Talk:John Taylor, Baron Kilclooney

Untitled
Is John Taylor a lord or a baron or both?

Iota (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a life peer - they have always been Barons, 'though there doesn't seem to be any constitutional prohibition on a life peer being created a Duke, Marquess, Earl or Viscount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.164.58 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the Life Peerages Act requires the style of Baron; other titles could be given with no remainder to heirs. Barons are only ever referred to as "Lord..." --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Taylor, Baron Kilclooney. 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/20070312024808/http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/our%20people/kilclooney.htm to http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/our%20people/kilclooney.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism and Leo Varadkar
Now that this is receiving suitable media attention following his recent comments regarding Vice President-elect Harris, might we not also expand upon Taylor's interaction with Leo Varadkar even slightly? The one sentence currently given to his previously most-infamous racial slur does not even explain that Varadkar was the sitting Taoiseach at the time, that he is the Taoiseach no longer, or that no discipline was meeted out by the House of Lords for disparaging the United Kingdom's closest neighbour with whom it shares an intimate and bloody history. A history in which Taylor himself is interwoven. A single throwaway line seems offensively small given the insult to the sitting head of a neighbouring government.Hibarnacle (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It now has four sentences on this controversy, which seems fine. If you think there's more to add, by all means add it.
 * By the way, I just changed the title of this section to 'Racism allegations' for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV reasons - we can't describe him in Wikipedia voice as a racist, but we can certainly say that he's been repeatedly accused of racism and involved in multiple controversies over allegedly racist comments. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I expanded it a little and sourced my additions. I included 4 sentences, with the references for each pair linked at the end of the first sentence. Apologies if this isn't custom or if I'm acting in ignorance here, I thought it better not to repeat sources immediately after each other, or leave opening statements unsourced.Hibarnacle (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLPRS: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". If you're going to restore content like this, you better be sure it's properly sourced. At the moment, it sure isn't. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Each point in my paragraph is referenced in the two links provided, from Taylor's comments to the parties involved to his further comments and retraction, as well as the cause for his concern in the second instance. What do you have a problem with?Hibarnacle (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you say "your" paragraph. You might want to see WP:OWN. I've already stated what I have a problem with, perhaps reread my comment. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be obtuse. I referred to "my" paragraph to differentiate it from another editor's contribution regarding Kamala Harris' parentage which you also removed. That contribution wasn't by me. Every element of my additions have been clearly sourced and are free of personal commentary. If you've a complaint voice it clearly.Hibarnacle (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly sourced would mean referencing the sentence with an inline citation. How is the average reader to know that the content is supported by the *preceding* reference? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By reading them. Of course I'm happy to repeat the citations if that will stop your petty and pedantic edit-warring.Hibarnacle (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works: we don't expect the average reader to go out of their way, reading random references in the hope that it sources other pieces of content. It's probably best that you do, because repeatedly adding unsourced content to a BLP isn't a good idea. And don't bandy around accusations of "vandalising" when you happen to disagree with someone's edit. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading the preceding reference which deals with the same topic as the follow-on sentence is by no reasonable means asking someone to go out of their way. You removed an addition without reading the reference which substantiated it. You then repeated this despite being advised that the addition was substantiated. We've spoken about this far more than is necessary so I'll presume this is an end of the edit war now.Hibarnacle (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)