Talk:Murray MacLehose

Secret file affair
See here. 86.136.251.18 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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: moved per consensus that the exceptions at WP:NCPEER do not apply. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Murray MacLehose → Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch — As per naming convention for British peers. He is also known gerenally as Lord MacLehose. Clithering (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a retirement honor; we do not usually use those to title articles. Compare David Lloyd George, which omits an earldom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * response. The earldom of Lloyd George does not form part of his article title because he is better known simply as "David Lloyd George" rather than the estranged "Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor". The peerage being a retirement honour is not a decisive factor here. The Lord Rosmead and Lord Wilson, the other two former Hong Kong governors who were ennobled after retirement, have their peerage titles included in their article titles as well. --Clithering (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have not heard of this person before, but you will probably find that he is better known by his name while he was governor of Hong Kong. The other 2 should quite possibly be moved as well. PatGallacher (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * response. But he was still active after retiring from the governorship and has been better known by his peerage title (The Lord MacLehose) in Hong Kong and the UK. Obituaries issued by major newspapers and local press releases  all refer him by the title. --Clithering (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the Hong Kong governorship is what he's notable for; he wasn't called Lord or Baron anything at that time.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People before 1982 knew him as "Sir Murray MacLehose", but people thereafter (shortly before the end of his governorship) have referred him generally as "Lord MacLehose". The people before and after 1982 are actually the same group of people. I don't see why his governorship and post-governorship have to be treated as two isolated and irrelevant parts of his life.--Clithering (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking Cabinet Secretaries in the past as an example, none of them were ennobled when they were in office, but all their article titles have used their retirement honours (see Lord Wilson of Dinton, Lord Turnbull, Lord Butler of Brockwell Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and so on). So does the article titles of other British governors and officials who receive peerages after retiring from the civil service. I don't see why Lord MacLehose has to be treated "at odds" with the naming convention for British peers.--Clithering (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, all this shows is that the naming convention for British peers is "at odds" with the way Wikipedia articles are titled generally. We don't generally (in article titles) tag bits onto people's names so as to make them less recognizable - we go for the most straightforward name by which they are well known.--Kotniski (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, the consensus-based naming convention is an established guideline that Wikipedians should attempt to follow. I don't know whether this consensus is "at odds" with the general naming practice of British nobility in Wikipedia. I afraid that what you've just suggested may not fit into the case of British peers. --Clithering (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:NCROY states that articles about peers should always be named including their titles unless they "are almost exclusively known by their personal names" or "are very well known by their personal names". Neither is true in MacLehose's case. He has certainly been commonly known as "Lord MacLehose" since his ennoblement, which negates the first condition, and he is not well-known enough to meet the second, which generally only applies to people well-known outside the government or political field or to very high-profile people such as prime ministers. Functionaries such as civil servants and diplomats are simply not well-known enough to the general public to be considered "very well known", as Clithering points out above. Robin Butler and Robert Armstrong, for instance, are certainly better-known than MacLehose, but how do we title their articles? Exactly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The relevant point here iS WP:NCPEER which clearly states that the peerage title should be used unless he is generally or exclusively known without it. Tha does not apply here. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, this request seems to have been the subject of canvassing - User:Clithering has just notified a number of other users of the discussion on their talk pages (this includes the last two to comment above) - can he say how these users were chosen?--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * reply. Besides this discussion, I have noted that there are also discussions on Lord Hutton and Lord Owen listed on the page of Requested moves recently. Since the three discussions are in fact focusing on the same core issue and are common in many ways, I think those who have taken part in the discussions of Lord Hutton and Lord Owen should also be interested in this discussion. In this respect, I have invited those who have voted in the discussion of Lord Hutton or Lord Owen to join this discussion, except for those who have already joined. I am not lobbying others to cast a “support vote” and what I aim is solely to draw the greater attention of wikipedians who may be interested in this topic.--Clithering (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Relevant for me is the question of whether or not he retired. Anthony Eden, for example, retired from Parliament in 1957, and "soon retired and lived quietly with his second wife... by the banks of the River Ebble".  He was ennobled in 1961, so his honour was clearly a "retirement" honour.  Lord MacLehose is a different case entirely.  Yes, he left the governorship and was created a Lord, but remained active in politics, in the Lords, for many years onward.  He was not, therefore, "retired" in the relevant sense.  Arguments about what he was notable for are completely beside the point, as such arguments are inconsistent with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCPEER.  What matters here are two overwhelming points: Per WP:COMMONNAME he is most often known by his title and per WP:NCPEER he doesn't meet any of the stated exceptions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.