Talk:Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents

[edit] Dubious: Article may have melded two people.

According to UK Peerage creations (a personal website, so might need further verification),

  • Lord Campbell of Colgrain was created a peer on 28 January 1946 "L. Colgrain of Everlands in the County of Kent – Colin Frederick Campbell (died 3 Nov 1954)"
  • Lord Campbel of Eskan was created peer 14 January 1966 "L. Campbell of Eskan of Camis Eskan in the County of Dumbarton – John Middleton Campbell (died 26 Dec 1994)"

so it seems to me that John Middleton Campbell, the Jock Cambell of Milton Keynes Development Corporation was Campbell of Eskan, not Campbell of Colgrain. So the next question is whether the bio is correct and only the peerage is wrong, or whether we have a melding of two bios. Needs research! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately not. The only error is in is his title. Lord Colgrain (3rd Baron Colgrain) was his cousin. Jock had to be Lord Eskan because his cousin had already taken the Colgrain title. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Jock Campbell → Lord Campbell of Eskan — The formal title is normal for British peers. "Jock Campbell" will remain as a redirect to the moved article —John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support since I initiated the move for the reasons stated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a bit It is not at all clear that the normal format for hereditary peers, which we do largely for disambiguation, needs to be followed for life peers. When peers are almost always known by some other name (as with Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell), we should certainly follow English usage over our own inventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I can see the logic in that. I suspect that if someone searched for Bertrand Russell and ended up with some longwinded article title, their immediate reaction would be that they had reached the wrong article. I'm a lot less sure now! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The guidelines are clear. All peers should have their titles in articles titles UNLESS they are are widely known without it, i.e. Bertrand Russell, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Rab Butler and so on. This person is not widely known and his article should be at Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan.--UpDown (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is the guideline, but how is he known? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well I can't comment on whether he is known as Jock or John, but I'm sure that can be easily established. However, I can say that this person is not widely known without his title, and therefore his title should be part of the article title.--UpDown (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support It seems correct, though, some sources one way or the other would probably be useful. A newspaper article concerning him or such. Narson (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support* I am the person who created this entry. I support the move but will change the title to Lord Campbell of Eskan since that is his correct title. (Arunadasi (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Strongly Oppose since this is not his correct title, see the discussion below. Many don't understand the correct usage of the title "Lord". He was made a (life) peer in the Peerage of the United Kingdom with the title "Baron Campbell of Eskan". According to peers the title of "Lord" is only used as a salutation in letter or as oral addressing, i.e. "Dear Lord X" (see Styles in_the_United_Kingdom and Lord). Also it is used in biographies, the text is for example started with "Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan was born in ...." and further in the text as "Lord Campbell (of Eskan)", "Jock Campbell", or simply "Campbell". This is the case for peers with ranking from baron upto Marquess. Exception is for the rank Duke who aren't named Lord. The move would only be right in case he was a Lord in the Peerage of Scotland. Demophon (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I'm not clear whether his correct title is "Baron Campbell of Eskan" or "Lord Campbell of Eskan", since he was a (Scottish) life peer. Please advise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was "Baron Campbell of Eskan". "Lord" rather than "Baron" as the correct formal designation applies only to peerages in the Peerage of Scotland. As his peerage was in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, he was a Baron, regardless of his origin. Hope that helps. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan, the normal format for peers. Other than that, I support the move. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems a much better article title to me. I'm skeptical that he's better known by his correct title. Can we have a poll fork to support Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan? Andrewa (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Every reference that I have found uses the simple, unadorned, "Jock Campbell". Consequently, I feel now that the RTM should be abandoned and the article left as it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • But that is not Wikipedia policy. Only if he universally known as Jock Campbell (ie a former PM or someone like Richard Attenborough) should his peerage not be included. This man is not famous to qualify under that.--UpDown (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm happy to follow whatever the relevant MoS says, if someone would point it out please (perferably the relevant bit). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Move completed as discussed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
              • According to his biography Sweetening Bitter Sugar, a copy of which I own, he is Lord Campbell of Eskan. (Arunadasi (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
                • Yes, he was Lord Campbell of Eskan. His title, however, was Baron Campbell of Eskan - Barons are always known as "Lord [title]". We use the formal title when setting out names, though. In the text of the article, though, he should indeed be referred to as "Lord Campbell of Eskan" if a title is used. Proteus (Talk) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jock Campbell/New Statesman Prize?

Does anyone have any material to add on this? So far the best I've found from a web search is that the first winner was Chinua Achebe for Arrow of God (1965). Surely there must be more somewhere? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)