Talk:Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook

Requested move
moved. Though it is unclear that he is already well known by the titular name, there is a need for disambiguation and the title disambiguates better than the job description. --rgpk (comment) 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Bishop (businessman) → Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook.
 * Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Disambiguation is required; he has changed his name. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Known widely as a businessman and as an openly gay individual and not for being a Peer. The businessman disambiguation is far more sensible for this individual as it is what he is best known for.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - will now be known to some exclusively by the name Glendonbrook, and this should be included in the name of the article so he is recognisable as such. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above person has a limitied if any understanding of WP:COMMONNAME and this is also not a WP:CRYSTALBALL--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per the policy as described by the House of Lords: "The new Members will join the House of Lords at a later date; their titles will also be decided at a later date." Fæ (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No. It has been determined. Lord Glendonbrook's title has been set. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why does the article say His full title will be decided at a later date--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess. No I will help you. Because the article is out of date. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then he is Baron Glendonbrook of where?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * of Bowdon in the County of Cheshire. Change your !vote? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a poll or a vote, and my reasoning for opposing has nothing to do with his title. My reasoning is that he is not known by the ennobled title and is instead known for his business career, for being openly gay and not as a peer.
 * Known as Lord Glendonbrook. No longer as Michael Bishop. Nor as Lord Bishop. Maybe known by some as Michael. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide evidence he has ceased the use of his non ennobled name.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean evidence that he is not known as Mr Bishop? Ridiculous. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am simply asking for evidence to support your claim he is No longer as Michael Bishop, his pre-ennobled name and is Known as Lord Glendonbrook his ennobled title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The document I have pointed to is the only one referenced. Until a reliable source is supplied then the provisions of WP:V apply and asking for sources for claims about living people is not 'Ridiculous' but a basic principle of how Wikipedia works. Fæ (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * London Gazette. Also The Times. 4 feb 2011, page 57 Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, in which case I change to Support so long as you sort out the reference (such as giving it the title printed, in the Times it was Baronies). Fæ (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - my personal opinion is that if he were the only Michael Bishop then it should be retained at Michael Bishop, but given that disambugiation is needed, the provision of WP:NCPEER to use his peerage title for disambiguation is a good one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. If someone needs disambiguation and is a peer or baronet then usual procedure is to disambiguate using their title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Disambiguation is needed, and per WP:NCPEER it should be done as "John Smith, Baron X". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as it's preferable to use his title for disambiguation - in fact, "not required for disambiguation" is the argument usually put forward to oppose moves by some of the people opposing this one, which suggests an ulterior motive.  J Rawle  (Talk) 19:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you please elaborate on exactly who you are referring to and what you are referring to as no one during this discussion has used not required for disambiguation during this discussion except you. Always assume good faith and do not make unsubstantiated inferring’s of no relevance to the discussion at hand. All RMs are individual and claiming goings on, on another RM is of no relevance to this RM.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure individual users will be aware of whether they have put that argument forward before. Of course no-one has said "not required..." this time as clearly there is a need for disambiguation. Of course other RMs are relevant as the idea is to have a policy that makes Wikipedia consistent. It's a pity that, having commented on other articles that disambiguation isn't required, some users choose not to apply the same logic and support the rename in this case.  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110902024212/http://web.researcha.com/iccquery/detail/?did=3790415&c=uk to http://web.researcha.com/iccquery/detail/?did=3790415&c=uk

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook. 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/20080107115957/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1153578.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1153578.ece

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) 17:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Bishop, Baron Glendonbrook. 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/20130804233504/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000726/ai_n14336239/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000726/ai_n14336239/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1

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) 06:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian
We call him an Australian in the lede, and he must be an Australian citizen since he was appointed a substantive Member of the Order of Australia in 2023. But apart from that, nowhere in the body of the article is there any reference whatsoever to anything to do with Australia. There must be more to his story than we reveal. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)