Talk:Lord Nicholas Hervey

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Hervey → Lord Nicholas Hervey – for Google relevance; too many other Nicholas Herveys come up in a general Google search

• Support (Suze1 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC))
• Oppose See discussion. Septentrionalis 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrary to wikistyle and unnecessary. Homey 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Wikipedia has a long-standing, and unresolved, debate on the use of noble styles. Please don't open it up again. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and its related pages for all too much more.) Septentrionalis 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on January 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

.

[edit] Rudeness

• Comments such as "non notable minor aristocrat who once organized a dinner party before commiting suicide" are extremely offensive, and do no credit whatsoever to the Wikipedia. They display a clear, even bitter, bias. The Oxford University Press's Dictionary of National Biography carries entries for hundreds if not thousands of people who were far less "not notable" (again, only an opinion) than Hervey. The important thing here is that he was a well-known personage, both at Yale, and in London, and played an active role in the Monarchist League, and so deserves a biographical entry. Sussexman 13:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a major effort to discredit Nicholas Hervey, especially by the more than obvious attempts to smear him/his family with his elder half-brother's problems. It is disgraceful. Sussexman 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the matter up with the Daily Telegraph?Homey 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise interesting issues relating to ancestry. No one reasonable would let the actions of the family "taint" an individual. I agree, some of the tone is off, and this is due to multiple editors and NPOV, as well as the difficulty of some of his situation (landlady's quote is disturbing, but not discrediting). But attempts to use the "Lady" and "Marquess" aristocratic titles to lend creditability (an assumption, excuse if I'm wrong), without mentioning why the Lady and Marquess are noteworthy (Playboy model, vast sums spent on drugs...), required revisions, as they did not do what Wiki is supposed to: give a reader a summary of available knowledge on the subject so that the reader can feel semi-confident s/he is up to date. (when someone's siblings are in the news, it is necessary to mention that in their bio) Suze1 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My contention is that this is not a newspaper article (newspapers write sensationalist often badly informed half-stories so that they can attract attention and sell papers) and therefore it is not necessary to publish everything unfortunate in a person's life. An element of decency and balance is surely required in these Wikipedia articles? I note, for instance, the newspaper's report of the money owing to the solicitors. Of course, that is only a fraction of the entire story. Nicholas and his half-brother John went into this action on the understanding that John would meet the bill. When the action failed, John said the solicitors were "useless" and had failed them and he refused to pay them. The solicitors then turned to Nicholas. He in turn did the only thing he could do - approached his trustees for some of his inheritance, and as two of them were respondents in the very case in question they naturally refused his request.

What I do think is that if people like Homey are anti-aristocracy etc., they should stay away from pages which irritate them. I feel sure Homey would not like someone denigrating him. Sussexman 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a private individual. Nicholas Hervey is, evidently, prominent enough to merit a biography on wikipedia. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. If you think the subject is worthy of an article then you'll have to accept the good as well as the bad as part of our NPOV policy, particularly when "the bad" is a matter of public record. Homey 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't help pointing out: Sussexman agrees with you on that general point, as he himself posted "An account of an individual should not necessarily be all peaches and cream, as you would possibly prefer...You feel that this should be kept out of his rosy little biography which, I would argue, glosses over Pickles unpleasant side and so makes it POV anyway. Sussexman 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)," on his disc. page. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone here thinks anything negative exists in reporting a bankruptcy, as it only means the individual did not have the money to pay a debt. What was unusual was someone posting a bio of Nicholas Hervey that did not mention aspects of his life that merited, in my opinion, a fuller (and more sensitive) discussion and presentation than a Wikip. definition could allow, and that obviously had to be mentioned in such a bio for it to be intellectually honest (referring solely to his fine mind without mentioning his hospitalization for schizophrenia, an illness of that mind, which was no less reported in the media, is one example). I myself am working on such a broader project (which is why I would be interested in talking to Sussexman privately); it seems Robert I is working on such a project from the conservative right political angle only (which Nicholas was certainly involved with heavily), and was using a truncated definition to bolster a web presence for GLF and the IML and to offer justification for his inclusion of a chapter on NH. I would just mention, regardless of one's views of newspapers, that any political agenda work be nonetheless intellectually honest and complete, although I gather in the UK, and burgeoning now in the US, there is a tradition of one sided shouting matches where neither thinks facts should be mentioned fully and accurately unless they support their pre-conceived view. This I consider lamentable, but a saving grace, Sussexman, is that Nicholas would be very happy to be being discussed and part of life's dialogue. Suze1 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My only comment in response to the last posting is that unlike newspaper articles, it is not necessary to dredge up every unpleasantness and unfortunate occurrance in a person's life when the clear intention of the poster doing so is obvious. Is Wikipedia just an extension of the gutter press or is it better than that? The Dictionary of National Biography sets a good example when it comes to biographical articles. Wikipedia would accrue great credence if it followed such a quality publication. Sussexman 08:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't see fit to send me a private reply. As to your "only response" (I'm sorry you don't want to share any positive memories of Nicholas--see your disc. page), I will point out that I didn't read any intention into the poster who added the sentence "He was also described as suffering from schizophrenia." As to your post, if a man lost his legs, you wouldn't put that in his biographical listing? Sometimes, the unfortunate is a big part of someone's life. You're not necessarily doing them any favors by deleting their history - and it's an especially unusual thing to do with a Hervey. That was the question I wanted to ask you - do you have a sense of Nicholas' view on the more traditionally unflattering aspects of his family history (leaving aside his parents). I don't recall his mentioning the things that I've since read, but I do remember his feeling connected to his ancestors through their portraits and our discussing that briefly. Finally, I hope you're not implying there is something shameful in schizophrenia, or that it's better off "not mentioned." I would think you'd be an advocate for the opposite, especially as you were able to visit with Nicholas after his illness manifested. Do you think he was ashamed of it? I hope not, and wish I hadn't lost touch with him (his bio doesn't reflect his failure to register for our senior year)Suze1 03:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you feel offended at my simply not having the time to respond to your request. No offence was meant. I just have to work for a living. I felt the very deliberate inclusion of the bankruptcy was wrong as it was not really Nicholas at fault but his half-brother. There are people at work here with malice. Sussexman 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was suitable for an obituary (in a conservative paper no less) than it's suitable for wikipedia. I think what you interpret as "malice" is simply the fact it is not our role to protect someone's reputation from the truth, even if he was your friend. Homey 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My contention was that the newspaper does not always give the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You suggest it is not your role to protect people, but is it your role to put yourself in the shoes of the gutter press and to dig up snippets of things which are not the full story and deliberately post them on the Wikipedia? Sussexman 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, but I think all Wikip does is summarize what is otherwise out there. For it to do more would probably be too much for it. Suze1 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

The last 'User' appears to be a sock-puppet, as is User:Mauls. Sussexman 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to say nothing, but - what the H is Sussexman talking about? I asked to communicate via email, on a person, deceased, we both knew - how could I be a sock-puppet - but on to the issue I was previously tempted to enquire about but let go - Are you serious in your postings Sussexman, or are you a joke? You make blanket irrational paranoid statements, and link yourself to someone who unfortunately developed from what I gather full-blown paranoid schizophrenia - I actually found it touching - esp'y the GLF business (with a dashing photo posted!), b/c some aspects of this stuff really does remind me of Nicholas terribly (in a good, endearing way). But I'm tempted to think it's all a put on, or, interestingly, that Nicholas found an environment where paranoia ran rampant (which perhaps fed his problem??). Your thoughts? Suze1 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't really have any further thoughts on anything tonight. I needed something to keep my mind off work and thought Wikipedia sounded like a good idea but I have been proved wrong. If I have caused you any offence I sincerely apologise. As to GLF's article, really it should have been removed altogether. Yes, rather old photo I thought. It might have been better if they'd put up one from about 1990. I remember the Evening Standard had a rather good one on its front page when he was demolishing Janet Street-Porter. It all seems so long ago now. Good night. Sussexman 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic about the photo - I enjoyed it..he looked SO different from what I imagined it was startling. And easy to see him and Nicholas being friends. Odd they both had bankruptcies and intense troubles around the same time. Suze1 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it. Both were given poor advice by lawyers. Nicholas relied on his useless brother to pay the bill (in both names) and when he didn't they simply bankrupted him. In John's case he paid his half off - eventually. In GLF's case, he had plenty of landed assets and some money in the bank (the land-rich, cash-poor scenario) but they were all frozen by Inhibitions. I remember this saga well. It was in his interests therefore to over-ride these strictures by appointing a Trustee to wind up his estate and pay all his bills. His estate was thus protected and he got nearly all of his assets back. So not a bankruptcy in the strict sense of the word. Thats why relying on and citing a statutory notice in the Gazette is so wrong and unfair. I know they said in the newspaper that Nicholas was Schizophrenic but he always semed perfectly normal to me and I have never heard of any public bad or peculiar behaviour. Personally I am of the opinion that what he really suffered from was clinical depression. Sussexman 08:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this a little further but not in this forum. Please do email me if you can. Suze1 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

Would it be possible to put a photograph of Lord Nicholas on this article?