Talk:John Russell, 1st Earl Russell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) a courtesy title like Lord John Russell is used in a wiki title, because unlike a peerage (which applies in addition to a personal name) a courtesy title or honorifix is included in the personal name. Thus many holders of a courtesy title are known universally with it and frequently unrecognisable without it. This was debated some time ago and a convention agreed on this point. Russell is known by 100% of people as Lord John Russell, by 0% of people as John Russell. So I have renamed the article to follow the relevant wiki convention. ÉÍREman 22:04 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Good move, JTD. Any title for this entry that does not include the words "Lord John Russell" will never be found by anyone searching for it. Tannin 22:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Mmm...I think I have some issues with this article title. Technically, John Russell, 1st Earl Russell is correct. The current title is technically correct. I tend to think that we should either 1) have the main article at Lord John Russell, but have the opening line be "John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (known until 1861 as Lord John Russell); or 2) have it fully correct, and put the article at John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, knowing that Lord John Russell redirects there. I'd tend towards the second option, but seeing the opinions previously expressed, I suspect it would face strong opposition. So how about just moving it back to Lord John Russell? john 01:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've moved it back to Lord John Russell. John Russell, 1st Earl Russell redirects there, which is hopefully satisfactory enough, although I wouldn't complain if the article were moved there. Combining his style as the son of an earl with the title he acquired when he became an earl himself was not a good idea... -- Oliver P. 02:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. (Quibble: son of a duke). I changed the header around to be more along the lines normally used for such articles. john 04:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for fixing that. And I meant son of a duke, of course... :) -- Oliver P. 23:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, I think that it would be appropriate in all cases to use in the article title the highest title by which an individual was ever known, except Prime Ministers later made Peers. (Clement Attlee, not Earl Attlee, etc.) -- Lord Emsworth 02:34, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm...What about a prime minister who was a peer for part of his time as PM, as Disraeli and Russell? Or one who became a higher degree of peer after being PM, as Goderich/Ripon? Or one who was at least as famous for his time after becoming peer as for his time as PM before (this might work for Ripon, but definitely for Addington/Sidmouth?) Or what about someone who succeeded to a peerage late in his tenure as, say, foreign secretary, and committed suicide a few months later (er...Castlereagh/Londonderry)? I think it's hard to come up with a hard and fast rule on this, and we should just use best judgment, but who knows? john 05:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-
- I think that my statement would generally and satisfactorily apply for the recent Prime Ministers (i.e. after 1905). Perhaps I should have made the distinction. But prior to that year, most PMs seem to be associated with the Peerage title rather than with the Common title. I would here agree that judgement should be used in each case. -- Lord Emsworth 11:45, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
Bringing up the point of the naming of the page again, I second the idea that we should have a fully correct title: John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. -- Lord Emsworth 16:54, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, Disraeli was just moved to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, so maybe we should move Russell. How about the full title being used for the actual page, and the more common names used as redirects? Mackensen 17:10, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The practices of three other encyclopaediae are:
- Britannica: "Russell , John Russell, 1st Earl, Viscount Amberley Of Amberley And Of Ardsalla" [1]
- Microsoft Encarta: "Russell, John, 1st Earl Russell of Kingston Russell" [2]
- Columbia: "Russell, John Russell, 1st Earl" [3]
It would appear that, if these three are indicative of the general sentiments of encyclopaedia editors, no need to indicate the courtesy title in the article title exists. I agree that the more "common" names be used as redirects. I will commence a discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage talk page on the matter of including or not including peerage titles, and I think that there ought to be a clear naming convention on when titles may be excluded from the article title. -- Lord Emsworth 17:51, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] laissez faire policies
how are protectionist import tariffs to be seen as laisse-faire policies? Intangible 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is "statesman" encyclopaedic language?
I think people (Irish people, particularly) might reasonably disagree with the statement "Russell was a statesman". I'll change it to "politican". Thisrod 01:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What's unencyclopedic about statesman?Richard75 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Factory act
Oh dear, what a negative view of Lord John Russell. True, he was guilty over the potato famine, but what about his good deeds: "During this first premiership (1846-1852), he helped pass legislation limiting working hours in factories in the 1847 Factory Act and was responsible for the passing of the Public Health Act of 1848. This ministry also ended restrictions on colonial trade by repealing the Navigation Acts in 1849." http://www.dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/pms/russell.htm Ogg 10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
