Talk:Andrew Murray (Scottish politician)

Notability issues
Why is this guy notable?--Vintagekits 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lord Provost of Edinburgh
 * Lord Lieutenant of Edinburgh
 * Deputy Lieutenant of Edinburgh
 * Former City Treasurer
 * Justice of the Peace
 * OBE
 * Knighted
 * Sometime President of the Scottish Liberal party
 * Leading light in the Order of St.John
 * Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Scottish National War Memorial at The Castle, Edinburgh.
 * Hon Colonel of three regiments during the last war
 * Reciprient of an Honorary Law Degree

Here are some details I found on ABE books:

THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL WAR MEMORIAL: THE CASTLE EDINBURGH Murray, Sir Andrew H.A.: (Lord Provost of The City of Edinburgh): Book Description: Published for the Trustees of the Scottish National War Memorial, The Castle, Edinburgh, Scotland. Stiff Paperwraps. Book Condition: Near Fine. NON-FICTION: WAR HISTORY: MEMORIAL: No year or edition stated. 8 1/8 x 10 3/4 inches. One page floor plan of the castle memorial, two pages of Introduction by Sir Andrew H.A. Murray, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Scottish National War Memorial at The Castle, Edinburgh. Twenty nine pages of gravure photographs of the Castle and the Memorial. Dedicated to the Glory of God and in Memory of the Scots who Fell: 1914-1918: 1939-1945. Hand-sewn with dark blue thread. Dark tan paper wraps. Gold seal of Scotland affixed to cover.

If you don't think that this fellow was a notable then I despair. David Lauder 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right your list is very admirable but those positions are honorary and as far as I can see not notable. What exactly is this guy notable for per WP:N.--Vintagekits 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Almost all of these positions are appointments and fully-fledged posts. Maybe it is you who needs to read the guideline (only) WP:N where it clearly states "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame". David Lauder 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It very difficult to ever discuss anything with you when you start your messege with "rubbish" - its no wonder that to vast majority of the wiki community have turned against you and your cabal. If you consider that quoting "worthy of notice" justifies an entry then you really are on shakey ground. I am in countless trade magazines and local newspapers for sports and business this is obviously "worthy of notice" however I wouldsnt consider myself notable or encyclopedic.--Vintagekits 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? "The vast majority of the wiki community have turned against you"?! Please immeidately retract that outrageous statement. I don't belong to any cabal either. You are out of order. I stand by my statement because its true. David Lauder 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Save me the crocodile tears - 1. you do belong to a cabal and 2. every day you come out with the same mock outrage - its getting boring. 3. All you need to do is say that my comment are "sneering" and you've hit your daily hat-trick.--Vintagekits 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Vintagekits, do you really suppose to delete the article of someone who has received some of the highes commendations from the British government?? They aren't honourary, they are important positions only ever given to notable people. This ought not be another case of decorated by the British government, deleted by the users of wikipedia.--Counter-revolutionary 10:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know which of these positions and decorations you consider is a notable position. I am sure you consider all of these positions very admirable however none convey notability.--Vintagekits 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, at the least, a Knighthood does!--Counter-revolutionary 15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could be right but I am not 100% convinced especially as we do not know why the knighthood was given, maybe you could have a word with your "friends" and then issues such as this could be sorted out amicably instead of a horn clash.--Vintagekits 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He isnt even marginally notable, he is fully notable and seems to me that whiloe some Arbuthnots are marginally notable this one isnt. I would say any OBE is by definition notable enough but he also was Lord Provost of Edinburgh and Lord Lieutenant of Edinburgh. Then he was also President of the Scottish Liberal party which of itself would make him notable as the Scottish Liberals were a notable political organisation, one included no less a light then David Steel, SqueakBox 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would a Lord Provost of Edinburgh and Lord Lieutenant of Edinburgh be notable positions?--Vintagekits 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those articles themselves answerm your question, these are important ceremonial titles that are only given to a tiny number of people. Lord Provost is more important than a Lord Mayor and only found in 4 Scottish cities. Though I have no hesitaion in saying his work for the Liberals is of itself notable even were there nothing else notable about him, SqueakBox 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both are purely ceremonial and carry no power beyond that therefore non notable. If you are going to argue a case for notablility I would suggest that you actually consider the roles and position that you are trying to defend. I wouldnt want to go through the whole Baronet issue against where you vehimently defended that role even though you admitted later that you hadnt a clue what it was. It does your credibility no good at all. Saying that being the head of the Scottish Liberal Party may be notable but is president of the party the same as leading it - I dont know!--Vintagekits 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I dont claim to know much about Scotland I was basing my judgement on the articles on the Provost and the Lord Lieutenant which indicate he is notable for having held these positions, but I do know the Liberals have always had a strong presence in Scotalnd after their 20th century decline and being President of such a party in Scotland is, to my mind, enough reason to warrant notability. I dont believe it does mean he led it but I dont know either, though leading it or not his being President is notable enough for inclusion here, 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord Lieutenant does carry a certain amount of power actually.--Counter-revolutionary 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do tell - gets to cut the ribbon at the Lodge? sit at the top of the table? Does it have any legal are civil legislature power?--Vintagekits 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Plays an important role in civil events and had the power to appoint the Deputy Lieutenant. That is notable whether you like it or not!--Counter-revolutionary 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of liking it or not, what important role - what ACTUALLY does it give you the power to do - nothing is the short answer to that - it gives you the power to do fuck all, it is solely, wholely and purely ceremonial.--Vintagekits 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not judged on the power it provides! If the British HMG feel Sir Andrew deserved a knighthood that makes him notable!--Counter-revolutionary 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well dodged! You know editors might have more respect for some editors asertions of notability if once, just once, they said - actually this guy is notable in my circles or from my POV but not notable from a wiki or encyclopedic perspective.--Vintagekits 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this chap has never been in my circle, not even close, and nor do I think his notability has anything to do with my personal POV, SqueakBox 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about Andy now I am talking about in general. P.S. Squeak, you have actually proven over the past while that you are also one of the POV !voters on AfD's. I didnt think you would become one of those but you are - and infact usually now you are worse than those you mimmick because you have been totally ignorant of the issues that you engage in.--Vintagekits 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes the assumption that my POV in this is bad whereas I would argue that is incorrect. I am not someone who hangs out in British upper class circles and thus the fact that I am impressed with the arguments say to keep Arbuthnot articles should be more and not less impressive, SqueakBox 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz! You are a POV editor and in my opinion contribute little except POV.--Vintagekits 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually POV means point of view and my point of view isnt bad is my point. If you find this thread boring you dont have to be here whereas your bad faith assumption that I only edit in a POV way is laughable and especially from you, SqueakBox 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd prefer to edit from a fact based position not a POV position - but I guess thats where we have always differed.--Vintagekits 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is being naive as its so much a matter of which facts get selected, life is simply not as simple as you arer claiming, and I certaqinly see no evidence you edit from a less POV position than me, possibly the other way around as you tend to edit issues you have a strong passion for more than me, including the Arbuthnots which you appear to see as part oft eh hated British upper classes whereas I am really quite indifferent to the subject (thus having had no knopwledge of Bsaronets till recently as you keep reminding mke), SqueakBox 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "hated British upper classes" - I dont hate them because I think that many are not notable maybe you should stick to peado and drug related artcile - you seem much more knowledgable on those issues!--Vintagekits 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know very little about paedophilia except that its worth opposing the pro activists who do indeed try to push their POV but I do know something about weed and its God and take great cares to edit from an NPOV way there. I'll edit where I wish, thanks, including Eire and Northern Irish issues, and esp Fallkland issues where I certainly know more than you appear to, SqueakBox 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)