Talk:Lord William Bentinck

Discussions
The entry
 * Cavendish-Bentinck, William Henry, (1738-1809), Prime Minister

on List of people by name: Cas-Caz redirects here, but conflicts as to both the dates & resume. What gives? --Jerzy•t 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's referring to William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland. Proteus (Talk) 19:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link - Portland should be alphabetized under P, for Portland. john k 06:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for a much quicker and clearer response than i dared hope for. I'll read both articles & set up two more entries besides P for him, under C and B, on the logic that the LoPbN tree is a navigation tool (especially and maybe even primarily one for people with delusions about names, to get them to the bios & the truth), and not a guide to the most correct names of people. (That "authority" role that belongs to their bios, where the wrinkles and pitfalls can be laid out in detail). I will take your combined assessment as my guide, and label the C and B entries, in comments, as mistaken but retained for accessiblity. And if i understand (before consulting the articles further than Kate's Tool lets me peek), it sounds like
 * William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland and
 * Lord William Bentinck
 * are well named articles, and i suspect
 * William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (currently a rdr to the Lord, tho the corresponding LoPbN entry described the 3rd Duke),
 * should become a rdr to
 * William Cavendish-Bentinck (currently a Dab between the 3rd Duke and the Lord).
 * I assume that
 * William Henry Bentinck (an otherwise unused rd-lk) may have a role, and
 * William Bentinck (a four-way Dab to the Lord, 1st Earl, and 2nd & 4th Dukes) may need to include the 3rd Duke.
 * (It is obvious to me that i am not the best one to implement such changes, tho i'll try to remember to add one LoPbN entry for
 * each rdr to a bio article, and
 * each entry in a Dab.
 * And, when a dab is the target of rdrs, one LoPbN entry per rdr for each entry in the Dab. My guiding principle is that if an error has been made in the past (whether or not sanctified by a rdr or Dab or LoPbN entry, tho they are usually the evidence), it shows the need for an entry that will get users looking in the same wrong place to the right bio. In this case, someone thought WHC-B would mean the Lord, so LoPbN needs at least two entries under C-B, one for the Lord, and one perhaps more "proper", tho still non-ideal one, for the 3rd Duke.)
 * Also -- in case i haven't made enough trouble yet -- i'll note that i haven't looked at what links to either the 3rd Duke or the Lord, or to the Dabs.
 * --Jerzy•t 11:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the definite article from before Lord William Bentinck's title. Bentinck's title was a courtesy title, something he held because he was the younger son of a duke. Courtesy titles are social conventions, not actual peerages. "The" before a lordly title is an abbreviation of "The Right Honourable" (for barons, viscounts and earls) or "The Most Honourable" (for Marquesses). As Bentinck was not a peer himself, merely the holder of a courtesy title, "The" did not apply. Cymro61 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Journals of Fanny Parkes she states: "The smallpox is making great ravages; some of our friends have fallen victim. Lord William Bentinck did away with the vaccine department to save a few rupees; from which economy many have lost their lives." April 6th 1837 Worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.99.54 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * is this Bentink not that famous stalwart of the East Indies company who rejoiced ‘the bones of the cotton weavers were bleaching the	plains	of India". Has any of the authors of the article read anything on the oh so terrific contribution of Bewntink to the distruction of India????? This laudatory article is ridiculous.


 * is there any possibility to announce this article as a contribution to a colonial, racist discussion that one believed long ended? It is unbelievable....

89.43.195.18 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that specific quote, but this Bentinck dude comes off as a suspiciously decent man for a British aristocrat of the Hanoverian period. I'm sure that whoever wrote this article intentionally left out unsavory content on Bentinck that might portray him in a more imperialist, racist, illiberal, or otherwise bigoted light. Someone should look thoroughly through the sources to make sure this article isn't a whitewash. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All the comments are sourced see no issue for the tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)