Talk:Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

Name of this article

Is there another "William Reierson Arbuthnot" - if not then this page should be called "William Reierson Arbuthnot" and not "Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet" - regards--Vintagekits 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, two others. Even if there were not, you are still wrong per MOS. [1] - Kittybrewster 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please folks, centralise this discussion rather than splatting it over a dozen article talk pages. I suggest Category talk:Baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's who

When I saw the who's who it was you.--Vintagekits 11:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty non notable

I am considering nominating this article for AfD. This guy has worked for a few companies (haven't we all), is involved in voluntery lobbying group (doesn't say what his role was) and runs a personal website on genealogy. The only sources are those would have been written by the person himself - e.g. Debrett's and Who's Who. His brother is notable as an MP but not this person. Also is there any need for the "families arms" to take up over half the article.--Vintagekits 12:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you wait for a conclusion to the afd on Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Bt. There is also a current discussion on Baronets talk page. Families are not armigerous; only individuals. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that - cheers--Vintagekits 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers indeed..........David Lauder 10:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have tidied the article. Most of the information there can be found in the numerous books cited. Therefore it can hardly be said to be an autobiography whoever flagged the article up. David Lauder 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, you just switched around the paragraph that were already written by the subject of article.--Vintagekits 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the page a bit. This has been done and deemed acceptable elsewhere by administrator users; why is it unacceptable here? David Lauder 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe have a good read of WP:AUTO if you havent already. regards--Vintagekits 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic didn't change the fact the ship was still sinking, therefore rearranging a couple of words doesn't change the fact it's an autobiography. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Good Faith abounds here. As I said, if you go by the reference books anyone could have written this article. David Lauder 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

While there is a references section, it isn't at all clear which refs are being used to cite which text. Per WP:BLP I'd like to see this tightened up. I've inserted fact tags where references should be tied to the text so it is easier to see what needs to be fixed here. None of this is controversial or questionable enough that I'm advocating removal of the text, but I do want to see this correctly cited.--Isotope23 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

everything is covered in a five line entry in Who's who - the other references are superfluous (sp?)--Vintagekits 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

May we have a date and a place of birth, please? It's rather unusual not to have them in a biography unless there's a very good reason. W. Frank ✉ 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth is given. David Lauder 08:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

If you want to redirect the article please get consensus here first, SqueakBox 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, any objections. Please detailing why this individual, rather than the baronetcy itself (since that's the intended redirect) is notable? How does the individual meet WP:BIO--Doc^g 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is provenly notable by surviving its afd and Sir William, IMO, absolutely passes the notability threshold, not least because he is Sir William and not Mr Arbuthnot. The redirecting is highly controversial and if I hadnt reverted somone else would have, SqueakBox 23:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The afd is irrelevant, since a) it was no-consensus b) it was about deletion. Redirecting is an editorial matter, not requiring afd. Anyway 'surviving an afd' does not make someone notable. That's ridiculous. If all that is notable about him is that he holds an hereditary title - then we can redirect to the title where the current holder is listed - thus all the notable information is preserved. So, tell me again, why we should have a biographical page? What is notable about him beyond the minor sub-noble title? I'm genuinely willing to be convinced. But if you have no reasons, then you lose.--Doc^g 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lose? I am not aware of being in a competition! plus we absolutely need to let this role three days and let others participate (its Saturday night and Mondays's a bank holiday!) so to characterise it as a dispute between you and I, is, IMO, naive. His being Sir Willimam and given he doesnt object to the article (as say Daniel Brandt does to his article) is for me enough, as the title itself is valubale and hence notable in current British culture, SqueakBox 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. I'll wait until someone capable of giving substantive arguments arrives. I'm not disputing that the title is worth mentioning, but we've got an article on that. Whether he minds or not is beside the point, we are daily rejecting hundreds of requests from people for articles on themselves.--Doc^g 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for me if he minded would be a good BLP reason to support your edit but right now I cant see any good reason to support you and believe that this needs much more substantial discussion or it will cause a lot of bad feeling as a number of users support this article remaining and its controversial (plenty of Baronet haters and adoring fans about). But for me, who doesnt believe in the wrongness of hereditary titles he clearly passes the notability threshold, SqueakBox 00:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Come back when you've got a reason - the ethics of the title is hardly relevant.--Doc^g 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given my reasons. Please stop claiming I havent, SqueakBox 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I asked why this individual is notable rather than the title. You're replied with irrelevancies about ethics, BLP, and AfDs.--Doc^g 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He is notable because he has inherited the title, ie its a title and he holds it. I agree the title is notable too, SqueakBox 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you mean that other than the title, there is nothing notable here. Is that what you are saying?--Doc^g 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying the title is notable and he as the holder of the title is also notable, so notable enough to have a title article and an article on him. If you keep pushing this it will have to go to afd again, IMO, but lets givve it a couple of days first, eh? SqueakBox 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No what? Nothing else notable? That's what you are saying? OK. You can go to Afd if you want - I will not, as I'm not suggesting deletion. I'm just trying to ascertain if there is any reason not to redirect this to the title itself. That way the notable title and the fact this guy holds it will all still be recorded in wikipedia. Maybe there's a reason not to do that - maybe there's other information about him that we need to keep separate from the title, I am willing to listen if anyone wants to make the case. Perhaps someone will show up that can?--Doc^g 00:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirection is another form of deletion (and I would oppose strongly deletion) and if redirection is disputed afd is the place for it (to the best of my understanding). If you are looking for info other than what is there to prove notability I would argue that notability is already proven in the current article, SqueakBox 00:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that a redirect is essentially a form of merger? That being the case there's a recommended procedure: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. I suggest that we follow the steps outlined under "Proposing a merger". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see nothing of interest or note about this person other than he is the 2nd generation of him family to hold a fairly recently created baronetcy. I think redirect to Arbuthnot baronets and if there is a list of these people there give his date of birth - I see no need for further detail. The title has been inherited so was not awarded on merit, although what constitutes merit for a baronetcies and knighthoods in Britain today is decidedly strange, pop stars, footballers and "friends" of political parties and the like. The subject here though appears to be none of these - so no notability there. We see he was a member of Lloyds so he has probably lost a few pounds but unless it was a record amount, no note there either. He went to Eton, as have done thousands of other men, ad he has worked for a bank as have millions of others. I'm not really sure why this article was created - he really just needs to be on a list at Arbuthnot baronets. Giano 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article page was flagged up for deletion and survived. You have no right whatsoever to attempt redirect through the back door. Your personal opinions on the merits of the British titles system are irrelevant and just that, personal. Your comment above is the most grossly personal sneering disgraceful comment I think I have read and shows the clearest bias possible. You should avoid such articles where your personal opinions ovveride everything else. David Lauder 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to David Lauder's personal attack, in the correct lace, his talk page here [2]. Giano 11:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:David Lauder. Please explain sneering to me. I thought it was a facial expression. Aatomic1 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this definition from my Mac's dictionary widget: 'Sneer: noun: a contemptuous or mocking smile, remark, or tone; verb (intrans.): smile or speak in a contemptuous or mocking manner.' It's a correct use of English. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• verb (intrans.): smile or speak - are you sure this is correct English? Aatomic1 10:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed it has gone to AfD and survived. He is a Baronet and they are notable; no matter what one's personal view of hereditary titles is. Ps, footballers &c. aren't given baronetcies, the last went to Denis Thatcher, I believe. --Counter-revolutionary 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a variety of different views about a presumption of notability for titled people, and so far as I can see, the current guidelines do not offer a presumption of notability for baronets (even the proposed guideline WP:NOBLE didn't go that far, and it was rejected). However, that's all irrelevant in this case. This article survived a recent AfD, though only by default (the result was "no consensus" rather than "keep"), and converting it to redirect now amounts to an out-of-process deletion (the proposal to redirect was rejected at AfD). Given the lack of consensus at AfD, this article may well return to AfD, but editors should not proceed as if the AfD had reached a different conclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• It survived with "no consensus" - and much of the argument was that there should be a wider debate about the notability of 1. new Barons who do not get a seat in the House of Lords 2. 1st Baronet and 3. Subsequent Baronet. This hasnt happened.--Vintagekits 10:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is most certainly consenus that a first baronet is notable. --Counter-revolutionary 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• You mean there is a consensus within the WikiBaronetcyProject have a consensus that they are notable - not the wider community. The WikiBaronetcyProject have shown an abject lack of objectivity when analysing their own articles - contrast that with the WikiIrishRepublicanismProject where articles must first go through two states before even being considered to be brought to wiki. 1. It goes here as a suggestion for a new article - and then 2. ifs that is accepted it goes here for off wiki preparation - and after that (assuming that a decent article can be written) it is brought into the wiki and a page in wiki proper is created and the article is highlighted in the "new articles section" of the project. This stops the churning out of stubs and a high degree of quality articles being created (but a low number) quality not quantity some might say! which has, in my opinion, been the main failing of the Baronetcy project - the Baronetcy Project members need to get their house in order and take some editorial control of articles created in their sphere and they also need to get some objectivity with regards their articles.--Vintagekits 11:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, to be an Irish Republican! I wish I were as efficient as they! --Counter-revolutionary 12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might I suggest putting Lucas Dillon, 6th Viscount Dillon up as a(nother) Afd test case? Aatomic1 11:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest whatever the hell you like. It will survive I assure you. --Counter-revolutionary 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Let me offer some suggestions here. First of all, you certainly don't need a consensus at AfD to redirect a page, although one obtained there probably ought to be considered binding. Second, BrownHairedGirl is right to say that baronets do not enjoy a presumption of notability and it must be asserted and defended on an individual basis. I am also not aware that first baronets enjoy any presumption from being such--in the early period baronetcies were bought; and anyone awarded a baronetcy on merit should claim notability through whatever they did, not the title. Now, as to the matter of peers, they have been accorded a presumption of notability as most were either members or (in the case of Scottish and Irish peers) potential members of a national legislature (the House of Lords). Where this concept leaves members of the hereditary nobility who succeeded to the title after the House of Lords Act of 1999 has not, to my knowledge, been hammered out. The presumption may be carried to include all peers, simply because the vast majority already qualify, so to exclude a small minority would cause a completeness problem. The matter is up in the air. In any event, it seems to me that there's no presumption of notability for a second baronet and he'll need to meet WP:BIO like any other commoner. If he can't, a merge to Arbuthnot Baronets is appropriate. Mackensen (talk)

I think there is no doubt that this page should be redirected to Arbuthnot Baronets otherwise Wikipedia will end being a peerage and baronetage directory (I believe many other websites exist for that purpose). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly above for someone to tell me what information is encyclopedic except for the title. No one has been able to offer any answer to that. In the absence of that, all we have that is encyclopedic is that this individual holds the minor title - a merge preserves that information which is already preserved on the Arbuthnot Baronet page. There seems no reason not to merge - nothing is lost. Even if there are a few details of the individual here that are worth preserving, there is no reason not to have this merged as a thumbnail sketch on that page. "The current holder is Sir William Arb...who is .....".--Doc^g 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merge/redirect per my reasons above. Though, nothing really to merge that is of note. Giano 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally - and this is a personal opinion - I don't think baronets are inherently notable; they may be more likely to become N for other reasons since their backgrounds make them more likely to become MPs, prominent businessmen (that 'men' is deliberate) etc but IMO each should be judged on their own achievements, whilst peers automatically qualify, as stated above, by membership of a national legislature. On an unrelated point, I do think automatic notability for baronets exacerbates our old friend systemic bias; there are an awful lot of them, most of whom lead distinctly non-notable lives aside from the title (I lived next door to one who worked in a petrol station in Cambridge), and by definition all (with one exception) are white males. We don't have separate pages on the descendants of notable Americans, Belgians, Vietnamese et al unless they've done something notable themselves, and it's purely an accident of 17th Century British history that we have them for the UK.

However, I don't really like having this conversation here. Since the subject of this article has been the subject of (ahem) some recent controversy, it seems that only people who are already involved in the dispute are likely to get involved so it's likely to degenerate into another slanging match — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but I read ANI. I agree this should be merged. The subject may be notable, I wouldn't know, but if he is, there's absolutely nothing indicating it in the article. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

• Ask yourselves this; would someone look up Sir W. Arbuthnot in an encyclopedia? YES. Is this referenced? YES. Would it add to Wikipedia to have this article deleted/merged? NO. This debate is personally motivated and riddled with poisonous remarks. --Counter-revolutionary 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Which "debater" are you specifically referring to? Please moderate your personal aatack on who ever it is you are referring to. Giano 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that was a typo [3] I hope. However, I see no poisonous remarks at all. Giano 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He appears in more publications than anyone else writing on this page. Baronets are regarded as notable in Great Britain and whether or not Wikipedia editors think they should be or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia demands sources and some on this page run about talking about multiple sources. Well they're cited. The article failed an AfD and should be left where it is. Attempts by other methods to remove it are simply out of order. David Lauder 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"He appears in more publications than anyone else writing on this page" in that statment you could not be more mistaken. Giano 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you source your claim Giano as there is no evidence to the contrary, SqueakBox 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Certanly not. It is not only bad form for a wikipedia editor to use credentials and real life experiences to justify wikipedian edits it is also vulgar. Similarly can David Lauder source his claim? As we are all anonymous there is little point speculating who is who Giano 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding? I completely disagree with your statement. Our expertise and life experiences absolutely have value to this encyclopedia. What about the Jimbo accreditation scheme? Why do we have user pages? We are not all anonymous, some are and some arent, but as you dont wish to source your statement I for one wont be believing it, SqueakBox 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Life is full of choices isn't it. Giano 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

David Lauder and Counter Revolutionary have it right, IMO, though there votes and mine clearly indicate that there is no consensus for redirecting this page and thus it shouldnt be redirected unless greater community input is sort (eg at another afd). When a redirect is uncontroversial and everyone agrees of course there is no need to seek further input but in this case the redirect is highly controversial, SqueakBox 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

After reading Dashwood Baronets, which was mentioned by Kittybrewster at the end of this article's CfD, may I make a suggestion?

Why not start by expanding the entry in Sir W in Arbuthnot Baronets in the style of the entries at Dashwood Baronets, and then return to AfD with a proposal to merge which could show exactly what the effect of the merge would be? If such a proposal was based on the amount of information available on Sir W and the limited evidence of notability, rather than on political or other grounds, I'm sure that it would receive fair consideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No I disagree, there is little to write up that can not be dome in three minutes after a redirect is made. Giano 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree also. This is part of a wider project and I think all baronets should be consdered notable in Wikipedia. --Counter-revolutionary 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've done it. If a Baronet/Peer is particularly notable they can have their own page if not they can be summarised on the page for the relevant title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Baronets are regarded as notable in Great Britain"- by whom? I don't consider them notable enough to have a separate encyclopedia entry and neither do the other major encyclopedias. All people should be considered equally here. Most Baronets apart from the Sir in front of their name inherited from some ancestor or other leave perfectly normal non-notable lives. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do they? Oh, and Wiki. is not a paper encyclopedia. --Counter-revolutionary 17:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes we cant compare paper encycloepdia's to us and their standards of inclusion are very much not our standards, SqueakBox 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh so are those standards to include people who are not notable but have Sir in front of their name? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are notable by virtue of that "Sir", sir. --Counter-revolutionary 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but they aren't. That's why who no other serious encyclopedia has articles on them. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, although they are styled Sir and Baronet is not considered a knighthood - as outlined on the Baronet page.--Vintagekits 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the title is above that of a Knighthood. --Counter-revolutionary 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To prove that I am not arguing from an "anti-monarchist" or "anti titles" POV I actually consider that a Knighthood is more notable than a Baronet because a knighthood is given out on merit and for deeds done not just as you put it "for being born".--Vintagekits 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you may think that, but a baronet out-ranks a knight, and (although there's no difference between 1st and subsequent) a baronet of first creation especially out-ranks a Knight. --Counter-revolutionary 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rank is archaic nonsense and bestows no notability. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

...And there, my lords, ladies and gentleman we have it! A PoV statement! --Counter-revolutionary 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the heart of the problem. Actually rank is clearly not archaic nonsense and iis used extensively in government organisations such as the armed forces, police etc as well as being used in some businesses, and rank very much does bestow notability in all these examples, SqueakBox 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I shall no longer be debating this subject. The argumnts put forward by SqueakBox and Counter-revolutionary are not worth responding to. Giano 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Counter-revolutionary 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm vexed that this has descended into the usual set of arguments and that no one has addressed the points that I laid out above. No one has demonstrated to me that baronets automatically satisfy notability requirements; I certainly don't think that they do and I created Category:Baronets back in 2004. I will attempt to address the arguments above. First of all, a baronetcy is no more 'archaic nonsense' than a hereditary peerage; new creations of both (excepting the royal family) are about as rare. There has been one new baronetcy since the 1960s, Sir Denis Thatcher, and he's notable for three reasons: a successful businessman, the spouse of a Prime Minister, and the first non-female spouse of a Prime Minister. He is not notable for being a baronet. His son, Sir Mark Thatcher, is primarily notable for his as yet unexplained role in an attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea and for being the son of a Prime Minister. If he was simply Mark Thatcher he would still be in Wikipedia: if he was Sir Mark Thatcher without what I've outlined above we would not mention him.

Folks, I've been a member of the peerage project for close to four years. I'm a sympathetic listener. Try applying what I call the Middlemarch Test: is Sir James Chetham notable? Would Wikipedia have an article about him? He was an upstanding member of the local gentry to be sure, and he married the niece of another member of the gentry (Mr. Brooke). He did not make it into parliament, nor do anything else outwardly notable. He's a baronet, yes, but what else has he done? The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals. Plenty of baronets are notable and have articles here, but they aren't notable for being baronets. Most baronets of the first creation are notable, but we would have articles on William Robertson, Humphry Davy and Edward Elgar even if they had never been created baronets. On the other hand, if Alexander Cockburn had remained a dissolute rake and not gone on to be Lord Chief Justice I doubt very much whether he would have merited inclusion. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)