Talk:Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes

Untitled
He will be introduced to the House of Lords at 16th October.Max Mux (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Consensus to move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephen Carter (politician) → Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes. According to Naming conventions (names and titles), a life peer should have his peerage title as part of the article title unless "known exclusively by their personal name". In the case of Stephen Carter, it could be argued that he is known only by his personal name, but that's because he has only just received a peerage. In the future, he may well be known mainly as Lord Carter of Barnes. At present, one could argue it either way. However, Stephen Carter is an ambiguous title so we require disambiguation. It therefore makes sense to refer to him as Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes, as per the Naming Conventions. User:Squeakbox, who moved the article to its current location, gives counter-examples such as Jeffrey Archer. This is an entirely different case as the name Jeffrey Archer is not ambiguous, so does not require any form of disambiguation. People may also might like to take note of these edits  which were made by User:Squeakbox after I started a discussion about his page move on his user page, so as to block any attempts to move the page in a way he didn't agree with (which I'd never have done unilaterally without discussion anyway).  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move per JRawle and MOS. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move per above and MOS. This person is not know by the "man in the street", and certainly not in the likes of Thatcher or Mandelson. Page should be moved ASAP.--UpDown (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move Mos cited. Back editing the link to stop a move certainly against consensus policy and is close to if not actually vandalism. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a move, see Jeffrey Archer, Margaret Thatcher, Peter Mandelson and a long et al as to why this move would be unacceptable. He is known as Stephen Carter. I note the person who made the request cannot be bothered to either give an argument or even admit to who they are. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So even before I've finished posting the request, you add a coment to say there's "no concensus". (I was adding an entry to the Requested Moves page as detailed in the instructions there - the entry is copied above).


 * Jeffrey Archer is a different case as his name isn't ambiguous. If it was ambiguous, his article could go at Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare. Margaret Thatcher is where she is as, again, her name doesn't require disambiguation, and the Naming Convention linked above clearly states that former Prime Ministers are an exception to the rule.


 * A few of the many relevant examples are Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham (who is never known as Viscount Hailsham but requires it for disambiguation; Tony Banks, Baron Stratford (who is always known as Tony Banks but again that's ambiguous); and many more.  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mos does not agree with your POV pushing, though, Kitty. You and I have had this argument before, where reasonableness triumphed. I suggest you giver us good refs to show he is known as Baron Carter, something I would suggest you are clearly unable to do. The man and woman in the street knows him as Stephen Carter. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to other editors leaving comments: the two pages I gave as examples above have now been moved by User:Squeakbox to fit his POV. Maybe there are two opposing points of view. One side is trying to have a fair discussion about it. The other is moving pages about then editing the redirects to prevent the pages being moved back. Which is the correct way of dealing with this dispute?  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is disgraceful POV moving. I've always understood we should avoid brackets where possible in article titles. --UpDown (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles):
 * 2. # Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)&sup1; use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.") [my underlining]

As the default is to use the dignity, it seems sensible to default to it in this case for disambiguation. You will note that #4 uses Baronet titles for disambiguation, so that reinforces the disambiguation via dignity.  Ty  11:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Common usage trumps and to claim avoiding brackets results in POV pushing in favour of Lord titles is plain wrong. To claim Carter is not known by the main on the street is plain rubbish. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a MOS protocol for disambiguation of those with titles (which are not normally used for the article title), which is to use the Lord title as the article title. This is the normal method. If you disagree, you should change the MOS guidance, but in the meantime, follow it.  Ty  00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears wrong on multiple counts. First, this is a naming convention issue, not a manual style issue. Second, naming conventions (like MOS guidelines) are not hard-and-fast rules and no one needs to change the conventions or MOS before establishing a contrary consensus here. Third, the default rule is not, as Ty says, that titles are not normally used. Fourth, the default rule is actually that articles for peers are called "[Name], [Title]". Fifth, Third, the rule has nothing to do with disambiguation. Finally, there is an exception for instances where the person is "exclusively" known by some other name. The example given there is Margaret Thatcher.


 * The question, then, is whether Stephen Carter is so well known by that name that no one will really call him "Lord Carter". -Rrius (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's not well known enough. Mandelson is. Carter is not, by any stretch of the imagination. Brackets in article titles should always be avoided where possible. It is now possible to avoid brackets, and in keep in line with common convention and practise. This should be moved ASAP.--UpDown (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * People can honestly disagree as to whether the man is so widely known as to keep the article here. It is unhelpful, and frankly uncivil, to continually refer to this as "POV pushing". People can disagree with you without having bad motives. -Rrius (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, people certainly won't call him "Stephen Carter (politician)". Instead of brackets made up by wikipedia, we can use a name which is actually his.  Ty  07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * His name is Stephen Carter. no evidence he is not well known but he is not so well known as to be the Stephen Carter article because he is only well known in the UK. He is far better known by his name than by his title, and to claim there is no POV pushing here is hilarious but not true. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As that seems to be a repy to my post, I would like to point out that I have not alluded to POV pushing. It also gives the impression you are accusing me of POV pushing. If so, perhaps you might clarify and substantiate this, or else withdraw the remark. Thanks.  Ty  23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is using his legal title (and title by which allows him to a national politician in the UK) POV exactly? This page needs moving ASAP. I live in the UK - Carter is not well known and certainly not in the class of people like Thatcher, Wilson etc who are exempt from the rules.--UpDown (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Stephen Carter, and neither would have most people in the UK unless they are closely involved in certain parts of the media industry. Now, however, he's a government minister - something that makes him known to everyone - and he is legally a minister as Lord Carter of Barnes. Even Peter Mandelson has been referred to almost exclusively as Lord Mandelson since taking his seat in the Lords - if he wasn't already a well-known politician his article would need to be moved too. Then last of all, if we consider the fact that we need something to disambiguate Stephen Carter, that tips the balance in favour of Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes, even if there was any doubt from the other evidence.


 * Neither including nor omitting these titles need be considered any more "POV" than the other. But seeing as Squeakbox complains about "Lord titles" above and is assuming bad faith on the part of other editors here, I think it's fair to say he is pushing his own POV to have the titles removed from articles.  J Rawle  (Talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there appears to be a clear consensus to use the title. The only objection is from SqueakBox. Unless there is anything further to add, I will move the article.  Ty  23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. These is consensus to move. I would also say that means there is consensus to move the Tony Banks (politician) article back.--UpDown (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 2 articles in "The Times" today 22 Oct. David Robertson refers to Lord Mandelson 6 times. No variations. Ann Treneman refers to Lord Mandelson twice, Lord Mandy twice and Mandy six times. Nobody calls him Peter Mandelson. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen mostly "Lord Mandelson", as well, but doesn't that belong at Talk:Peter Mandelson? -Rrius (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

"Unsourced" material
I restored part of the material about Carter's personal life using the "Stephen Carter: 360 degrees" reference. I was reverted, and the following was left on my talk page:

Do not restore unsourced material, its a blp violation. Your claim that the material is sourced is clearly not so as there is no ref. From your contribs I am surprised you do not already know this. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did provide a reference. The reference backs the statements I preserved. From the ref:


 * 1) "Carter is intensely private. He is married to Anna, an Australian whom he met at JWT, and has a young family"
 * 2) "Family Married with two children"

I am restoring my edit. -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref?. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephen Carter: 360 degrees as the other user helpfully said above.  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the diff and read my edit summary. I did not restore the previous version verbatim. I eliminated the second sentence as there was no reference and a cursory Google search did not return one. I also added an instance of the first ref on the page (which for the third time (including JRawle's comment) was the "Stephen Carter 360" ref, which supported the statements as I set out in the quotations above. I am frankly frustrated by your continuing failure to actually read what is going on and to, by kneejerk reaction, assume that you were being reverted completely and then by your failure to read with even a moderate level of care the explanation of why I restored my edit after your kneejerk revert. I not only noted which ref I was using, but I quoted it. Do you have some general objection to the article mentioning that the man is married and has two children? Or are you upset that someone would dare to put the information back in after you took it out? -Rrius (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)