User talk:Proteus/Archive 10

Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage
I've noticed you've done some editing on the page above. Nice work. Just letting you know that a project page like that needs members to avoid potentially being counted as rejected and/or deleted. You might want to add yourself to a membership list on the page. Badbilltucker 17:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"please see WikiProject Peerage- full titles should be used"
Re: Lady Mountbatten. Where is this WikiProject Peerage? To refer to peers by their full title at every single mention during an article would ludicrously overload substantive discussion with guff. It would be equivalent to insisting on referring to the Queen at every single mention as Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Law Reports certainly don't refer to the law lords by their full titles at every reference. Pending a sensible response I am changing the subsequent references after the initial "Countess Mountbatten of Burma" to "Lady Mountbatten," which surely cannot be controversial. She was, in any event, an extremely no-nonsense sort of woman, a staunch Labour Party supporter; such nonsense would have curled her hair. You may note, by comparison, the facts that (a) her daughter, the current Countess Mountbatten of Burma, prefers to be called "Lady Patricia" by the officers and enlisted men of her regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, in deference to her aunt, Princess Patricia of Connaught for whom it was named and who was Lady Mountbatten's predecessor as colonel-in-chief and who indeed on marrying a commoner decided no longer to be referred to as Princess Patricia, much less Princess Patricia of Connaught, but as Lady Patricia Ramsay; and (b) The present Lady Mountbatten's husband, Baron Brabourne, always used "John Brabourne" as his professional designation. Masalai 08:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further: You should consult the unofficial biography of Mountbatten by Philip Hough and the official biography by Philip Ziegler as well as the biography of Lady Mountbatten by Janet Morgan (all referred to in the "References" section of the article on Lady Mountbatten): the formal "of Burma" only occurs in initial references; thereafter the demands of readable prose obviate it. So should the Wikipedia article.Masalai 08:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you TRYING to make it impossible to refer to members of the peerage in ordinary academic or encyclopedic discourse? An article on Lady Mountbatten which consistently refers to her by her full title is unlikely to be read: one becomes fed up with the repeated guff. "The Countess Mountbatten of Burma" is appropriate on first mention. Thereafter "Countess Mountbatten" or "Lady Mountbatten" is appropriate. Masalai 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lady Mountbatten
"Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. And your rant on my talk page is utterly absurd, and doesn't deserve a "sensible response". Proteus (Talk) 09:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masalai"

This is a "rant"? My dear woman, you obviously have very little experience of ranting if you consider my entirely polite suggestion as to the readability of this article a "rant"! I think that we have perhaps met before, also in the context of gratuitous unpleasantness on your part. Please believe me, dear lady, I only seek the betterment of articles such as this. Referring to Lady Mountbatten as "The Countess Mountbatten of Burma" at every single mention in a biographical article does not make it readable for those who consult an encyclopedia article. Please read my observations above. I hope you do not consider me ungallant as to your feminine sensibilities (I presume that you are a woman of a certain age, and I defer to your delicacy) but it is surely in the interests of the Wikipedia project that we observe academic protocols: Lady Mountbatten was a woman of historical interest and students of history should not be put off interest in her by a fussy reiteration at every mention of her full formal title. Again, my deference to your elderly and feminine sensibilities, which I certainly do not mean to offend.Masalai 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Madam,

You appear to be making unilateral changes to this article while declining to engage in any discussion of them. I am perplexed at your characterisation of my surely entirely reasonable observations -- I have taken care to be extremely solicitous of your presumably elderly feminine sensibilities, and I cannot imagine how you can characterise my observations as a "rant" --

As a "rant?" Surely, Madam, you must justify such a characterisation.

Could you perhaps endeavour to engage in discussion of these and other issues without descending to obloquy? I have been taking great pains to respect your presumably elderly and feminine sensibilities and one might hope that you could extend the same courtesy to those who wish to bring a disinterested academic sensibility to the article. Kind regards.Masalai 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Madam,

Please consider what you mean by "ranting." I have engaged in studiously polite conversation with you and you have responded with unwonted acrimony. Surely, dear Madam, we need not communicate on this basis. To disagree with you, ma'am, is not, surely, necessarily to "rant." It is possible to engage civilly. But are you not, perhaps, somewhat trading on your status as an elderly lady in insisting that rather more than ordinary civility is due you? Masalai 10:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Old woman"
Dear Madam, I certainly have never called you an "old woman." I and others have attempted to defer to or join issue with your preoccupations with English royal and noble titles (at the expense of clarity and in defiance of common usage) as politely as possible, and indeed as anyone deserves, but only to be met with extreme discourtesy on your part. Alas, it does not seem possible to engage in polite discussion as you always seem to trade on your gender and age and to exploit the inclination of others to be deferential to ladies of certain years. May one propose a compromise as to your insistence that full ceremonial titles be used at every single mention of an ennobled person in an article: namely that one use defining terms as in legal documents (ie "Countess Mountbatten of Burma ('Lady Mountbatten')"). Alas, dear lady, and with the greatest of respect, on the basis of past experience with you (only confirmed by recent observations on your part) one cannot hope for a civil response from you: it can only be expected that you will respond as, alas, usual, with extreme rudeness. So be it. I shall proceed to make these minor changes in the article on Lady Mountbatten so that editors other than yourself can get on with matters of substance. I am sorry dear lady, that you are obviously bound to take offence but the sensibilities of -- be it said -- not very courteous ladies of certain years cannot hold to ransom the imperative of clarity in English prose. Masalai 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"I still have absolutely no idea what on Earth you're talking about, or why you persist in addressing me as "Dear Madam". I suggest you seek psychiatric help." Only trying to be polite, ma'am. The attempt to engage in polite discourse with you is fraught with peril, as others who have crossed you have discovered; I am attempting to avoid unpleasantness by treating you in the present and all other discussion with the deference that ladies of a certain age who are intensely preoccupied with matters of form in the English peerage may be expected to demand. But please, dear lady, do try to reciprocate. Masalai 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, and you're not 'meeting me half way' by inserting '("Lady Mountbatten")' — I object not due to lack of clarity but due to lack of accuracy." With all respect due to your age and gender, ma'am, this has been the convention in legal drafting for the better part of a half-century. To "define" a term and thereafter use it as defined in a document is not inaccurate. Dear lady, I am labouring mightily to engage with you civilly, but surely you must be aware of the extent to which you trade on your age and gender. These things work both ways, you know. Masalai 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Commas
I don't like commas, which aren't necessary, especially in between abbreviated honours, eg, KG, MBE, etc, etc, and don't find that there is any policy, which requires that they be there. They look ugly. David | Talk 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Robert Hart
I was working on the article Chinese Maritime Customs Service and I noticed that you have moved the article on Robert Hart (China) to Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet. Unfortunately, we now have an undesirable double redirect to an empty page. I recall that there was actually some content in the orginal article and I wonder if you could restore the orginal contents, please?--Niohe 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edward Gordon, Baron Gordon of Drumearn
Heho, I'm currently going through the existing life peers and add their full titles, where they are'nt still available. Sorry that I haven't paid attention to the unusual feature of his title and thanks for your correction of my error. Greetings Phoe 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Emma Hamilton
Sir John Mills is known as Sir John Mills. However, our article is under John Mills. Why do you think an exception should be made for Lady Hamilton? It is never our policy to add "Sir" to the titles of articles about knights, so what exactly is the logic of adding "Lady" to articles about their wives? In any case, she is not known as "Emma, Lady Hamilton". She is commonly known either as "Lady Hamilton" or "Emma Hamilton". -- Necrothesp 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although she is most commonly known as Lady Hamilton she is also well-known as Emma Hamilton. I would think that was a better-known name than Emma, Lady Hamilton, a name by which she is never commonly known. -- Necrothesp 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that the general idea is NOT that if a title is usually used this should be reflected in the article title. Many (if not the majority of) knights and dames generally use their titles, but we do not ever use "Sir" or "Dame" in article titles except as a disambiguator. Emma Hamilton's husband was commonly known as Sir William Hamilton, but is our article under that title? No, it's under William Hamilton (diplomat). I really don't see why there should be an exception for Emma Hamilton, particularly as the title wasn't even one she had in her own right, but simply because of her marriage. -- Necrothesp 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the appropriate section in the naming conventions, I see you're correct about the convention, so I'm happy to let the article title stand. However, I still dislike the inconsistency. As an aside and out of interest, I'm an archivist by profession, and I would note that British archival convention is to omit courtesy titles acquired by women by marriage when listing their names:

"A woman who gains a title only by marriage should be described in the qualifier as wife of her husband’s title, not as Duchess, Countess etc.

[e.g.] Russell | Diana | 1710-1735 | 1st wife of 4th Duke of Bedford"

(National Council on Archives, Rules for the Construction of Personal, Place and Corporate Names)

-- Necrothesp 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator who is causing chaos
Special:Contributions/Icairns is opposed to WikiProject_Peerage - Kittybrewster 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Baron Garbett of Tongham
Hi, do you know something about the kind of his peerage? I don't find him neither as life peer nor as hereditary peer, but starting out from the fact that he died in 1955 while the life peerages act was in 1958, it should be the second. Phoe 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this, he died before the peerage was gazetted. In this case, I don't think it should be included in the opening line of the article, but of course it should be mentioned later on. As you say, it was before the Life Peerage Act, so it was a hereditary peerage, so if it were included in the opening, should read 1st Baron Garbett of Tongham.  J Rawle  (Talk) 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On 16th October the archive of the London Gazette will open again (it's out or of order at the moment, cause of technical problems). I will look then, whether I can find something there about his peerage's date and territorial designation. Perhaps I will be lucky. Phoe 10:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming of courtesy barons
Which form is correct, or preferable: "John X, Baron Y" or "John X, Lord Y"? Yours, Choess 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Baronetcy project
I am inclined to go with this, unless there are good reasons not to do so. [] - Kittybrewster 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Baron Lexinton or Baron Lexington?
Which is correct? I've seen both in fairly reputable sources. (The part of The English Peerage (1790) on extinct peerages is online and uses "Lexington"; Rayment uses "Lexinton"; Lundy, referencing TCP, uses "Lexinton".) Thanks, Choess 04:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart
Heho, was his barony not hereditary instead for life? Greetings Phoe 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How I imagined. Many thanks Phoe 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord King
I see your edit on Lord Lovelace. Seems very odd to be Lord King, Baron of Ockham. Alci12 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well they did have these fads from time to time, however the other examples you cite are not reflected in their articles only on the Lovelace page. Presumably I need to change them. Alci12 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah fine was happy to do it myself but wasn't sure if they had been left for a reason. Looking at the dates for those titles they are all at peaks of anti French feeling which my be part of the explanation. The use of Lord not baron generally has often been put down to not wanting to sound French. Alci12 11:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. What of Lord Hamilton, Baron of Strabane (presently at Baron Hamilton of Strabane; feel free to move it), Peerage of Ireland, 1617? Choess 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Routledge
Thanks for your help on the Patricia Routledge page. Unfortuntley User:SFTVLGUY2 still believes himself to be right, despite the guidelies shown to him. He is also claiming that you, Kittybrewster and myself are the same person. Your help would be appreciated if he continues. Thanks. --Berks105 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have been asked to put on my admin hat and try to help you all to resolve this dispute. Please take a look at my suggestions at Talk:Patricia_Routledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

John Kerr etc etc
You know all these tiresome edits will be reverted, so why do you insist on wasting people's time in this way? User:le baron has recently been blocked for this, and so will you be if you persist. Adam 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for doing precisely what you're doing. Adam 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry?
Hi Proteus, following up on the comments by User:SFTVLGUY2, I have made some suggestions at Talk:Patricia Routledge, which I hope may be helpful to all involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Women with handles
Please would you comment on and/or correct User:Kittybrewster/Sandbox - Kittybrewster 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What should line 2 say? - Kittybrewster 09:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change
Following on from the byron rename argument Talk:George_Byron%2C_6th_Baron_Byron it was mentioned that two of his decendants don't match our rules. Now the second makes sense and I can see a good reason why that's been doen but using the unreliable google test I get identical results for Lady lovelace and ada lovelace so I can't see an obvious reason why that's where it is. Perhaps you can Alci12 16:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Help please
- Kittybrewster 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet and
 * Sir Charles Trevelyan, 3rd Baronet and
 * User_talk:Kittybrewster

New Cork vote
There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for speedy delete
Where do I look for them to add my vote? - Kittybrewster 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Normans
Do you know about the Normanen perhaps a little? If yes, could you check once the contributions of User:Burkem so that he can't produce hoaxes? I am not sure whether that what he does is correct or verifiable. Thanks and Greetings Phoe  talk 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem and thanks. In the meantime he was blocked first for a month, now permanent, and there is a discussion about his "inheritance", meaning the articles he has created. Greetings Phoe  talk 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Baron Lucas of Crudwell
Hello. I had a discussion with User:Craigy144 regarding the intricate history of the barony of Lucas of Crudwell and user:Kittybrewster suggested I should contact you as you supposedly have access to The Complete Peerage. The question is whether the present baron is the 11th or 12th holder of the title. This depends on whether Anthony Grey, Earl of Harold (son of the second Baron, the first Duke of Kent) should be included in the numbering or not. Lord Harold was summoned to the House of Lords through a writ of acceleration as Lord Lucas of Crudwell, but predeceased his father. Debrett's does not include him in the numbering and lists the present Baron as the 11th Baron (he is also listed as the 11th holder on dodonline.co.uk). Burke's and Cracroft's apparently disagrees and includes Lord Harold in the numbering, and consequently lists the present Baron as the 12th holder. What does Cokayne say on the subject and what are your thoughts? Regards Tryde 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I have updated the article on the Baron Lucas of Crudwell accordingly. Regards Tryde 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)