as that of Prince Harry. There are times where following the rules literally produces unrecognisable names; for example, if one is strictly correct, we should have a page referring to [Basil, Cardinal Hume] except that structure is rarely used and he was generally known, not strictly accurately, as Cardinal Basil Hume. And most of those formal registers that refer to Francis Pakenham also incorporate his style, referring to His Grace, something we don't do. In this case, the most commonly recognised correct name rule suggests that we should use Frank Pakenham, not Francis because in this case we are detailing not with a personal name that we are stating merely 'for the record' not because of its recognition factor but an author known to millions of history and political science students over many decades as 'Frank Pakenham' , just as millions only know Prince Henry as Prince Harry. It is the same issue. JtdIrL 20:25 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'll admit to never having read any of his books, or even knowing that he wrote any under the name "Frank". This particular example doesn't bother me that much, but I don't really think it's analogous to Prince Harry. From the moment Harry's name was announced, it was also announced that he would be "known as Prince Harry", even though his official name is Henry. Whereas Prince William is commonly known as Wills, but we would never dream of entitling the article "Prince Wills of Wales". (Or at least, I wouldn't!) Deb 21:14 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The point is everyone knows Henry as Prince Harry. People know William's nickname as Wills but he is always referred to as Prince William. Ditto with Frank Pakenham. When people think of his political career, they talk about Frank Pakenham. When they refer to his early writing, they call him Frank Pakenham. We are talking about a famous author here known under two names, Frank Pakenham or Lord Longford, but never, ever as Francis. That was simply his name on his birth certificate and on formal documents and in formal sourcebooks that judge him exclusively as a peer (and which call Harry 'Prince Harry of Wales'. But we are not here simply to refer to him as a peer, we have to refer to him by his name and title; his name was Frank Pakenham, and he was the 7th Earl of Longford. He was known as both in his political and writing careers, never anything else. JtdIrL 21:31 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

And what about "Princess Di"? Deb 22:04 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Di was a nickname but she never called herself 'Princess Di' and so isn't recorded as such. She called herself Princess Diana, Harry calls himself Prince Harry. Frank Pakenham called him . . . Frank Pakenham.

What I mean is, even if everyone called her "Princess Di" but her official title was "Diana, Princess of Wales", we would still entitle her article "Diana, Princess of Wales". Anyhow, everyone else has dropped out of the discussion and I'm happy to go along with it, so I think you can say you've won your point. Deb 22:17 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Hey, I may be addicted to the Wikipedia, but I still have to eat and sleep! :) So just because I go away for a bit, it doesn't mean I've dropped out of the discussion... I notice that JtdIrL says, "When people think of his political career, they talk about Frank Pakenham. When they refer to his early writing, they call him Frank Pakenham." So, erm, Frank Pakenham? -- Oliver P. 14:52 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

But later on he was known as Lord Longford. So if you read some books, or some editions of books, he is called Frank Pakenham, in others he is called Lord Longford. If you refer to his political career it is Frank Pakenham, if it is following his campaign for Myra Hindley, it is as Lord Longford. If it is reading Peace by Ordeal it is as Frank Pakenham, if it is his biography of deV, it is as Lord Longford. So neither name works in isolation. Either way, you risk creating a name that a large proportion who know of the guy wouldn't recognise.

  • Frank Pakenham - recognised by some
  • Lord Longford - recognised by others
  • Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford - who?
  • Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (with redirect as [Lord Longford]) the most easily recognised method. JtdIrL 19:25 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Now here's the acid test, JTD. If his name had been David Pakenham, and his early books published under the name "Dave Pakenham", would you have been happy to see him listed as "Dave Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford"???? Deb 20:55 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

If that was the name he was universally known as, yes, for the exact same reason as we have Prince Harry of Wales. Its his name. This isn't Burke's Peerage listing peers, it is an encyclopædia, listing people as they are known. If they are known simply as peers, then you would use standard peer nomenclature, then you would put 'Francis Pakenham', 'David Pakenham', 'Prince Henry'. But we are dealing in Pakenham's case with an author, who defined himself as an author/politician who happens coincidentially to be a peer also. JtdIrL 00:03 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)


Hi, I did a couple of these recently. Lord Normanby and Lord Robertson. Not exactly consistent, but they seem to be different kinds of titles. ( 22:20 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Homophobia cat[edit]

I've removed Category:Homophobia again for three reasons:

  1. He isn't homophobia
  2. Homophobia isn't central to who he is or what he did. See Category talk:Homophobia for consensus on how/wen the cat should be used. There's one paragraph about a homophobic comment he made at age 92 - hardly central to who he is.
  3. It isn't sourced at all. If he really is a homophobe, that's controversial and should be well sourced.

Please comment here before reverting. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the category and the article should 1. have sections added and 2. fill in the context of his anti-gay campaigning. Benjiboi 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There's only one paragraph detailing his homophobia, all about one remark he made in the House of Lords. Unless he made many other statements in a similar vein, which should be documented, he doesn't compare to Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, or Eric Rudolph. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed this category now. "His high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement" should be connected with his conservative ideas. The word "homophobia" has very negative overtone and this category should be added only in undisputed cases. Andrew18 @ 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That is just your opinion I'm afraid. The Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines the word "homophobia" as meaning "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". When used in the case of a Wiki category, it simply relates to any article where the subject is linked to the established definition of the word. It isn't used as a condemnation, its used simply as fact. Lord Longford's very high profile political and personal beliefs about homosexuality were what he was mostly known for in later life. I do agree that this particular part of his political life needs to be expanded with some decent sources added, but there is no WP:BLP issue because he is dead. 89.168.105.226 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We should not connect his later life statements with homofobia. If you have on your mind this sentence: "On the other hand, if some elderly, or not so elderly, schoolmaster seduced one of my sons and taught him to be a homosexual, he would ruin him for life. That is the fundamental distinction." you have to know, that the meaning of word "homofobia" came later that he had said that words. Wikipedia is not to judge person for his beliefs. In category "homofobia" there is no space for interpretations. We cannot pick a hole in one's coat "homofobic" in this case. The prerequisites are'nt enough strong to do it. Andrew18 @ 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, where the hell did you learn to spell? Secondly, it isn't just his comments that are at issue here, the fact is that Lord Longford had a lengthy history of voting against any kind of gay rights legislation. His comments about "some elderly schoolmaster seducing one of his sons" are really just the cherry on the cake, as it were. And you are wrong about the definition of homophobia changing since he made those comments. He said that in the late 1990s when homophobia was not a new word. It meant then what it means today. I agree that there is no space for interpretations about the homophobia category, but it appears that you are the one making your own interpretations. Homophobia refers to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Its not an interpretation, its a fact. Longford's personal and political beliefs and voting history more than meet the criteria.80.41.8.218 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to put into this category every politician who "voting against any kind of gay rights legislation" you gonna pursue politics and some kind of political revenge. We dont make politic here. In my country main parties vote against any gay rights legislation. Do you think that they should be in category "homofobia"? If you want to typecasting people in this way you propably not go too far. Sorry for my spelling, I am not a native speaker. Andrew18 @ 10:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a HUGE difference between someone who is simply not "pro-gay rights" and somebody who is "anti-gay rights". Longford falls into the latter category. He ACTIVELY campaigned against gay rights. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that does not stop it from being discriminatory. In the US, Anita Bryant is exactly the same. She actively campaigned against gay rights and she and her actions are widely considered to be homophobic. It is YOU who does not understand what this category is for. It's nothing to do with getting political revenge (I'm not even gay), it is to do with articles (including articles about people) who have a notable, high profile opposition to gay rights. If the government in your country do indeed vote against any kind of gay rights as you claim, then yes, it would appear that they are homophobic (homophobia means "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" - this is a Dictionary definition, not just my own opinion). If you click on the Homophobia category, it actually states at the top of the page what the category is used for. I would also suggest that if you do not have a good command of the English language, then you should refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.89.168.101.36 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Please. En.Wikipedia is not only for natives speakers. I understand every word you have said. But I don't agree with you at all. First: the definition of being in opposition to "gay rights" is watered down. If someone votes against legislation of gay marriages became a homofobic? Secondly: if you are trying to force your point of view under the IP account - please stop it. In category "Homofobia" should stay only persons who continuously attacked homosexual persons because of their orientacion. You make a politic. You bring in this case into sth like that: "who is against gay rights is a homofobic". If you want to look for deputies who has voted against gay marriage (for example) you will a lot in many countries. In my country neither of party support gay marriage. Do you want to put all polish deputies into category "homofobia"? Because they are against gay marriage? Please, dont do that. Andrew18 @ 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You are entirely wrong about this and you seem to have trouble understanding what homophobia is, let alone being able spell it correctly. If someone is homophobic, it does not just mean that they go out physically attacking gay people. Yes, that is one example of homophobia, but it is not the only example. The dictionary definition of Homophobia is "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". I cannot say this enough to you but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. It doesn't have to be all three of these things, and it doesn't just refer to physically violent hate crimes either. If a person actively campaigns against gay rights (not just voting against gay marriage, but actively campaigning or speaking out against gay rights), then they are allowing themselves to be publicly identified as being discriminatory against gay people. This is defined as homophobia. Its discrimination based solely on somebody's sexuality. It doesn't matter if the person did it because of their religious beliefs, it is still homophobia. Lord Longford's opinions about homosexuality go way beyond just simple indifference towards gay people, it is one of the things he is most famous for. He called homosexuality "nauseating" and "utterly wrongful", said that gay people were "handicapped", and even implied that gay men who worked in schools were predatory paedophiles. If he had said that about black people and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be instantly classed as racist. If he said it about women and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be classed as sexist or misogynistic. It is equally discriminatory to say and do it about gay people - regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Furthermore, although the English Wikipedia welcomes anybody to edit it, you require a good level of English to be able to do it, which you clearly don't have.89.168.7.160 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If you had knew the Wikipedian rule you would have know that forcing point of view under the IP is a abuse. You are no right at all. Why? Do we have category Category:Racist? It's retoric question, do not answer. Category "homofobia" should group only the main articles and for example "antihomofobic" protest marches. NOT PEOPLE who "could be homofobic". We are not here to judge. We write encyklopedia and do not punish for beliefs, religion, voting etc. If you think that Frank Pakenham was homofobic, it's stayed as your opinion. You just force your point of view, nothing more. Andrew18 @ 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Your english is so poor, it virtually destroys any point you are trying to make. It has already been pointed out to you (at great length) what the homophobia category is for, and how Lord Longford meets the criteria for inclusion in it. If you fail - or are refusing - to see that, that is your problem, and it you who is pushing a POV agenda here by refusing to acknowledge homophobia. I can only assume it is because you are homophobic yourself. The category stays. End of discussion. 80.41.6.96 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You are not a person who can judge people. You can not offend me, because you just pushing not neutral point of view under the IP and break Wikipedian rules. I also think my english is good enough, because you understand what I wrote. Nevertheless you can not stop forcing your POV. The method you represent is simple: "call everyone who don't agree with you as homofobic", there is no serious response for this so I gonna stop this discussion. Andrew18 @ 09:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this on the Requests for Page Protection list today so I thought I'd have a look. Actually Andrew, there is indeed a Category:Racism. It pertains to any article that is significantly connected with racism in some way (whether they be people, organisations, historical events, media products, etc). The category for Homophobia is used in the same way - it pertains to any article that is related to the issue of homophobia (please note that we do not have categories called "racists" or "homophobes"). Wikipedians have already long since established what Category:Homophobia can be used for, and in the case of Lord Longford it would appear that the category is being used appropriately because of his public campaigning against gay rights and overall condemnation of gay people. As long as this is adequately sourced (which it seems to be) then there is no problem attaching the category to the article. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, and Lord Longford was entitled to believe whatever he liked. But if someone actively campaigns against homosexuality, then it would easily fall into the homophobia category as it is publicly demonstrating discrimination against gay people. It was in fact one of the most prominent things Lord Longford was famous for during his lifetime (the others being his support of Myra Hindley and his famous touring of porn clubs). This isn't Wikipedia taking sides on a particular issue because the homophobia category is not used as a judgement, it is merely a statement of fact (the same way that Lord Longford would also fit into the categories "English Roman Catholics" or "Anti-Pornography Campaigners" as he is prominently known for being linked to those two categories too, even though some people may not approve of religion or anti-pornography). After reading this message board, I do feel that you don't fully understand what homophobia truly means, even though one of the other editors above has given you an accepted dictionary definition of the term. I also agree that if anyone is pushing a POV here, its probably yourself because you are taking it upon yourself to redefine what homophobia is and trying to force that definition on everyone else. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In order for the Homophobia category to apply, the subject has to be particularly noted for homophobia, which Lord Longford certainly was. According to the conversation above, Andrew18's view is that Lord Longford's "high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement should be connected with his conservative ideas". That is totally wrong from an encyclopedic standpoint as it is basically saying that people who are right-wing should be allowed to be homophobic without actually being referred to as homophobic simply because it is part of their beliefs. Sorry but that just won't work and we cannot give homophobia a new meaning just because some people are going to be offended by it. The category applies to Lord Longford because he was publicly known for his homophobia and he opposed gay rights to the very end of his life, much in the same way that Baroness Young did. The article details this and is adequately sourced. Looking through his edit history, I have noticed that Andrew18 is also removing the category from the All-Polish Youth article, which is an organisation that is blatantly homophobic. Sorry Andrew, but it seems you are indeed the one with the POV agenda here. MassassiUK (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is your claim 80.41.8.218 that if someone, anyone, is not in favor of granting additional rights to all people (not just gays) that they have never had before (that is the right to marry someone of your own sex) then that means they are by definition discriminating against gays and therefore that discrimination makes you homophobic? This is Wikipedia's definition of discrimination: Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."[1]

It does not fit here. The definition of marriage has been the union between people of opposite sexes in western civilization for thousands of year. I personally think the government should stay out of the people's interpersonal relationships entirely and let everyone do what they please including marrying whomever and however many people they want, but that does not also mean I'm so daft I can't see that some people try to expand the breadth of the definition of homophobia in order to discredit those who hold traditional viewpoints on marriage completely unrelated to any animus towards gay people at all. You should be ashamed for being so disingenuous about your political goals 80.41.8.218 and for being deceptive about what you are really trying to do here. These things should be debated in the real world, and people like you who claim everyone you disagree with is animated by animus or hatred stifle don’t enhance communication and debate, you stifle it – just as you intend. -24.55.17.185

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.17.185 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC) 
What's this got to do with marriage? The relatively recent legal debacle on marriage between same sex couples came up some years after Lord Longford had died. And yes, if someone treats a gay person any less favourably than a heterosexual person just because of that fact, then that is homophobic discrimination. Your personal views on marriage are completely irrelevant here since this article is not about you. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel it's unfair t describe him as opponent of gay rights in first paragraph when fscts later in article shows his record more mixed. He at least deserves credit for his support of Montagu and Wildeblood in the 1950s when homophilia was less fashionable than it is now. I would delete this sentence and leave people to make up their own minds from the facts.Elthamboy (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

His record on the issue pretty much speaks for itself and as long as his opposition to gay rights is sourced (which it is) then it belongs in the article. We do not censor Wikipedia just because some details about a person can be unflattering. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Succession box[edit]

I've removed the UK life peerage from the succession box. Beside the point that it was a life peerage and therefore not succeeded to, life peerages do not appear to be enumerated in succession boxes (at least, not for Mrs. Thatcher, Lord Callaghan, Lord Williams of Mostyn, Baroness Jay, nor Denis Healey (nor Sir Alec Douglas-Home)). For fosterity:


Peerage of the United Kingdom
Preceded by
New creation
Baron Pakenham
1945–2001
Succeeded by
Thomas Pakenham

Dah31 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Baron Pakenham was a hereditary peerage as stated in the article and not a life peerage. He wasn't an Earl at the time, and was given a peerage so he could sit in the House of Lords himself. Life peerages weren't introduced until 1958, 13 years later. He was given a life peerage in 1999 as Baron Pakenham of Cowley. That's a separate title. Baron Pakenham was inherited by his son, along with the Earldom. JRawle (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source[edit]

An image of Lord Longford (Ekabhishek (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Equalised[edit]

'The age of consent for gay men was equalised at 16 in 2000.' makes no sense: one thing can be made equal to another, but a thing (standing on its own, so to speak) cannot be equalized. 31.52.253.108 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)