Talk:Jock Stirrup

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Military

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Aviation / Biography / British / European

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 19 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Stirrup → Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup.

Oppose - I am opposed to this move on the grounds he is far beeter know for his militray service and not for being a peer also no disambiguation is required. --Lucy-marie (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:D and WP:PRECISION that apply to all Wikipedia article titles. The subject is most commonly known by the current title; adding peerage information is additional precision that is completely unnecessary, all good reasons to ignore WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B2C's arguments are bogus, because the policy WP:TITLE explicitly permits topic-specific naming conventions such as WP:NCPEER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Former service officers who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:NCPEER seems clear to me. Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this proposed title is utter nonsense (it would combine the colloquial forename with the hyperformal form of the title); if people think that NCPEER recommends this kind of title, then all that proves is that NCPEER is warped.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article was created by User:Greenshed on 5 January 2006 at Jock Stirrup. Sir Jock Stirrup was created Baron Stirrup on 28 January 2011. The article was moved to Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup by User:Kittybrewster on 1 February 2011 and moved back the same day by User:Lucy-marie on the grounds that "This was not discussed. Previous discussions have shown NC:PEER based moves are noy uncontroversial." The discussion above failed to generate consensus to move and the article remained at Jock Stirrup. User:Kittybrewster moved the article again to Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup on 11 December 2011 and was reverted again the same day by User:Kotniski because "again, this was discussed". On 4 October 2013 User:Greenshed moved the article to Graham Stirrup, Baron Stirrup and then on 21 November 2013 User:Necrothesp moved it to its current title of Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup. Opera hat (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2015

The following is a closed 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: all moved except Carver. Feel free to have an RM specifically for him if anyone wants. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– These senior officers are primarily notable for their service as chiefs of staff, when they were known as Sir Jock Stirrup, Sir Richard Dannatt, etc., and were created peers on their retirement. The relevant naming convention, WP:NCPEER, says that the usual format of "Name, Peerage title" should not be used for "Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired"—except when necessary for disambiguation, as is the case for Michael Boyce, Charles Elworthy, Richard Vincent, etc. There is no disambiguation necessary here. Opera hat (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. bd2412 T 15:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My interest is in Dannatt, and I see the logic and agree that Dannatt is best known as Sir Richard Dannatt, not as a Baron. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neutral. I moved it to Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup, but only because it was currently at Graham Stirrup, Baron Stirrup, a first name by which he is almost never known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Michael Carver, Baron Carver. He was a peer for the last 24 years of his life, and is best known from that period, when he maintained a high profile, writing several books and contributing to public debates. He was best known as "Field Marshal Lord Carver", so we should keep the peerage title.
Unsure about the others, but they all need scrutiny -- which is not best handled by this group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

If he's better known as Lord Carver, then surely Lord Carver would be a better title than the current one (cf. Lord Byron)? Opera hat (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic) We should consider moving Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany to Lord Dunsany.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, especially Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup, which is possibly the least common name for the subject. I see no evidence that the common names of these people was really "[name], Baron [name]" and incorporating it may well be confusing. I think. I imagine that a large number of readers looking for Admiral Terence Lewin, for example, have no idea he was a baron, and those that do would probably know him as "Lord Lewin" rather than "comma Baron Lewin".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom . WP:PRECISE ; -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "Jock Stirrup". It looks almost look like a reference to stereotypical fraternity. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dannatt, Lewin and Stirrup/Leave Carver as he is WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME apply here.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jock Stirrup. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130620193043/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/NewappointmenttotheOrderoftheGarter.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/NewappointmenttotheOrderoftheGarter.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medals

For a photo of Stirrup wearing the Diamond Jubilee medal see https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/170012/750k-memorial-campaign-fund-soars-after-double-boost/ . Greenshed (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - very helpful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

Do we have a reference for the origin of his nickname? Presumably a humorous play on the word jockstrap which he acquired in his youth. Or so I and half the country always assumed.Paulturtle (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jock Stirrup. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]