Jump to content

Talk:First Salisbury ministry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dyke was not in the cabinet

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not sure how to fix it, exactly, but Dyke was not in the cabinet as Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Irish cabinet position was held by Lord Carnarvon as Lord Lieutenant. Carnarvon resigned about a week before the cabinet fell, at which point Smith took the Irish portfolio as Chief Secretary, remaining in the cabinet, and Cranbrook (temporarily?) took back the War Office. The government fell soon after. john k (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure why we're calling this a caretaker ministry. It lasted for over six months. If the Conservatives had either been able to do better in the general election, they'd have continued. I don't think the 19th century really had the idea of a caretaker ministry (indeed, the only genuinely caretaker ministry I can think of is Churchill's ministry during the 1945 general election. john k (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just call it the "First Salisbury ministry", which it certainly was? john k (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over a hundred reliable sources refer to this ministry as the Salisbury caretaker ministry. I shall rectify the situation regarding Dyke.--Nevé–selbert 19:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's 1350 Google Books results for "first Salisbury ministry." john k (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First Salisbury ministry still redirects. It's just that Salisbury caretaker ministry is a more descriptive title.--Nevé–selbert 17:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be named "First Salisbury ministry" with "Salisbury caretaker ministry" as a redirect. First Salisbury ministry is the more recognisable name, it appears in more sources. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the more recognisable name, merely the more popular and least descriptive one. The present title is infinitely more descriptive than First Salisbury ministry. This was a caretaker government as per the sources above. We should aim for the most descriptive title.--Nevé–selbert 02:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have outlined some points about Wikipedia policy on article naming at Talk:First Salisbury Unionist ministry which should be read first, but to post the information specifically related to this article here,
Simply stated, 'First Salisbury ministry' is both more common and recognisable than 'Salisbury caretaker ministry' The former is the term used by the significant majority of the sources when discussing the ministry in question, and is therefore best compliant with naming policy. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you see the point about First Salisbury Unionist ministry. But with respect to this page, the vast majority of sources identify the 1885–1886 ministry as 'First Salisbury ministry' and not 'Salisbury caretaker ministry'. The article name needs to reflect what the significant majority of sources say, and not give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. ToastButterToast (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of sources identify the 1885–1886 ministry as a caretaker ministry, and over a hundred reliable sources refer to this ministry as the "Salisbury caretaker ministry" or as "Salisbury's caretaker government". The present title does indeed reflect what the significant majority of sources say. Your point about there being "undue weight to a minority viewpoint" is absolute nonsense. The British government refers to this ministry as "the caretaker government of 1885", for crying out loud. I have compromised with you on the abbreviations and with the Regency at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I am also willing to concede the title of the other article. Now if only you could learn to give and take as well.--Nevé–selbert 20:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an an incredibly misleading search result, it is hugely broad and undoubtedly includes countless results which aren't related to the topic at hand. When searching for the actual name of the article "salisbury caretaker ministry/government" you are returned with 105 results. A search for "first salisbury ministry/government" returns 1,560 results. I'm not denying that some authors would describe the ministry as caretaker in nature, but very few address it as the 'Salisbury caretaker ministry'. Most authors prefer the more straightforward 'First Salisbury ministry' ToastButterToast (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a misleading search result. Numerous sources refer to this ministry as a caretaker government, hence there is absolutely nothing wrong in retaining the present title. The name "first Salisbury ministry" isn't descriptive at all. This was a caretaker ministry, just as the Wellington caretaker ministry and Churchill caretaker ministry both were. You are shamelessly waving away hundreds of sources to suit your bias. The present title is WP:DESCRIPTIVE and WP:CONCISE.--Nevé–selbert 21:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are being utterly unreasonable here. You can't have your cake and eat it. Please take some time out to consider the compromise.--Nevé–selbert 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DESCRIPDIS: Descriptive title: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. "First Salisbury ministry" was not the official name of the government and neither is it the most descriptive for disambiguation. The present title is undeniably descriptive and has been used in hundreds of RS.--Nevé–selbert 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely fed up with arguing points like this. You are wrong, I have explained the reasoning that you are wrong, but you continue to argue the point to exhaustion like several times before and ask for compromise on something where compromise would create an incorrect result. You are refusing to get the point and it is now bordering on disruptive. Moving to 'Salisbury caretaker ministry' has proved controversial. I suggest you revert the page back to 'First Salisbury ministry', otherwise I will do so later. Afterwards, you can attempt to build consensus for the move, because it appears that there is no consensus here. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not the one in the wrong here, and likewise I have explained the reasoning as to why you are wrong about this tirelessly. This is not about "creating an incorrect result", that is complete and utter insanity on your part. Hundreds of reliable sources refer to this ministry as a caretaker ministry. I am certainly not being disruptive and yet again you are assuming bad faith for no intelligent reason at all, and I cannot say I am surprised. If you do indeed move the article back I will request that your move be reverted at WP:RM#TR. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the title of this article. I have cited sources over and over and you carry on ignoring them. I am just as fed up with arguing with you.--Nevé–selbert 21:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion closed?

[edit]

Not sure I understand why the discussion has been closed, but I agree with ToastButterToast. "First Salisbury ministry" whether it is more or less descriptive than the other name, is certainly the most common one, which is what is supposed to guide our article naming procedures. john k (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion because I decided to concede. The title can remain as is, per WP:COMMONNAME.--Nevé–selbert 06:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's because the discussion was closed before all contributors had the opportunity to have their final say. Anyway, just to hijack this. Is there a reason that you have listed Salisbury as 'de facto' Prime Minister in this revision and on the other Salisbury ministry pages? It isn't really straight forward what constitutes 'de facto' or 'de jure' and when that terminology is even relevant to the discussion. In a sense, all Prime Ministers of the period were 'de facto' as the office wasn't acknowledge by legislation, so it's redundant terminology. But to complicate matters further, when describing a 'de facto Prime Minister' it's usually in reference to someone who is practising the powers of the Prime Minister without holding that office itself, which again, theoretically doesn't exist in this case. This can actually get really messy, I did a quick search and found a source talking about 'de facto' Prime Ministers which conveniently enough was about Salisbury and Balfour. You can read the source yourself (the relevant bit is quite short), but effectively the claim being made is that Salisbury was frequently absent and Balfour was having to make a lot of the decisions in Salisbury's place, which made him 'de facto' Prime Minister long before 1902 when he became 'de jure' Prime Minister.
I hope this doesn't trigger a lot of backlash, but I think that it would be better to omit 'de facto' and instead have a footnote just explaining that Prime Minister wasn't a formal ministerial appointment. ToastButterToast (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. Salisbury's also in the weird position where, except briefly at the beginning of his second ministry, he doesn't hold the office (First Lord of the Treasury) that basically every other 19th and 20th century prime minister, and the vast majority of 18th century prime ministers, all held as PM. john k (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel absolutely free to add a footnote, I am not opposed to that.--Nevé–selbert 18:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Salisbury_ministry&oldid=1202021221"