Talk:Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 23:
- Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon from  some minor rewording and reordering. --Martyman-(talk) 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would note that the external link claims to have been created on September 27, 2005. Our article dates from August 4, 2003, and with much the same text. Are we sure that we're at fault? --Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Peers are formally addressed as "the [peerage] (of) [place]" (or, for barons, "the Lord (of) [place]"), never "[name], [ordinal] [peerage] (of) [place]". See Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Peers, peeresses and non-peerage. -- 00:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a biography, not an envelope. Compare the ODNB, which has "the only son of Frederick Freeman Thomas (1838–1868), rifle brigade, of Ratton and Yapton, and his wife, Mabel (d. 1924), third daughter of Henry Bouverie William Brand, later first Viscount Hampden" and "In 1892 Freeman-Thomas married Marie Adelaide, fourth daughter of Thomas Brassey, first Baron (later Earl) Brassey (1836–1918), the Liberal politician". Opera hat (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Previous edits User:Miesianiacal is edit-warring in order to make the text of the article more ambiguous, which makes no sense. He was reverted by me, but then re-added the ambiguity with a plain edit, despite that it's obviously easier to just click on the "undo" button. Why he did not use that button, one can only guess, but it's a fact that editors are notified when their edits are reverted. If one disguises a revert as a plain edit, the editor is not notified. That makes it harder to assume good faith on Miesianiacal's part. When I pointed out that per WP:BRD he should not revert back, but instead start a discussion, he claimed that it was my bold edit that was reverted, and that I should start the discussion. It wasn't that way, as anyone can see in the article history. Be that as it may, I am now doing his job for him, starting the discussion on that particular change.
In the dispute itself, Miesianiacal is piping "Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden" as "The Viscount Hampden" and "Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey" as "the Lord Brassey", claiming it to be the "proper titles". I'm guessing that this is what he means in the section above, where he refers to Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Peers, peeresses and non-peerage. If those are improper titles, the article names would be improper too, wouldn't they? It makes no sense at all.
I believe he's wrong on three grounds:
- First, this is not address, it's reference. "Your Grace" is address, "His/Her Grace" is reference. Speaking about somebody, or mentioning somebody, is reference. Nobody addresses a person that has been dead for over 100 years.
- Second, it unnecessarily introduces ambiguity. Since there have been ten viscounts Hampden (of two different creations), it could be relevant – to say the least – to see which of the viscounts was the marquess's father-in-law, instead of concealing it by piping the link. Nothing is gained with the piping – on the contrary, one is only obscuring things, introducing ambiguity, and leaving the reader to hover the mouse pointer over the link, or click it, in order to see which viscount it was, which is not possible for offline readers (see #3 below). It could be relevant in a context of, for instance, political offices, to write "The Marquess of Willingdon was succeeded by The Earl of Bessborugh", but parenthood and marriages are not political context.
- Per WP:EASTEREGG, one should not tease the reader, and in printed versions, hovering the mouse pointer and following links are impossible. To this he responded (in his edit summary) "Wikipedia is an internet based encyclopedia". So, WP:EASTEREGG does not apply? Really?
- Given you have schooled Miesianiacal on Transparency, in my view, you should now feel free to restore your edits. Graemp (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It's bizarre you read my remarks above, but decided to start a new section. Your take on WP:BRD is equally odd; nonsensical, really. The bold edit (B) was yours, the revert (R) was mine, that leaves the discussion D. It says explicitly at BRD "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editor should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." Yet, you have been reverting, nonetheless, indicating you didn't actually read BRD. Either that or you failed to understand it.
Regardless, you can try to play with semantics, but, the fact remains, the table I pointed you to says "the Duke of [X]", "the Earl of [X]", not "[name], [ordinal] Duke of [X]" or "[name], [ordinal] Earl of [X]." You may also read at Peerages in the United Kingdom#Ranks: "The titles of peers are in the form of (Rank) (Name of Title) or (Rank) of (Name of Title)." There is an onus on you to prove "[name], [ordinal] [peerage] (of) [place]" is the proper title for a peer. Debretts does not say it is.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, whatever change is implemented here in this regard will have to be made to many other articles; in fact, you're looking to create a new convention/guideline on how to refer to a peer in the body of an article not about that peer and there can't be a rule for one article but not any other (unless you have an extraordinary explanation for what makes this article so special). As such, you should be taking this to a much more public forum and inviting many more editors to contribute their opinions. I suggest to try Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. -- 16:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, no. If you were to implement your take on the guidelines you would have A Lot Of Work ahead of you, because the overwhelming majority of nobility articles that I have come across are linked the way I linked them. And it's rather rediculous to call it "semantics" when I just pulled the rug from under you. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Funny, I rarely ever see them linked the way you prefer. But, even if you have seen it done that way "overwhelmingly" doesn't mean it's the right or even best way. -- 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Miesianiacal misquotes the page to which he refers. I cut and paste the paragraph dealing with usage in text:
- In familial references (when stating who someone's father, mother, brother, etc. was), and in non-contemporaneous references (i.e. references to time periods different to that of the narrative), peers should be referred to as, for example, "the 7th Marquess of Salisbury" (henceforth "the full form"). In other situations, peers should usually be referred to simply as, for instance, "Lord Salisbury" (henceforth "the short form"), both when mentioned in other articles and in their own articles, unless it is important that their exact rank or numeral is stated, in which case the full form should be used (i.e. both the rank and the numeral). Dukes are "the 12th Duke of Devonshire" in their full form and "the Duke of Devonshire" otherwise. Second and subsequent reference should be to "Lord Salisbury" or "Salisbury" ("the Duke" or "Devonshire" for Dukes). Their wives have the same form of reference, save that ordinals are obviously omitted and the usage of the title alone should not be used: "Lady Salisbury" or "the Duchess".
I.e. Lord Brassey most of the time; use the number only when referring to some other time or to genealogy; do not use The Earl Brassey at all - except in succession boxes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
What do we call them?
Stepping back from the metadiscussion of BRD, the question remains what do we call the 1st Earl of Brassey in this article?
This is a matter of register and of clarity. We do not call him The Earl Brassey; we are an encyclopedia, not the Court Circular. Also, we deal with all time, and there have been four Earls; for our purpose "The Earl" is pointless confusion. More importantly, perhaps, he was not Earl Brassey when his daughter married our subject; call him, in that sentence, "Thomas Brassey, recently created Baron Brassey" - otherwise we are leading our reader down a false trail. He wasn't a descendant of Crusader Earls; he was a successful late-Victorian politician. And so our subject didn't marry Lady Marie Brassey; there was no such person in 1892 - or ever.
Similarly, when our subject was born, his grandfather wasn't Viscount Hampden; he was a Liberal MP, holding a sub-Cabinet ministry (in a Government about to fall). Make the reference "daughter of Henry Brand, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury" and perhaps add "(later Speaker of the House of Commons, who retired as 1st Viscount Hampden)"; note that he is Henry Brand in the article on that Government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, when we mention Lord Irwin, (why The Lord Irwin? it's a substantive UK barony), we should mention that he would become the Earl of Halifax, the title under which he is *much* better known. That is an Easter egg. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all input. What is your take on Robert Smith, 1st Baron Carrington, specifically the Issue section? I have tried to combine the at-the-time current – for instance, at marriage – reference style for each person with a "later" remark, and linking to the end article name. i.e. title at death. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's a matter of discretion whether you need to mention "later" at all. Does it add to the article? (Here it probably does; both his grandfather's Speakership and his peerage must have helped his career.)
- By the way, why did Thomas change name? If it's not an inheritance, with name-and-arms clause, that would itself be interesting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hope User:Pmanderson doesn't mind me moving this to a new section. Apparently the deed poll changing his name was reported in the Times of 20 August and 18 November 1892, so if someone with access to the Times archive can look up the notice that might shed some light. Opera hat (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211095533/http://gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/willingdon_e.asp to http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/willingdon_e.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723230013/http://www.placenamesofalberta.ca/300_names_definitions/willingdon.html to http://www.placenamesofalberta.ca/300_names_definitions/willingdon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.