Talk:James Chichester-Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Marquess of Donegall[edit]

Was Chichester-Clark related to the Marquess of Donegall Chichesters? Stu ’Bout ye! 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so, I'll check tonight. I know he was related to Sir Arthur Chichester so it seems likley.Traditional unionist 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was. --Counter-revolutionary 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sir Arthur Chichester had no children, so I'm guessing Chichester-Clark was a direct descendant of one of Sir Arthur's siblings? Either John or Edward? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as are the Donegall family. --Counter-revolutionary 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The (crap) biography written of C-C says he is a direct decendant of Sir Arthur Chichester.Traditional unionist 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He has no children. --Counter-revolutionary 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I thought there was a section on his marriage, &c., in here, but it seems to have disappeared. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not to use the title of nobility in the article title in the case of former senior politicians who were only given the title after they retired from front-line politics. PatGallacher (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

reference? Kittybrewster 12:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The argument that he is notable primarily as the prime minister of N. Ireland, that the current article title corresponds to what he was known as while PM of N. Ireland, and that no disambiguation is necessary in this case is persuasive and appears to correspond with the guidelines at WP:NCPEER. --rgpk (comment) 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

James Chichester-ClarkJames Chichester-Clark, Baron Moyola —. The page has recently been moved several times in quick succession, so I have protected it for 2 weeks against further moves. This discussion will allow editors to seek a consensus on what the article title should be, and the protection does not prejudice the outcome of that discussion.
from the move logs [1] and [2], it would appear that from the title "James Chichester-Clark, Baron Moyola" was the stable title from 2007 to 2010. I have not personally formed a view on how I think the page should be named, but may do so in the course of this discussion. -- Relisted Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment' - Would you mind elaborating please, as to how the naming convention is relevant to this issue and what points of the naming convention are the grounds for your argument.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. No. I have answered at Dee Doocey. You are just trying to scatter the text. Kittybrewster 21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Each request is unique and the arguments used on one request cannot be used on another unless they are explicitly made on that individual request. In this case there will be some repetition with regards to similar requests the same users are involved in.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. "Members of the British Peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title", e.g. Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont" Kittybrewster 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose by my reading of NCPEER. Kittybrewster, this is quoting out of context, look at what it says just after this about e.g. Margaret Thatcher. Where is the evidence that he was know exclusively as Lord Moyola after his peerage was granted? One obituary does not clinch the argument. When I saw the obituary of Lord Moyola in the Guardian I had never heard of this person before, it was only when I started reading it I realised that this was Major Chichester-Clark. PatGallacher (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
'Where is the evidence that he was know exclusively as Lord Moyola after his peerage was granted?' NCPEER works the other way - 'peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled' Otherwise titles are used. Garlicplanting (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The main time of his political career he was not a peer and was simply known without any formal title. When researching the history of Northern Ireland he will be listed without the title as he was not ennobled when he held the position. To add the title just because he is was a peer over what he is commonly known as is ludicrous, confusing and not helpful to the outside user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - the way the policy is worded is that the default position is for the peerage to be used after the name, only in special cases should that be departed from. While this would be a borderline case on those grounds (Prime Ministerial candidates probably fall into the spirit of the exception no matter how short a period they were in office or how small the Government), it still seems to fall into the broader category to me.Traditional unionist (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support For now at least - i'll have a better look when I have time. As above the policy works on the presumption of using the title not as PatGallacher suggests Garlicplanting (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Comment - Only reading the naming convention ignores the fact that the common name policy states the common name should be used over rarer more formal versions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The guideline has been drawn up in full knowledge of WP:COMMONNAME, and documents the consensus on how to title articles on peers. You offer no reason to make an exception to WP:NCPEER in this case, just a blanket determination to ignore it, as demonstrated by your mass-renamings of articles on peers, including Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, who inherited his peerage at age 25, has been known throughout his political career by his title ... yet you still moved him in two steps [3] [4] to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960). You did the same thing with Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, moving her [5] to Elizabeth Symons, despite her having been a life pper since 1996, and notable under her title Baroness as a government minister from 1997 to at least 2003.
    Your arguments about policy are simply bogus, because your move log shows that you just don't want any articles to have a peerage title, regardless of how long they have been known by their peerage title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Complete nonsence, the policy is being ignored and the convention is taking precedence. Where peerage titles are the common name then the peerage naming convention comes in. The naming convention is how to format the titles of the articles as opposed to being the way article of peers must be titled. The common name policy comes first, and if the peerage title is the common name then the naming convention dictates how to format the title, not the convention coming first.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Try again. If you are trying to uphold COMMONNAME, please explain why you moved Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde to to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960)? Why did you move Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to Elizabeth Symons? In both those cases, the subjects are clearly best known by their peerages, yet you removed the peerage from the article title. Why are you determined to apply COMONNAME here, to the exclusion of NPCPEER, when you completely ignored COMMONNAME in those two cases? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    The above comments are not relevant to this discussion and are wholly personal in nature, and are a borderline smear attempt, in my opinion. This is beginning to divert away from the actual purpose of this discussion. The application of common name has been not only explained by myself but multiple other users as well.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Try explaining it again, Lucy-marie. Why exactly do you claim that COMMONAME trumps NCPEER in this case, when you ignotred COMMONNAME with Lord Strathclyde and Baroness Symons?
    This is directly relevant to this discussion, because you are making a claim about the relationship between a policy and a guideline, and your arguments appear to contradict your actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Please read the comments by PatGallacher which clearly sums up the misinterpretaion on NCPEER being undertaken.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have indeed read it carefully. And I am still looking forward to your explanation of why you believe that PatGallacher's approach applies here, when you did not apply it to Lord Strathyclyde and Baroness Symons. What exactly is the difference between these cases that leads you apply a different set of principles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Each case is unique and the merits of each case only apply to the specific individual cases.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Not so. Each case is examined against policy and guidelines, with the aim of achieving a consistency of approach. If we simply treated each case as "unique", we would dispense with policies and guidelines. So, just how common do you believe a COMMONNAME has to be to be applied? You rejected the overwhelming common name for Lord Strathclyde, yet here you argue for what you believe COMMONNAME to the exclusion of all other factors. Why? ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    I believe agreement to disagree will have to do here as I do not accept the premise of you argument above, as i firmly believe each case should be viewed uniquely and on their individual merits and not restricted to the application of uniform policies without exception. Sensible application of policies must be taken and not application to the letter of the policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    That's an interesting shift, because you argued above that "the common name policy comes first", even though WP:Article titles#explicit conventions is policy: it explicitly states that guidelines may document consensus recommending "the use of titles that are not strictly the common name", which is what NCPEER does.
    So what was the exception in Strathyclyde's case that made both COMMONNAME and NCPEER inapplicable? I'm all in favour of sensible application of policy, so in deciding whether your desired application is sensible, it would help to know under why you ignore both COMMONNAME and NCPEER in some cases but not in others.
    However, it doesn't look you want to explain the contradiction, so as you say we'll have to agree to differ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
As I have said I view each case uniquely and arguments used on one topic do not automatically translate to another albeit similar topic As you have said we shall have to agree to disagree.--Lucy-marie (talk)19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still not sure which way to go with this one. Yes, JCC was best known as PM of NI, without his title. OTOH he had the title for 41 years of his 89-years lifespan, so for most of his adult life he was Lord Moyola ... and that makes me lean to using the title, as was the case for three years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, far better known by his common name than as Lord M, and almost entirely unknown as Baron M, so adding that title will confuse people rather than assist them.--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    The words "James Chichester-Clark" will be there are the start of the article title, even if it includes the peerage. Note that the stable name of the article included the title for three years. What evidence do you have that this caused confusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I don't have any evidence of any actual confusion, any more than anyone else has evidence that it actually assisted anyone. But as a general rule, adding extraneous information to article titles can be expected to make people wonder whether the article is actually about the subject that's best known by that name (at least, I presume that's the reason we don't do it). --Kotniski (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not extraneous information: it's one of the names by which he was known. A medal or honour added to end of his name (OBE KB KCMG MC DSO etc) is is extraneous info, because it would not identify him; but that's not the case here.
A reader may have encountered his name as either "James Chichester-Clark" or as "Lord Moyola"/"Baron Moyola". For example, the headline on his obituaries in most of the newspapers that I have found calls him "Lord Moyola": The Guardian[6], The Independent[7], The Daily Telegraph[8], The Scotsman[9], Belfast Newsletter[10], The Herald[11]. So far, the only major news outlet I have found which titled its obit as "J C-C" was the BBC[12].
Why do you believe that it will assist readers to remove from his article any trace of the name used for his obituary headline in the main newspapers in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Obituaries aren't everything. Wikipedia's normal treatment of subjects with more than one name is to pick one of them for the title, not try to cram them all in. There are reasons for this - the main one I can think of is that more can be less - people might immediately recognize J C-C on its own, but tag something else on the end of it and they start to have doubts as to who is actually being referred to. (And anyway, the obituaries say Lord Moyola, not Baron Moyola - you peerage buffs don't seem to appreciate that most people don't know this equivalence.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. I was unsure about this, because JC-C was clearly most notable in the period before he had a title, and that clearly pointed to dropping he title (as we have done with e.g. Harold Wilson). However, I note the lack of any evidence from the supporters of the move, and as noted above he had the title for 41 years of his 89-year life. Since I have found that his obituaries overwhelmingly used his title, it is clear that failure to include the title would impede some readers from finding him. The best way to serve the needs of readers who may be looking for him under either name is to follow the convention at WP:NCPEER, and use both: "James Chichester-Clark, Baron Moyola". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The above comments are contradictory in nature, A few obits doesn't mean during his life he wasn't simply known as James Chichester-Clark, also what will the official records of Northern Ireland show. I am certian they will show James Chichester-Clark becuase during his time in charge that was his name and he had no ennobled title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have and I have given a response. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you had read it, I would have hoped that your response would address the points made. We agree that in his time as PM he was known as JC-C; that is not in dispute, and the proposal to restore the stable article title would not remove JC-C from the article name. The proposal adds the title which he held for most of his adult life, and by which he was identified at time of death. Why do you believe that the reader is assisted by removing that title? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The thing that gave him notability to the wider general public and that was when he was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. As he was now exclusivly as JC-C during him time as prime minister most people who are familiar with him as the Prime minster of Northern Ireland will identify him as JC-C ad not by the ambigous and unknown Lord Moyola title, reagrdless of how long he held the title. He was far better know as the Prime Minister of northern Ireland and that is what he will forever be remembered for, and during that time he was known as JC-C no title in site.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, please read. There is no proposal to remove JC-C from the article title, just to add his peerage title.
You say that " Lord Moyola" is unknown. Wrong: see the obits. Newspaper headlines do not use unknown titles.
You say that " Lord Moyola" is ambiguous. Note that the proposal is to add the precise form "Baron Moyola", and please offer evidence of how either "Lord Moyola" or "Baron Moyola" is ambiguous. I have not found any evidece of anyone else bearing that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Google searches aren't everything, but Lord Moyola has around 2900 hits, James Chichester-Clark aroun 7600. PatGallacher (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, Pat: that's about a 25%-75% split. If we had to choose just one of those options, we'd obviously go for JC-C at 72% ... but we don't have to choose between them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Almost all the obituaries only call him Lord Moyola in the first and last phrases, since when his actions were notable he did not have the title. The worry is that some future editor will start using it anachronistically, as had already been done for his grandmother when this article used to say "Dame Dehra willingly returned to Northern Ireland from England" 16 years before she became a dame. --Rumping (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Prime Ministers are an exception to the rule that peers should be used by the highest title they have attained. However in these cases, the full name (with title - here Baron Moyola) should exist as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The proposed title is less concise and less natural than the current title, contrary to guidance at WP:TITLE, and, as noted above, adds extraneous information to the title as unnecessary precision. I also agree with Kotniski that less is more and adding this stuff to the title could make the subject less recognizable, also contrary to WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Chichester-Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)