Talk:Paul Myners, Baron Myners/Archive 1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Parsecboy in topic Requested move
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
City Minister
According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650013.stm) and FT (http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2008/10/newsflash-paul-myners-to-be-city-minister/), he has just (3rd October 2008) been appointed City Minister, however the official announcement (http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17065) and (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_172154) don't list him, so I held off on editing the main page. --DouglasReay (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is confirmed in the press. Ty 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
References
I've referenced some material and put the inline citation as appropriate. More needs to be done here. For a guide to referencing see WP:REFB. Ty 00:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Page move
This was moved back to Paul Myners in complete contradition of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage which clearly state "Life peers ... use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name". The page needs to be moved back ASAP.--UpDown (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the naming convention, but not recently. They are inconsistent with, if not counterintuitive, to the essential guidelines common rationales for an articles name. Someones attempt to link a wikiproject from the naming convention speaks volumes, and this article has only just come within its marginal scope with little relevance. Anyway, it doesn't apply. It obviously makes sense to disambiguate those titles held by a number of individuals, but I can see any number of reasons not to have Margaret Thatcher, Baron Thatcher. The edit summary might have indicated these (apparently mangled) guidelines, rather than moved Paul Myners to Paul Myners, Baron Myners: per MoS. Not well known enough to be exempt from guidelines. This is an erroneous application of the conventions (CREEP). He has just received the honorific, and could only have been known as Paul Myners. There is no other article with that title, and no need to append the titled name to the common name. Anyone searching for information on him, say, to add one reference to the article, would find reference to the works that earned him his title. I would be interested to know what the rationale is for urgently changing a NPOV document to reflect the honorific of one nations honorifics. We are not national registration, but an international compendium. We don't usually include academic titles, or political, or clerical ones, unless there is likely to be some ambiguity or they are best known by that title. The subject is widely known by his commoner name, his brand new nobility is incidental to his notability. We are not a Who's Who serving nationalistic interests, or a register of honours of a realm, we are an encyclopedia. The best thing to do, but not the simplest, would be to set about improving articles, rather than enforcing a marginal and probably contentious guideline on articles - to the point where other sensible naming conventions are dismissed. cygnis insignis 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- You should follow the guideline or else change it. He is now being referred to as "Lord Myners",[1] and this is likely to be his moniker in future. So should the article be titled "Lord Myners"? Ty 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The point is the exceptions are if people are well known without their titles. Myners is not well known enough by any stretch (the above says "widely known" - no he's not). The naming conventions for life peers from the MoS are quite clear, as they are for all British peers. 99% of peers follow this guidelines and it is not "marginal" or "contentious" at all - its well accepted. The only argument is normally if a person is well known enough without it. Such an argument cannot really be had with Myners.--UpDown (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The claim of POV in putting a peerage title is also totally wrong. It is legal title, and indeed the title by which he is a politician in the UK - which is how he is best known. All title on British peers - hereditary, life, law lord - are similar and match each other. This is consistency. Moving this is going against the very clear MoS.--UpDown (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, in for a penny ... Did you know that 99% of statistics of 99% are far from it? The convention, which recently emerged in the guideline I checked before undoing the move, does not imply that a title should automatically be placed. He received the status because of his notable works. Royalty and hereditary peers are very likely to be notable for that reason, like my nation's monarch. Knights don't get the title in name, but it is worth noting in the lede and redirecting (or disambiguating). It is axiomatic that he was well known for other reasons, the article was created 18:30, 14 March 2006, if we can assume that the unreferenced facts are accurate, but the announcement was last month. He may become known by this title (crystal), but he clearly could not have be known this way. Ghits can prove anything, google is better used for finding actual and reliable sources (another unsubtle hint). The creator, who has implied that my edit was based on a personal preference, should ignore my misplaced musings on the recent history of this convention. It does not accord with the specific convention, nor with any other that I am aware of in our MoS. Like Thatcher, he got the title for stuff he has already done, it is notable, but not the basis of his notability. Paul Myners was already 'famous' before this (yet to be official) title was announced. There is a very strong tendency to avoid superfluous appendages to article - like "One name, another name" - on the basis that it moves away from the KISS principle, the most consistent approach to page titles. Unless other naming conventions have emerged during my break, this is the most neutral way of naming bios of political, legal, clerical, and academic figures. Contemplate the result if it were not so, say a figure who was notable in several of these areas: Doctor/Former Prime Minister/Judge/Cardinal T. F. Eccles, Baron Eccles. cygnis insignis 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, the title is now official. I don't know what country you live in, but this man is not famous in the slightest. The only people exempt from the clear guidelines are former PMs, other senior politicians (Mandelson for example), and people like Attenborough and Bragg. See a recent discussion at Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes. If you disagree agree with the very clear - which you seem to - then take it up at the talk page of the guidelines. If the guidelines change, then the page is moved. At the moment the guidelines are crystal clear. And I will doing a move article request.--UpDown (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- "He received the status because of his notable works." No, he was given the title so he could join the government. Whether he had "notable works" before the title is irrelevant. What is important for naming the article is what he best known as. One piece of evidence is a google news search which shows 37 for "Paul" and 29 for "Lord" Myners. Some of these are both, but the main point is that neither one has emerged as the most common yet, so there is no reason to move it. At the same time, "Lord Myners" and "Paul Myners, Baron Myners" should be redirects to this article. To that end, I would request that cygnis insignia rescind his request for the latter redirect to be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although deleting the redirect would allow for this page to move moved back to its correct, per MoS, title. The point is this man is not commonly known without title - like Thatcher, Attenborough, Mandelson etc are - so he falls under the very clear MoS guidelines. See the Carter discussion. I'm now going to do a move request.--UpDown (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The redirect discussion seems to have produced a consensus for keep, I added my !vote, but did not close it. I will if you think that help. Google is shabby evidence, but sources found by it are sometimes reliable. And, okay, he was asked to join the government because of notable works, a deal that included a peerage if I accept the uncited assertions of editors. It is not irrelevant, it is axiomatic that reliable sources would previously have referred to him Paul Myners. The article is 2 years old, he will be noted in more appropriate sources than newspapers. The news results are surely skewed by the announcement. cygnis insignis 08:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although deleting the redirect would allow for this page to move moved back to its correct, per MoS, title. The point is this man is not commonly known without title - like Thatcher, Attenborough, Mandelson etc are - so he falls under the very clear MoS guidelines. See the Carter discussion. I'm now going to do a move request.--UpDown (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was an example of wit to say it was crystal clear, perhaps it was a Freudian slip. I suppose you mean you could move it back, based on what 'you reckon', without discussing the merit of it. I would recommend caution, it might not serve your preference to bring too much attention to that curiosity of naming conventions. You might get away with it, some may be fired by national pride, and others peoples think they are cute in a fairy-tale way. cygnis insignis 08:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- You clearly have a very huge POV of your own - that is anti-peerages. The comments "fired by national pride" - peerages have nothing to do with national pride; this peerage allows him to be a member of the goverment - and "cute in a fairy-tale way" - what are you going on about? You should remove you POV while editing Wikipedia and follow the clear naming conventions which say this should be at where it was before you move. There is no "curiousity" to the naming conventions at all. They are widely accepted. If you have a problem with them - take it there.--UpDown (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was an example of wit to say it was crystal clear, perhaps it was a Freudian slip. I suppose you mean you could move it back, based on what 'you reckon', without discussing the merit of it. I would recommend caution, it might not serve your preference to bring too much attention to that curiosity of naming conventions. You might get away with it, some may be fired by national pride, and others peoples think they are cute in a fairy-tale way. cygnis insignis 08:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although deleting the redirect would allow for this page to move moved back to its correct, per MoS, title. The point is this man is not commonly known without title - like Thatcher, Attenborough, Mandelson etc are - so he falls under the very clear MoS guidelines. See the Carter discussion. I'm now going to do a move request.--UpDown (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, in for a penny ... Did you know that 99% of statistics of 99% are far from it? The convention, which recently emerged in the guideline I checked before undoing the move, does not imply that a title should automatically be placed. He received the status because of his notable works. Royalty and hereditary peers are very likely to be notable for that reason, like my nation's monarch. Knights don't get the title in name, but it is worth noting in the lede and redirecting (or disambiguating). It is axiomatic that he was well known for other reasons, the article was created 18:30, 14 March 2006, if we can assume that the unreferenced facts are accurate, but the announcement was last month. He may become known by this title (crystal), but he clearly could not have be known this way. Ghits can prove anything, google is better used for finding actual and reliable sources (another unsubtle hint). The creator, who has implied that my edit was based on a personal preference, should ignore my misplaced musings on the recent history of this convention. It does not accord with the specific convention, nor with any other that I am aware of in our MoS. Like Thatcher, he got the title for stuff he has already done, it is notable, but not the basis of his notability. Paul Myners was already 'famous' before this (yet to be official) title was announced. There is a very strong tendency to avoid superfluous appendages to article - like "One name, another name" - on the basis that it moves away from the KISS principle, the most consistent approach to page titles. Unless other naming conventions have emerged during my break, this is the most neutral way of naming bios of political, legal, clerical, and academic figures. Contemplate the result if it were not so, say a figure who was notable in several of these areas: Doctor/Former Prime Minister/Judge/Cardinal T. F. Eccles, Baron Eccles. cygnis insignis 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the naming convention, but not recently. They are inconsistent with, if not counterintuitive, to the essential guidelines common rationales for an articles name. Someones attempt to link a wikiproject from the naming convention speaks volumes, and this article has only just come within its marginal scope with little relevance. Anyway, it doesn't apply. It obviously makes sense to disambiguate those titles held by a number of individuals, but I can see any number of reasons not to have Margaret Thatcher, Baron Thatcher. The edit summary might have indicated these (apparently mangled) guidelines, rather than moved Paul Myners to Paul Myners, Baron Myners: per MoS. Not well known enough to be exempt from guidelines. This is an erroneous application of the conventions (CREEP). He has just received the honorific, and could only have been known as Paul Myners. There is no other article with that title, and no need to append the titled name to the common name. Anyone searching for information on him, say, to add one reference to the article, would find reference to the works that earned him his title. I would be interested to know what the rationale is for urgently changing a NPOV document to reflect the honorific of one nations honorifics. We are not national registration, but an international compendium. We don't usually include academic titles, or political, or clerical ones, unless there is likely to be some ambiguity or they are best known by that title. The subject is widely known by his commoner name, his brand new nobility is incidental to his notability. We are not a Who's Who serving nationalistic interests, or a register of honours of a realm, we are an encyclopedia. The best thing to do, but not the simplest, would be to set about improving articles, rather than enforcing a marginal and probably contentious guideline on articles - to the point where other sensible naming conventions are dismissed. cygnis insignis 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"And, okay, he was asked to join the government because of notable works, a deal that included a peerage if I accept the uncited assertions of editors." Do you actually doubt that the peerage was granted so that he could take up his ministerial post? -Rrius (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- No. Why do you ask? cygnis insignis 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I ask because your comments make it sound as though you think the relationship between the peerage and the government post is part of some "deal" and is only based on uncited comments of editors. It was widely reported in the media, which are represented in references in the article. -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- And why is your question mark linked to WP:NPOV? Exactly what inappropriate POV have I espoused here? -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following is a closed 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 Move Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Per what I said above the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage clearly state "Life peers ... use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name". Myners is not exclusively known by his personal name - he's not really known by the general public - and is certainly not the same as people like Thatcher, Wilson, Mandelson, Attenborough etc. The page should be moved to fit in with MoS.--UpDown (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Move per nominator and per MOS. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for nowWeak support Since the article does not say he has received the peerage yet (at the New Year honours?), this seems at least premature; if, Heaven forfend, he drops dead before elevation, we don't want to move the article at all. Some evidence that he is normally called "Lord Myners" would also be welcome; that's why we don't use Jeffrey Archer's title. (I would not be surprised if he were; but let's see it shewn.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)- He has got the peerage. A quick look on our List of life peers would have shown that - and I've said it above. Peerages do not wait until honours list. I would not have moved a page if he'd not got the peerage.--UpDown (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then please edit the article, with a source for the date; let's see the newspapers call him Lord Myners, and I'll support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- [2] [3] [4] Kittybrewster ☎ 17:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- The newspapers called Archer "Lord Archer", so your latter point is irrelevant. The proof is that he is not widely called Paul Myners - he's not widely known enough to qualify under those provisions in the MoS.--UpDown (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- But most of the time they didn't; they called him Jeffrey Archer most often, which was when they reviewed his books - except when, as here, they discussed the granting of his peerage, and when they were being, well, arch. How well known the subject is doesn't matter, until we get to the point where we should not have an article on him at all. (That clearly does not apply now, although it might last September.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have the date and the newspaper references. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The House of Lords link does not speak to common usage; and there should be articles on the minister which have subjects other than his elevation, which tends to distort usage - just as the New York Times wrote about Barack Hussein Obama last week and James Earl Carter in the article on the 1976 election, but then reverted to the common usage of our article titles. But this is certainly enough to weaken the oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- "please edit the article, with a source for the date; let's see the newspapers call him Lord Myners, and I'll support". Kittybrewster ☎ 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here is another one [5] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough; Cameron is not speaking about the elevation. I'm still curious if there is usage the other way; but that's enough for a weak support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The House of Lords link does not speak to common usage; and there should be articles on the minister which have subjects other than his elevation, which tends to distort usage - just as the New York Times wrote about Barack Hussein Obama last week and James Earl Carter in the article on the 1976 election, but then reverted to the common usage of our article titles. But this is certainly enough to weaken the oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have the date and the newspaper references. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- But most of the time they didn't; they called him Jeffrey Archer most often, which was when they reviewed his books - except when, as here, they discussed the granting of his peerage, and when they were being, well, arch. How well known the subject is doesn't matter, until we get to the point where we should not have an article on him at all. (That clearly does not apply now, although it might last September.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then please edit the article, with a source for the date; let's see the newspapers call him Lord Myners, and I'll support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- He has got the peerage. A quick look on our List of life peers would have shown that - and I've said it above. Peerages do not wait until honours list. I would not have moved a page if he'd not got the peerage.--UpDown (talk) 17:02, 15 November 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.