Talk:John Buchan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada / History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


As the article hints at Buchan's alleged anti-Semitism, should it perhaps mention that he was a Zionist, a friend of Chaim Weizman and a member of the Tory Friends of Israel, as well as him writing that he greatly admired Arthur Balfour, author of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - promising a homeland for the Jewish people? Benson85 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the anti-semitism expressed by a character in the first chapter of The 39 Steps is later dismissed by another, "He had a lot of odd biases, too. Jews, for example, made him see red. Jews and the high finance." 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd that a character that is treated as queer in the book, can be perceived as aligning with the author’s own views (that of being anti-semitic) of which we can prove neither, this is all hyperbole. I would be quite content to see that section dropped from this article, and if it really needs to be kept, moved to the books’ article -- johndrinkwater (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


There is a distinct R.L.Stevenson flavor to Richard Hannay being chased across Scotland in 'The Thirty Nine Steps', reminiscent of David Balfour in 'Kidnapped'.

Postnominals in panel (degrees)[edit]

I shall remove LitHum as this is never placed after somebody's name. Did he ever take his Oxford MA? Did he have a degree from Glasgow?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


At present the article has Buchan's formal title in the lede text, but a different style in the infobox. According to Debrett, which cares about such things, this is acceptable: "Within a letter, article, caption etc...the first formal reference to a peer is usually made to his exact rank. Subsequent references...may be made to Lord [Tweedsmuir]." The "social style" of "The Lord Tweedsmuir" should be used in social situations. Well, who cares? This is an encyclopaedia, and we should try to get it right. Thus, the infobox should be "Lord Tweedsmuir" (simplest) or repeat the full title. I propose, once again, to put this right. The work I am citing for all this is Debrett's Correct Form by Patrick Montague-Smith. Comments? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All this stuff from Debrett is irrelevant. This is from the MoS: "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title". So: we use the full (official) name of the article's subject with or without the common name. Reverting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation?[edit]

How does one pronounce Buchan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's English pronunciation: /'bʌχən/. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to an audio file. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor legacy[edit]

I added a major legacy, Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, but wanted to comment that I know of a bit of minor legacy which is less notable and difficult to cite and may not be there anymore; a small apartment hotel in the Stanley Park neighbourhood of Vancouver called the Buchan Hotel. I stayed there once in the '70s; it was still there in the '80s and had a boutique/gourmet restaurant in its basement; I'm thinking Lola's but maybe that's wrong; it may be a heritage structure, I'm not sure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nelson's History Of The War[edit]

I have here the first two volumes of a series titled 'Nelson's History Of The War." By John Buchan, published by Thomas Nelson And Sons, LTD. It was acquired by McMaster University library in 1917, the the preface by "the Earl of Rosebery, K.G.' was written October 1914. Can someone help me work out the exact dates (possible of each volume) so I can add it to his list of writings? There is some reference to this work sans title in the main article, does anyone have access to that source to see if this is the same work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canageek (talkcontribs) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture in box[edit]

Would File:John Buchan.jpg not be a better photo for the box? Buchan wasn't big on the imperial hoo-ha and Mackenzie King expressly wanted a Canadian for the post of GG. George V refused but conceded grudgingly to appoint Buchan. The Imperial guff must surely have embarrassed him somewhat, democrat that he was. Masalai (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


In the images of the medal ribbons should also include any general issue war service medals such as the British War Medal and the Victory Medal (United Kingdom) from when he was in the Intelligence Corps in WW1. Dabbler (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


The use of Esquire is much more free in Britain than in some other places. Basically anyone called Mr may also be called Esquire, both are indications of being a gentleman and out of politeness everyone is considered a gentleman. The connection to the legal profession is very tenuous and until I came to North America as an adult I was completely unaware of the usage. Buchan could have been perfectly correctly addressed as either Mr John Buchan or John Buchan Esquire at any time up to his ennoblement. One important honorific missing though is MP which he was for several years. Dabbler (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Esquire says nothing of what you mention above. What it does say is that the title is given to, amongst others, "Barristers (but not Solicitors)". Buchan was called to the Bar in 1901 and, according to the census from that year, was a barrister. He was thus entitled to use the term esquire. This is affirmed by later publications of The Gazette, which use Esquire or Esq. following Buchan's name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The Esquire article also says that it could be used by "Masters of Arts and Bachelors of Law and Physic." All Oxford graduates can acquire a Master of Arts degree by waiting a few years (see Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin), are you sure that he did not get his Esquire by that means at an earlier date or is this OR that he got it as a result of being a barrister. Where is the cite which I originally asked (and you reverted) for the statement that he was only called Esquire after becoming a barrister? In addition, Buchan never practiced as a barrister and I am not sure of the status of people who qualify but never practice. Dabbler (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that one could use the honorific esquire after obtaining an MA from Oxford. Yes, I suppose it is somewhat OR to settle on 1901 as the date on which he became eligible to have esquire follow his name; I haven't yet found any sources from which to form a more concrete conclusion. Your request for a cite, however, seemed directed specifically at the claim that Buchan was ever entitled to the honorific at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will just muddy the waters further, but as I recall from (British) etiquette books, a man would be addressed as John Smith Esquire in a private capacity (e.g. in sending him an invitation to a wedding), as Mr John Smith in a business capacity (e.g. in sending him an order or payment). So perhaps the point is that barristers in a business capacity as well as a private capacity would be addressed as Esquire. In any case, it is a matter of custom only; no one "gets his Esquire" in any formal sense. Robina Fox (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I can't find any other article about a well known British person of about the same time that mentions the fact that he was known as Mr (or Esquire). Also no one would be called Mister John Buchan from the date of his birth, only once he had matured enough to be considered an adult which would be at some indeterminate time between the late teens to early twenties. There is no "official ceremony" naming you to the title of either a Mr or an esquire, it is a matter of custom and to call it a title is dubious at best. I suggest that the distinction be removed completely, his only title that was specifically awarded to him was his peerage. Dabbler (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. Robina Fox (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The standard practice for such lists is to start at birth. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The lists I have seen (mostly military figures) usually start off with just the name (no Mr etc.) and then when they are appointed to a rank in the forces the list then starts using the rank and then any titles as they were awarded. I can't recall seeing any civilians unless they were members of the peerage from an early age in which case it gives their father;s secondary title for example until they inherit. Dabbler (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regard Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Sarah, Duchess of York, Quentin Bryce, which use Miss and Missus. It would seem, though, that those articles about British men who were elevated to the peerage and have chronological lists of their styles and titles through life show that individual as having Esq. from birth until some time when they received a higher honorific or title; see Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife, James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, John Packer, and Anthony Priddis. Bill Hayden, an Australian, has Mister. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Just came across this discussion. Esquire and Mr. are separate titles. The eldest child of an esquire for example is also an esquire, while younger sons are Misters. These distinctions were strictly observed in the London Gazette of the early 20th century. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Kings and things[edit]

I was finding the frequent references to "the King" somewhat jarring, especially in light of the equally frequent references to Mackenzie King. It has been claimed that the MoS allows the capitalisation of titles if they act as a shorthand for a specific person, but I don't agree that this applies here as no less then three different kings are referred to and many readers may not know which is which. I have tried a rewording which avoids this awkwardness.

On another note, "however" means "nevertheless", not "moreover": I find this one of the most frequently misused words on the project and have written a short user essay on the practice.

I hope you'll agree the article looks better with these infelicities removed. --John (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm dead against awkward phrasing in written English, and I've staid out of this particular battle for years, but it's been going on for as long as I can remember. If a specific king is doing something, then what is wrong with saying, "The King had lunch with the Queen"? If we use full titles, then capitalisation is fine: "The King of Canada dined with the Queen of New Zealand," and nobody gets their knickers in a twist. But shorten the titles, retaining the Individuals, and suddenly they become just instances of the classes of people known as kings or queens. It looks wrong to my eyes. --Pete (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I consider that we should be using the full name for the first occasion and then while we are still talking about the same individual, then it should be acceptable to use the capitalised King as a shorthand just as we use surnames for other individuals. As for the Mackenzie King - King George VI confusion, we should use his real surname, Mackenzie King, instead of a confusing abbreviation. Dabbler (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I can see now how confusion might arise from the fact that this article mentions no less than three kings and a prime minister named King (!). I think the way it is now, though, is clear enough.
I should note that, while Canada was by 1936 an independent kingdom, the monarch had no official title (that didn't come until 1952). George V was therefore king of Canada (i.e. Canada's king), but not King of Canada (he did not possess the title). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Four children[edit]

Is it not possible to mention the four offspring by name and birth-dates, two of them having remained in Canada after the death of Buchan and return to the UK of his wife? No violation of privacy given their birth considerably before 1935. Masalai (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the children are notable on their own I don't think it would add much to the article. Pburka (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
At least two of them already have articles in Wikipedia, as 2nd and 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir (and they had other accomplishments too). We could at least link to them. Dabbler (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Make that three of his children have WP articles. I think that it would be worth adding them as links. Dabbler (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


This article, together with other places on the web, states that Buchan did not practice as a lawyer. In his autobiography "Memory hold-the-door" he actually mentions that for 3 years after his return from South Africa, whilst his main pusuit was writing a taxation law book he did in fact take occasional briefs. It was after this period, in 1906, that he bacame a partner in Nelson's publishing house. (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) TallPaul

King of Canada[edit]

There is a dispute about how to describe Buchan's appointment as governor general in 1940:

Buchan "was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett", or
Buchan "was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett".

The title of the sovereign at the time was, "George VI by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Neither the appointment nor the sources use the term "king of Canada." The text "on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada" is sufficient to convey that the appointment was made on the recommendation of Canada, rather than of the UK Prime Minister. Incidentally none of the sources say that the appointment was made on the advice of R.B. Bennett.

TFD (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The title has nothing to do with this; the lead makes no claim that "King of Canada" was a title held by George V. Canada, however, had a king, and he was George V. Thus, George V was king of Canada, though not titled King of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is tendentious to say "king of Canada", when that is not the normal way in which he was described, especially when not used in the sources. TFD (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"Tendentious"? I don't see how. It's common to describe a monarch as king/queen of whatever country they are or were king or queen of. I'm sure you'll see there are a number of sources showing he was referred to as king of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is tendentious to use rarely used terminology because you prefer it. It is also tendentious to change references to the Canadian government to the Queen of Canada, especially when further investigation shows that the actual parties are, in the two examples I remember, specifically a numbered corporation owned by a Crown corporation and a cabinet minister and his assistant. It makes the articles read in a most peculiar way. I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN#King of Canada. This is not the forum for promoting use of the term "Queen of Canada." TFD (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Prove that it was rarely used. I went and found a number of sources both modern and from the 1930s that refer to George V as king of Canada; WP:V's requirements have thus been fulfilled. You've also come up with no source that even suggests George V was not the king of Canada.
If this isn't the forum for promoting the term "Queen of Canada", why in hell did you inexplicably pull it from out of the blue into a discussion about whether or not her grandfather was called "king of Canada"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You found scattered references. That is typical of tendentious editing. Instead of reporting what the main sources say, you decide what the article should say and mine for sources. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You first tried to justify your edit by claiming the term "king of Canada" wasn't used at the time. I found sources that prove that claim wrong. You then tried to justify your edit by pointing out that George V didn't hold the title "King of Canada". I explained to you that "king of Canada" is descriptive of George V, not a title. Now you're trying to make this personal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're now on your third attempt at a reason to delete, still without consensus to do so, the words "king of Canada"; this time trying "Not commonly called 'king of Canada'". You have no way to affirm that statement.

If you're set on pursuing this, I sugeest you start the dispute resolution process. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The references quite obviously prove your claim the term "king of Canada" wasn't used at the time to be entirely false. Your personal feelings about the sources mean nothing.
Start an RfC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You have found a few scattered references, which proves nothing. Your first reference is an announcement by the long forgotten "Classology League of Canada" in the The Beacon (motto "Onward To The Canadian Christian State! ORDER-JUSTICE-TOIL). "[1]
I do not have to prove that "King of Canada" was not the normal usage. It certainly was not the title in official documents or in the sources used for Buchan's appointment. Unlike this example, I can find many references to Diefenbaker as "The Chief". That would not justify my changing every reference to Diefenbaker in every Wikipedia article to "The Chief." I notice that Threadnecromancer also disagreed with you.
TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Titles is a red herring.
You just keep repeating yourself. As you'll see below, I've started an RfC myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on RfC (below)[edit]

Quark was ruled against because the Lords determined that the Governor was appointed by the Queen of SGSSI on the advice of the UK cabinet, not by the Queen of the UK on the advice of the UK cabinet.

How is it helpful to have this rarely used non-title description in the lead?

19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC expired - no support. TFD (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on use of 'king of Canada'[edit]

Is it acceptable to refer to George V as king of Canada (note: not King of Canada) in the context of his appointing John Buchan as Governor General of Canada? Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes Following the Statute of Westminster 1931, George V held the role of king of Canada (and of other countries) apart from his continued role as king of the United Kingdom, though the royal title did not catch up with the fact of a person shared as monarch of multiple states until 1953. Hence, this article does not attempt to pretend 'King of Canada' was a title held by George V. It uses the term 'king of Canada' in the common practice of refering to the monarch of a country as 'king' or 'queen of [Country]'. Contemporaneous sources already provided prove that the term was used in the 1930s. The frequency with which he was referred to by such a descriptor is both incalculable and irrelevant; it is an acceptable term to use and it is appropriate to use in the context here as it makes clear to readers who might otherwise not be aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 that George V was, when appointing Buchan as governor general, acting as Canada's monarch, not the UK's. This format is consistent in all biography articles on Canadian governors general from this one on up to David Johnston. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The dispute is whether the lead should include "king of Canada" when it says that Buchan was "appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett...." (my emphasis). TFD (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No The sources used to support the appointment of Buchan do not use the term "king of Canada." The title "King of Canada" was never used officially until Canada's titles act, passed 20 years later, when it became one of several descriptions that could be used, and is still rarely used in mainstream sources, especially outside Canada. TFD (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes George V was the king of a country called Canada. He did not have the title King of Canada, the bringing up of which is a major red herring in this discussion and to me an indication that there is no good argument against the usage king of Canada. Dabbler (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What is the argument for the usage? TFD (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Avoid; "by King George V, on the advice..." would seem to be a perfectly inoffensive solution here and much more in line with usual English-language style. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
But what about what I said above about the average reader likely not being aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 and thus that George V was, when appointing Buchan as governor general, acting as Canada's monarch, not the UK's? That question extends from this article to those on all subsequent governors general, since the same sentence structure used here is carried through all of them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's perfectly true that many readers may not be aware of the complexity of the Crown's status in the various Commonwealth realms (or Dominions) - but do we need to emphasise it in the lead of articles about governors-general? The current structure, with six footnotes for a single phrase, is very odd; in a lead, we should be summarising key details, rather than dotting every i and crossing every t. If we need to explain a complex detail precisely, there's the relevant bit of the article. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, the six citations are a result of a claim made by an editor to justify deleting the phrase 'king of Canada'. Regardless leads are indeed summaries. But, I'm still fairly convonced most who read "In 1935 he was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett" would immediately think something along the lines of "Oh, he was appointed to an important position in colonial Canada by the king of Britain (or, maybe more likely, England)." The additional only three words, I think, prevent that from happening. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I am unconvinced by this, and it's not the way we normally handle leads (note that this seemingly vital detail is ignored in the body of the article); if I'd come across it without the dispute, then removing it would have seemed perfectly uncontentious and sensible copyediting. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it states in the article body: "Buchan was the first viceroy of Canada appointed since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on 11 December 1931 and was thus the first to have been decided on solely by the monarch of Canada in his Canadian council." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So it is; I misread that bit, apologies. My feeling that it's inappropriately detailed for the lead still stands, however. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Saying that George V was "king of Canada" does not necessarily imply anything about Canadian independence. As explained in "Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark (House of Lords, 2005),[2] the king is king of each and every territory subject to him. In this case, the sovereign was considered to have been acting as "Queen of the SSGI", a terroritory that has no inhabitants and therefore cannot be considered independent in any way. We could re-write all the articles about the British Empire to show for example that the American revolution was fought against the king of the 13 colonies, which would be technically correct, but not the terminology normally used. TFD (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentences are hyperbole. Otherwise, yes, the monarch can act in right of semi-sovereign jurisdictions (the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Scotland, Alberta, Northern Territory, etc.). But, the case you cite does exactly what I've said (without actually using the word "independence") needs done here: it clarifies that, for the SGSSI (which are not part of the UK), Queen Elizabeth II acts not as queen of the United Kingdom (which I assumed she would), but as queen of the SGSSI ("in right of the SGSSI" as is also said in the case), just as, in appointing the Governor of New South Wales, Queen Elizabeth II acts not as queen of the United Kingdom (or even of Australia, since the federal government there has no involvement in the appointment of governors), but as queen of New South Wales, just as, in appointing Buchan as governor general, King George VI acted not as king of the United Kingdom (as people are likely to otherwise assume), but as king of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Lords said in Ex parte Quark, "[The constitution of SGSSI] makes plain that the Queen is the head of state and the source of authority in the state. Those who hold office locally do so during her pleasure and subject to her instructions and control." So from the time Canada was ceded to the UK, the Governors-General have been appointed by the king of Canada. So it is not hyperbole to say that the king was also king of each of the 13 colonies. But it would sound strange to re-word the articles on colonial America (and Canada) because that was not the terminology used at the time. TFD (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
From the 1760s to 1931, the governors and goverors general were appointed by the king of whatever territory as king of the United Kingdom; ie. the king acted for those territories on the adivce of his ministers in the British Cabinet only; he did not follow the advice of ministers in the Canadas, who had to go through the British Cabinet to communicate with the king. After 1931, that was no longer the case; the lead presently makes clear what the reality was at the time: the king of Canada (not the king of the UK), acting on the advice of the Canadian prime mininster, appointed Buchan as governor general.
Terminology in the 1930s included the term 'king of Canada'. I provided some examples for George VI; there are plenty more for George VI, including from the official historian of the 1939 royal tour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Quark is quite clear. "[T]the Queen is the head of state and the source of authority in the state. Those who hold office locally do so during her pleasure and subject to her instructions and control." IOW, the governor of SGSSI, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the government of the UK, is appointed by the Queen of the SGSSI and not by the Queen of the UK. It does not matter whose advice the Queen seeks, in earlier times she might have sought no advice at all. What matters is for what territory her authority is used. The effect in that case was that the Queen of the UK was not held to treaty obligations, because she does not act as Queen of the UK when governing territories outside the UK.
George V was rarely referred to as "king of Canada" and certainly not in official documents. See for example the Letters Patent, 1947 in The Canada Gazette, affecting the office of the Governor-General. They are from "George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, KING", not from the "king of Canada."
TFD (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Quark was ruled against.
It's been stated too many times now that titles are irrelevant; you're repeating yourself again.
"Rarely" is unprovable and irrelevant. The term was used and, I think, it helps to have it in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So as not to clutter this RfC, I will respond above at Talk:John Buchan#Comments on RfC (below). TFD (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid If acceptable for this to be mentioned as a minor detail in the context of the article, it is not suited to the lead. As to the notion that its use in the lead would make "clear to readers who might otherwise not be aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 that George V.. ", that is fanciful. Some readers are already sufficiently aware of the constitutional niceties but would find it pedantically irksome and inappropriate to force the point on readers in such a manner. But it can be surmised that most readers would neither know nor care about it, and would be little the wiser in their indifference as a result of this possibe drift off-topic. In my view, in this conneciton it is no hyperbole to draw attention, for comparison, to the position of George III as king of the 13 colonies who made rebellion and seceded. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid The term "king of Canada" is non-neutral because it gives undue weight to a phrase that is rarely used, and also because it makes a misleading implication about the Canadian view of the monarchy. I have been following Canadian news all my life, and have also studied Canadian history, and I have very infrequently seen this kind of term. Also, by implication, the term presents a view of the British monarchy that is at odds with that of most Canadians, at least as I read it. Most do not think of the British monarch as their head of state but rather as a kind of arms-length moral authority and perhaps an inspirational figure. The term “king of Canada” implies a far greater degree of statutory authority than is actually the case, and that is probably why the term, even tho not technically inaccurate, is little used in popular or scholarly discussion. EMP (talk 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think you quite understand the subject. The monarch of Canada was and is a separate office from monarch of the UK; the monarch of Canada is not such because Canada is within the sovereignty of the British monarch. Your comments only reinforce my point about how, absent any clarification, many, if not most, readers will filter the information about George V appointing Buchanan through their misconceptions and interpret it as the king of the UK appointing his Canadian governor general to represent him in Canada as the British monach, which is entirely wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I sympathize. And your knowledge of the subject is admirable. Many (myself included until now) do not appreciate that after 1931, the British crown has ruled Canada in a more consultative framework, in which Canadian politicians have direct access to the crown and do not have to go thro the UK government at Westminister. I believe an example of this may be Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s direct and fruitful discussions with the current Queen regarding the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. You also raise a valid point that this phraseology is used in the WP articles on other Governors-General. However, in the end, my own feeling is that because the term has been little used in Canadian media coverage or in historical accounts, the use of it here, in such a prominent position, gives it undue weight. EMP (talk 00:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Avoid anachronism. --John (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What anachronism? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The anachronism of referring to him by a title that did not come into being until after his death. --John (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
No title was used; "king of Canada" is a descriptor synonymous with "Canada's king" or "monarch of Canada" (except gender specific). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
What do the sources call him? King of Bermuda? King of Canada? Or King of Britain? My bet is the last. So that's the better term to use. --John (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources were supplied in which he was referred to as king of Canada. Regardless, the consensus is obviously to not use the term, so I've removed it from all relevant articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No - Since it seems to create controversy and confusion. But if its worthy to acknowledge the distinction and subtle nuance of the title as EMP indicates, then create an article or incorporate it in the appropriate one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how far one wants to descend into legal pedantry, my understanding is that the British Crown was actually one global metaphysical entity until the 1953 Royal Titles Act, when the wording was changed to imply that the Crowns of Canada, Australia etc were separate offices held by the same person. That does raise a question as to whether it is correct to talk of a "King of Canada" before 1953, whether or not the phrase was sometimes used.Paulturtle (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The concept that the crowns of Canada, Australia, etc. were separate was acknowledged almost immediately after the Statute of Westmisnter 1931. Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King went to great lengths to organise a tour of Canada and a visit to the US in 1939 by George VI precisely to highlight the point that the King was now king of Canada apart from his being king of the United Kingdom, a subject covered in this very article, since Buchan was in full agreement with the plan. Two other examples off the top of my head are the abdication of Edward VIII, which wouldn't have had effect in Canada had the Canadian government not requested and consented to the Abdication Act becoming part of Canadian law (unlike what the Irish Free State did, resulting in Edward being king of the IRF a day longer than he was king anywhere else) and the Canadian government's assertion that George VI's declaration of war as king of the UK did not have effect in Canada and its wait for a week before having George VI issue another declaration of war as king of Canada.
The fact that the actual title and style of the monarch didn't come to align with the reality of the monarch's wearing of multiple crowns until 1953 didn't negate the other fact that the monarch wore multiple crowns prior to 1953.--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid. Given that the lead is a summary, why is it considered important to include in this paragraph who appointed him at all? The article is about Buchan, it's the fact he was appointed that is the important element not who appointed him. Since all governors general are appointed (by definition) by the monarch, the inclusion of this arcane information in the lead is superfluous. Delete it and stick in a link to the GG article for the curious. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoid He should simply be referred to as "King George V". The reference to him being appointed on the advice of the Canadian PM, is sufficient to indicate in what capacity the King was acting. Using "king of Canada" as a descriptive term at a time when the royal style in Canada was completely different is liable to cause confusion and lead people to think he actually had the title of "King of Canada" (the lack of capitalisation is easily overlooked). Neljack (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No - per other arguments made here. United States Man (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Avoid/omit as trivial and confusing to the ordinary reader, most especially in the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple footnotes[edit]

I see no reason to have multiple intrusive footnotes for a point that is not under contention, such as Mackenzie King being minister in attendance or George VI being king of Britain. DrKiernan (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why raise that red herring while ignoring the fact of George VI being king of Canada and deleting all references to his visit to the United States being one made on behalf of Canada, with him entering and acting there as king of Canada, and deeming the multiple sources that support that information to be "intrusive"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't deleted that. The article has consistently said "George VI was to assume the additional title of King of Canada," (even though there was no such official title) and has consistently stated "the fact of Canada's status as an independent kingdom". What I have done is added or altered material to address the misleading impression given by the previous wording that he was there solely on behalf of Canada or solely as the king of Canada, which is not the case. My first edit avoided saying he was king of Britain or there on behalf of Britain, too, but that was not acceptable. I believe I'm OK with the section as it currently stands. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Struck out. Primary sources removed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) His being there as king of Canada is most relevant to an article on his Canadian representative who conceived the tour and stated clearly its purpose was to illustrate Canada's sovereignty. But, in what way does "In May and June 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth toured the country from coast to coast and paid a state visit to the United States on behalf of Canada... and the Commonwealth" even hint that the "he was there solely on behalf of Canada or solely as the king of Canada"?
WP:PRIMARY makes no claim that primary sources are disallowed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's bad prose. Britain has been split off behind two mdashes and a long clause in order to which hides it from the reader, and it's bad form to split a list of items with a long side-comment in the middle. It's better to order the list so the item requiring the side-comment is at the end. DrKiernan (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Amended 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you don't tell me why I did things.
Your order was inappropriate for this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
That's wasn't my intention -- amended. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There is solid consensus that "John Buchan" is the common name and that it suits the relevant policies and guidelines. Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

John Buchan, 1st Baron TweedsmuirJohn BuchanWP:COMMONNAME, pure and simple. He was a novelist first and foremost, and only acquired the fancy title late in his career. Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support 1) wp:honorific 2) Superfluous disambiguation. walk victor falk talk 10:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well known by his title, especially because of his role in Canada. Peerage titles are neither honorifics nor used for disambiguation. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "novelist first and foremost" - not according to the facts of his biography. In his own day his name and public position, and contribution as Lord Tweedsmuir to events of the 20c. which are now history, were at least as well-known as his novels, and his notability today is due more to his career in public service, especially as GG, than as one among other successful writers of popular novels of the thriller genre, like, say, Alexandre Dumas or Conrad (The Secret Agent) or Eric Ambler, none of whom had a similarly prominent position in the conduct of public affairs. Qexigator (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
+Comment: Lest we forget the other Lords T. John Buchan, 2nd Baron Tweedsmuir. obit. Friday 21 June 1996 "LORD Tweedsmuir, the son of John Buchan, the author and former Governor General of Canada, has died at the age of 84."[3]. William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir. obit. "The 3rd Lord Tweedsmuir, who died on June 29 /2008/ aged 92, was the second son of the writer John Buchan and himself the author of novels, short stories and verse; but although he never wrote a best-seller, William Buchan made his mark with a touching memoir of his father." [4] Qexigator (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Their father would be highly notable quite aside from having having received the title, the other two and particularly the other John seem encyclopedically notable for little else than inheriting that title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is an encyclopedia of wider scope than the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook. The proposal is not for "John Buchan"and against "1st Lord Tweedsmuir". Both are there, one after the other, as occurred in his life. It is a fact, as described in the article, that his contribution to global history of the 20c. in public service, up to his death in office as Lord Tweedsmuir, surpasses his contribution to the commonwealth of letters[5], but includes his wartime novels, "The Thirty-Nine Steps" and "Greenmantle" (1916)[6], his service as Director of Information in 1917, and his time as an MP. The notability of the 2nd and 3rd is, of course, merely derivative. Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The implication being he's a (now at least) fairly obscure writer, much better known for other things? This perspective is utterly unrepresentative from a WP:WORLDVIEW where his writings, particularly The 39 Steps, are still very well known and other aspects, whether this is just or not, are less so, if it all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
False inference, lacking world and historic perspective, could signify bias, not uncommon, perhaps, among some readers of light fiction or movie fans, no more interested in the man behind the name "John Buchan" than in the name of his publisher. Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh? Publisher? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Like most novelists, he had publishers for his books. He was not self-publishing. Such as, The Thirty-Nine Steps published 1915, first serialized in Blackwood's Magazine, then as a book by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what the pertinence of this is to a discussion on the article title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Many people are known by shorter names but have their titles included in their Wikipedia article heading. Dabbler (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there is a policy or guideline saying saying nobility titles should not be included unless hereditary (e.g. not awarded), unless they are wp:commonname. walk victor falk talk 01:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility. TFD (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I have read that convention and it doesn't say that it should not be used for a first creation, just that it should not if the peerage was given after the person had essentially retired which Tweedsmuir had not when he was raised to the peerage, or if he was exclusively known by his personal name which he manifestly is not either. Dabbler (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Buchan had essentially retired from his career as a public servant and was appointed governor-general, which is a ceremonial post, similar to appointment to the Lords. I think the point of the wording in the convention is that people who are ennobled are already notable - that is why they are ennobled - while their heirs are notable for being lords. TFD (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You may be right about the intent of the WP wording. But the office of GG, such as Tweedsmuir's, is no mere sinecure. In his case it included but was not confined to ceremonial duties. He was not in retirement and died in office before he would otherwise have retired. It is not analogous to "appointment to the lords" whatever that may mean, then or now. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What non-ceremonial duties did he perform? You must know that many retired public servants are appointed to vice-regal positions - Massey, Vanier, Earle Rowe, Hal Jackman, for example. TFD (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: His novels are not nearly as well known and read as once but his and his wife's significance in Canadian history, for which he was given title before arriving as Governor General, remains. Masalai (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: That may be the perspective in Canada, so is worth consideration, but it's also worth noting that this side of the pond he's far better known as a novelist, and in Canada would you really generally refer to him by the full handle (per the current article title) or indeed by his peerage alone, or would you not just refer to him as plain John Buchan? The peerage is pertinent, and rightly mentioned prominently in the lede, but per nom his common name seems more fitting as the article title. And the title is superfluous per WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
+Comment: In Canada he is known mostly as Lord Tweedsmuir, unless you are specifically talking about his books and he is probably better known as a Governor General who introduced the annually awarded Governor General's awards for literature than as a novelist. Dabbler (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply - so if this were mandatory Canadian content, the current title would be fine. But for a global project, I still feel that WP:COMMONNAME dictates John Buchan, because his books belong to the world. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is an encyclopedia not a social calendar and therefore we should use the most common name. Buchan is best known for his novels, Hitchock made The 39 Steps into a film. He was only ennobled when he was appointed governor-general. TFD (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Including noble titles where they apply, from whatever route or on whatever date they were acquired, is normal in Wikipedia; another novelist more widely known as a novelist than as a Lord was Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton. There are so many case examples of this in Wikipedia, where it is the norm, it's a bit bizarre to hear all this talk about how his fame as a novelist supersedes the relevance of his title. And NB this is not as Canadian title, though it's how he was known there in his time, but a title of the House of Lords in Britain, and therefore not insignificant in "global terms".Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously the name by which he is usually known, e.g., on VIAF. Here's the first part of the references from the DNB entry for him (omitting those that do not name him at all):
  • R. G. Blanchard, The first editions of John Buchan: a collector's bibliography (1981)
  • J. Adam Smith, John Buchan (1965)
  • J. Adam Smith, John Buchan and his world (1979)
  • A. Lownie, John Buchan (1995)
  • S. Buchan, ed., John Buchan by his wife and friends (1947)
  • John Buchan's collected poems, ed. A. Lownie and W. Milne (1996)
  • W. Buchan, John Buchan (1982)
  • M. Green, A biography of John Buchan and his sister Anna (1990)
  • D. Daniell, The interpreter's house: a critical assessment of John Buchan (1975)
  • G. Himmelfarb, ‘John Buchan: an untimely appreciation’, Encounter, 15/3 (1960), 46–53
  • J. P. Parry, ‘From the Thirty-Nine Articles to The thirty-nine steps: reflections on the thought of John Buchan’, Public and private doctrine: essays in British history presented to Maurice Cowling, ed. M. Bentley (1993), 209–35
  • C. Harvie, ‘“For Gods are Kittle Cattle”: J. G. Frazer and John Buchan’, John Buchan Journal, 9 (winter 1989), 14–26
  • J. Kruse, John Buchan (1875–1940) and the idea of empire (1989)
  • A. Kirk-Greene, ‘Buchan and Burma’, John Buchan Journal, 1 (spring 1983), 3–7
  • K. Grieves, ‘“Nelson's history of the war”: John Buchan as a contemporary military historian, 1915–22’, Journal of Contemporary History, 28 (1993), 533–55
I don't see the present title of this article there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: His fame as novelist is in no way obliterated by including his name as Lord Tweedsmuir in the title. It is self-evident that books about the man as novelist will use his name as novelist, and are directed to that section of the public which is interested in him as such, maybe to the exclusion of an interest in his important service in public life for which he is certainly notable, regardless of his novels. But that does not mean that his public service for which he has been and will be known as Tweedsmuir (not only in Canada!) is so insignificant, or merely incidental, that, unlike others mentioned above, his name as such should be eliminated from the article title, which would be to prefer ignorance over fact. Note Baron Tweedsmuir and Redirect Lord Tweedsmuir[7] and Buchan (surname) --Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Buchan did not achieve "notability" by being appointed governor-general and being ennobled, which the King thought was necessary for the performance of his office. Rather, he was already notable as a public servant and popular author.
When writers are known by their titles, they will use their titles in their writing: Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Lord Byron. That of course is the of meaning of the most common name.
Also, the reason for adding titles is disambiguation.
TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Let us not be sidetracked. Any attempt to treat John Buchan as anything but a notable novelist would be a travesty, unworthy of the article (which at present is entirely unworthy of him, and hardly seems to be about this rather well-known British novelist at all). Let's be clear about this: John Buchan is a famous novelist. That he happened also to be appointed governor of Canada is marginal, and largely unknown to his public (even though, checking the first 15 or so of the many of his books that I own, I find that that this obscure fact is noted in the introductory blurb of every single one of them). It provides an interesting background to reading Sick Heart River; it is otherwise quite irrelevant to his reputation. He was, and still is, known as "John Buchan". That is title to which this article should be moved. To return to the point, do you, Qexigator, see the name "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" in any of the references to the DNB article that I have listed above? I do not. I see that he is universally, unambiguously, referred to as "John Buchan". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let us not be sidetracked. An attempt to treat John Buchan as notable primarily as a novelist would be a travesty, unworthy of the article. Editors who have contributed to the article (not to mention many readers) will be aware that in respect of his novels, he is probably best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915), the success of which was such that it was the title of the Hitchock movie adaptation for The 39 Steps (1935 film) starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll. The movie had been aimed at the USA market, and in August 1939 (significant timing) was followed there by Orson Welles's adaptation of the novel for The Mercury Theatre on the Air. But that novel, like Buchan's Greenmantle (1916) and others had been, as the article rightly reports, part of the propaganda for the British war effort in the First World War. His Prester John (1910), "the first of his adventure novels set in South Africa", had resulted from his service in that country with Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, an initial step in his career which culminated in his appointment as GG, Canada, at one of the many critical times in international affairs. Otherwise, his novels are barely notable. Taking his fiction and non-fiction work as a whole, however, together with his public service and appointments, his nearest comparator could be Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton who has been mentioned above. Including Buchan's name as Lord Tweedsmuir in the title in no way obliterates his fame as a novelist. Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you realize that the title of the article has no bearing on how the article appears? Editors typing in "John Buchan" would go directly here instead of being re-directly here. At present my guess is that 100% of readers are re-directed here, while many editors would type in "John Buchan." Probably fewer would type in "1st Baron Tweedsmuir." In fact he was more likely to have been called "Lord Tweedsmuir" than 1st Baron. TFD (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That has little if anything to do with the points above opposing the change from "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" to "John Buchan". 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does, because the discussion is about what the article is named. The article will still begin "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH." TFD (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Overwhelmingly known as John Buchan.--Britannicus (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: As a public servant Buchan was only known as Tweedsmuir for four years at the end of his life. As a novelist he continued to publish as "John Buchan" even after his ennoblement. Of course it's natural that in Canada he should be primarily known for having been Governor-General and Lord Tweedsmuir, but to the rest of the world he is notable as the author John Buchan. Bulwer-Lytton's article should probably be moved as well. Opera hat (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support He is primarily a novelist even if his novels may not be all that widely read nowadays, but the 3 film versions of the 39 Steps plus the stage version are collectively quite well known, and it is well known that they are based on his novel. It is somewhat Canada-centric to treat his period as governor-general of Canada as of equal importance. See Bertrand Russell, Margaret Thatcher for similar cases. Of the various counter-examples which have been quoted, a handful should arguably be moved to the version without the title as well, Arthur Wellesley is actually better known as the Duke of Wellington, and William Pitt and George Brown need to be disambiguated from other well-known people of these names. PatGallacher (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main point is that there is no problem here and no need now for the proposed change. His name as Tweedsmuir has been in the article from the start in 2002[8]. Of the examples above, it would be better to bring Russell and Thatcher into line by adding the names formally granted under the laws of their country, Russell as an hereditary peer, and Thatcher as a life peer following her premiership, by which they are also known, and in each case is an aspect of notablility in public life. These are names, not merely "honorifics", or popular modes of address such as "Senator" or "Congressman" or "President". Is the POV for removing such names connected with the fact that such names are granted and held under the law of the UK and are not part of the way of life of the USA, such that even past and living presidents of that federal republic are properly known by the name lawfully given at birth, or as registered, or as later changed in a manner lawfully acceptable (under Article Two of the United States Constitution), such as: Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Obama and the others listed as POTUS? --Qexigator (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"Baron" is not a name it is a title. In this case it is a substantive rather than honorific title. "Mister" (from the French mon sieur, literally "my lord") is also a title with rules about who may use it, although they are generally ignored today, yet we do not include it in article titles. When people in the U.K. appear in court, the court uses their birth certificate name, not their titles. TFD (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
+ Apart from the main point mentioned above, any commenter looking for information online about how would such persons lawfully sign their names could see: "On formal documents the full title is used. This is why Lord Tyrrell's signature, which is thrown on the screen as Film Censor, is Tyrrell of Avon."[9] And letters patent are granted in respect of name, style and title dontcha know, as in these florid examples:[10] No need to be side-tracked by "title" such as baron or baroness. --Qexigator (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
+ From the article: Infobox signature as "Tweedsmuir"; main text, "...Buchan was... elevated to the peerage, when he was entitled by King George V as Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield in the County of Oxford"; source, London Gazette "Whitehall, June 3rd, 1935. The KING has been confer the dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom upon John Buchan, Esquire, ... by the name, style and title of BARON TWEEDSMUIR of Elsfield in the County of Oxford."[11]
As the Tyrrell example shows, baron is not part of the name. Nor is "esquire", which is a title mid-way between mister and sir. Note that Buchan did not ask his publisher to change his name, nor did he forfeit his name on elevation to the peerage. TFD (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
None has proposed "baron"[12] or "esquire" as a name or as part of the present discussion. Esquire is antique, but the usage has persisted in the legal profession in the USA. For the information of commenters, "dignity" is a formal usage with a certain meaning in connection with UK peerages[13],[14] --Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The current title of the article is "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir." Barristers become esquires, if they are not already, when the are called to the bar. However, we do not add that title to titles of articles about barristers. TFD (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming both points, about name (per links given above, 11.56[15] and 16.38) and about antique[16]. If Wikipedia is to be believed, in USA "Esq." is also used by female lawyers, which is perhaps more bizarre than antique, but each country has its own customs. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
An 1830 manual for JPs, p. 541, explains the title of esquire, and points out that all barristers are esquires.[17] No idea why U.S. barristers retained this title after the revolution. As the manual says out, "Honours can only be conferred by the crown." The point is that we do not normally add that title to article names. TFD (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Commenters and editors will be aware that the antique use of "Esq.", and its general use into the later 20c. as a form of addressing letters in what had been considered English "polite society", have nowt to do with peerage dignities or the matter here under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Buchan was appointed to the Lords before the later 20th century. He is referred to in the Gazette announcing his appointment as "John Buchan, Esquire", which was his title.[18] Similarly, on the same page, Laing is referred to as a "gentleman." On the next page, people called Pagan and Strode are referred to as "Mr." In the list of Buckingham palace staff, some junior members have no titles at all. Clearly "esquire" is a title, but we chose not to use it in article names. TFD (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Commenters and editors can see the content of the LG there linked, and that those remarks about usage are certainly irrelevant to the points under discussion here, and possibly misleading. "Esquire", "Mr", and "gentlemen" afford no guidance to usage of the "name, style and title" for a peerage, for reasons sufficiently given above. Has it ever been proposed to include in an article heading "Esquire", "Mr" or "gentleman"? Qexigator (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you have not explained the difference between these two types of titles. TFD (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And how is any of this relevant anyway? If User:Qexigator thinks article titles should include peerages in all cases, then the change to WP:NCPEER should be proposed at that talk page, not here. The current article title is not wrong, but this discussion is about whether "John Buchan" would be a better one - i.e. whether he is more widely known as an author, or as Governor-General of Canada. Opera hat (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply I think Quexigator's contribution actually confirms the point I was making, since moving Bertrand Russell and Margaret Thatcher to the versions with the titles would be contrary to current naming conventions, see WP:NCROY. This proposed move is in accordance with the current naming conventions, if people want to change them so be it. I checked the article and most biographies etc. call him plain John Buchan, over a dozen books by him have their own article which suggests that he is still primarily a writer. PatGallacher (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per common name. The sources call him John Buchan. --John (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per common name (John Buchan).--Zoupan 06:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It doesn't take a "policy" to tell us that 99% of people will search for him as "John Buchan". Deb (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: More "porky" than "policy", perhaps, or wishful thinking. Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have had a look at the List of Governors-General of Canada and they look like a pretty obscure bunch who few non-Canadians will have heard of, and I suspect many of them are not widely remembered even in Canada (Earl Alexander of Tunis might be the one exception). If his period as GG of Canada is still remembered then I suggest this is because they took the unusual step of appointing a well-known writer to this post. An example of his continued importance as a writer is that there have been TV adaptations of 2 of his novels, Huntingtower and John McNab, within the period I can remember, the former was fairly popular. PatGallacher (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That tends to support the reasons against the proposed change, seeing that the notability of his public career including his final appointment as GG is not less than others appointed to that office; that such of his works of fiction as are notable have been given articles to themselves; that the rest of his published writings are probably less well-known than his position as the public servant who was advanced to the peerage as Lord Tweedsmuir, which rightly forms the main part of the article. The fact is that, from the point of view of the man's biography, the article itself shows that his novel writing was a spin-off from his public career. It is that which makes him more interesting than most other writers of similar fiction, whether or not his public career is of any interest to many who have read his fiction with enjoyment. He had no part in the TV and other posthumous adaptations, but it may have been useful to those who made them to be able to use his name. Nor should Wikipedia adopt the stance that a country such as Canada is virtually a nonentity. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The case of naming Alexander's article is even worse than here. Like Buchan he had a distinguished career before his appointment as governor-general and was elevated to the peerage upon his appointment. However, unlike Buchan, he survived the appointment, and received an earldom upon his return. But no one argues that his article should be named "Viscount Alexander", even though that is the most common name when referring to his time in Canada. TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Again this tends to support the reasons against the proposed change, seeing that it is obviously right for a person with such a career in public service to have the article title include the peerage name and title given at the end of his career, not one which he had had before then. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
What about William Shakespeare (1564-1616)? In 1596, his father was awarded a coat of arms, which elevated William to an esquire. Should we change the name of that article too? TFD (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That goes even further from the point under discussion here. Even if anyone considered it worth mooting in connection with Shakespeare's life, there must be few who need to be reminded that acquiring the gentry status signified by a grant of arms is poles apart from advancement to a peerage in connection with a career in public service. Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
John Shakespeare was elevated to the gentry in recognition of his career in public service. There are many post-nominal titles awarded for public service that we do not include in article names, such as OM, OO. Not all peerages are awarded for public service, Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland received a dukedom for her personal services to the king. And of course most were inherited. TFD (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This line of reasoning against the proposal just seems to accentuate the superfluity of the title in the article name. Is it really being argued that biographical articles of people already and largely notable for other things should have added to their title the last/biggest gong that happened to be given to them, as a matter of course? Again WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". He's known as John Buchan, mention his elevation to Tweedsmuir in the article but it's not defining and it's not needed in the title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No it is not being so argued, as can be seen from the reasons given above opposing the change. Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm really confused then as to what your argument actually is. Why does WP:PRECISION require (or indeed, allow) his title in the article ? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors and commenters can see from the reasons given above that the proposed change is opposed because it would be a pointless and unneeded disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This does not address WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
...and you might want un-bold the word "opposed" in your last comment in case someone thinks you're "voting" twice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
done. Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on all of the above: Editors, commenters and readers can see that it doesn't take a "policy" to show that there is no problem with the article title to be fixed as proposed, though some, it seems, may be confused about that. Why persist? Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for unbolding the word "opposed" as requested. If you are now saying "that there is no problem with the article title to be fixed as proposed", can you clarify that this means you are withdrawing your opposition to the requested move? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the unintended ambiguity. My position remains against as above, on the basis of the article content, historical and literary perspective and general principle: "The main point is that there is no problem here and no need now for the proposed change. His name as Tweedsmuir has been in the article from the start in 2002" - "...his contribution to global history of the 20c. in public service, up to his death in office as Lord Tweedsmuir, surpasses his contribution to the commonwealth of letters, but includes his wartime novels, The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle (1916), his service as Director of Information in 1917, and his time as an MP." - "...he is probably best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915)...But that novel, like his Greenmantle (1916) and others had been, as the article rightly reports, part of the propaganda for the British war effort in the First World War. His Prester John (1910), 'the first of his adventure novels set in South Africa', had resulted from his service in that country with Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, an initial step in his career which culminated in his appointment as GG, Canada, at one of the many critical times in international affairs. Otherwise, his novels are barely notable." - "..from the point of view of the man's biography, the article itself shows that his novel writing was a spin-off from his public career." - "...the proposed change...would be a pointless and unneeded disservice to Wikipedia and its readers". Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Even were that so, WP:PRECISION? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is any of that not so? Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not addressing "any of that" (here, but I did above, several days ago). You're (continuously) not addressing WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can see that I, and others opposing, have addressed the relevant points. Please do not hector one who does not happen to agree with you about this. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "hectoring" you. I've put a point to which you continually respond to by talking about different matters entirely. You are choosing to respond, I'm simply pointing out that you keep answering a question I'm not asking and not answering one that I am. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Noted, without rancour. My answers to the proposal are as above. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NCROY is specifically noted as an exception to WP:PRECISION. John Buchan was 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, so the former guideline is applicable here. However, the relevant section (WP:NCPEER) says that the peerage title should not be included in the article title for "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names". Opera hat (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And has already been pointed out, in Canada he is almost exclusively known by his title rather than his personal name. Now the rest of Wikipedia may think that Canada is unimportant, but Tweedsmuir was important to Canada in many ways despite his relatively short term of office cut short by his death. There are a number of public parks, schools etc. named Tweedsmuir after the Governor General. How many are named Buchan after the novelist? Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with that (and I hope nobody would), but is he actually known as "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" or just as plain old "Lord Tweedsmuir"? Deb (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a John Buchan School, near Paderborn in Germany (for British military communities). Don't know of a John Buchan Park but I'm not sure there's a Tweedsmuir Society, Tweedsmuir Way or a Tweedsmuir Museum either. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there's a John Buchan Road in Oxford. Deb (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.