Jump to content

Talk:George Young, Baron Young of Cookham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Chief Whip by any other name...

It is not exactly right to point out that all the major parties have chief whips. That is certainly true, but unmodified, Chief Whip refers to the Government Chief Whip. See, for example, here. Numerous other examples can be found of members, front bench and back bench, following this usage. On the other hand, we are not the House of Commons, so the question is really whether we should expect people to figure it out (either by that usage or the presence of a Treasury position immediately below it) or find out the situation from the article. I take no position on that. There is also the question of there being a person in the Lords who gets the same treatment. While "of the House of Commons" is clearly wrong, "in the House of Commons" is a reasonable qualifier. Perhaps "Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons" would make a decent compromise. I could take care of it with AWB if this is agreed to. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"the homeless are what you step over when you come out of the opera"

The source given for this is a New Statesman article from 2012. I think there is a substantial probability that the quote is apocryphal. I haven't been able to pin down the exact story or quotation from a reliable source from nearer the time (some time between 1990 and 1992. One source even gives 1989; this is more unlikely because he wasn't housing minister then).

Opera, Volume 43, Issues 1-6, 1992, pg 40: "'[The homeless] are the sort of people you step on when you leave the opera.' Sir George Young, Minister of Housing in Her Majesty's Government, at a Tory Party dinner on 28 June 1991"

Social Problems and the Family, edited by Rudi Dallos, Eugene McLaughlin, 1993, pg 238: "'Homeless people are the sort you tread on when you come out of the opera' Mail on Sunday, You Magazine, 1991"

Housing Magazine (published by The Institute of Housing): "Sir George Young dismissed press suggestions that he had told Dulwich Conservatives that the homeless were 'people that you step on when you come out of the opera'."

Hutson and Liddiard in Environmental Risks and the Media, edited by Stuart Allan, Barbara Adam, Cynthia Carter, 2000, pg 162: "The Sunday Correspondent 14 Jan 1990 showed a picture of George Young stepping over 'huddled bodies'." Who Hutson and Liddiard are quoting "huddled bodies" from is not clear.

cagliost (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Addition PC postnomial

I'd just like to point out something: when one becomes a baron or a viscount or an earl, s/he is given the style of The Right Honourable regardless of their membership (or lack) of the Privy Council. Therefore, if a baron/viscount/earl is a member of the privy Council, the postnomial letters of 'PC' should be affixed to their name.

Sdrqaz (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Sir George Young as the compromise title. Also it seems to be the most commonly recognized name for the subject in reliable sources. Aervanath (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


George Young (politician) → George Young, Baron Young of Cookham – Article name according to WP:NCPEER. He is very well known by his personal name and received a peerage after his retirement, but the title should be in the article name for disambigution. Editor FIN (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:NCPEER states "There are several exceptions to these rules. Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell"). Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher")." AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:NCPEER – "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". The original move was listed as an "uncontroversial technical request", which was somewhat sophistical. Keri (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Keri did you miss the part that said "There are several exceptions to these rules. Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell"). Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher")." AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No. And that is "an exception", not "the rule." Did you miss the part where I wrote Support Per WP:NCPEER – "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title"? Keep your passive-aggressive snark to yourself. Keri (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It is the general rule for people who are well-known prior to their life peerage. AusLondonder (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
But exception to that is where the peerage title is useful for disambigution as in this case (WP:NCPEER). --Editor FIN (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Young was George Young, 6th Baronet some 45 years before Wikipedia even existed. In the 70s, the distinction was important to prevent confusion with another Conservative politician, on the right of the party, George Young. George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, is not an "exceptional" case - unlike eg Margaret Thatcher, who was a commoner when she attained her notability. Keri (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Sir" should never be used in a Wikipedia page title per WP:TITLESINTITLES. Nor should titles such as "The Hon" or "Dr" or "Senator". Also, have you fully read WP:NCPEER and the part about those who are well-known prior to a life peerage? AusLondonder (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Constantly snarking that people haven't read the guideline and making the same reply again and again to opinions/!votes is an example of bludgeoning the process. It is bordering on the tendentious. Keri (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, you try and use these tactics to shut down the proper debate and discussion process associated with move discussions. Also, WP:SIG AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The "proper debate and discussion process" does not require your passive-aggressive snark questioning other editors' ability to read, nor your bludgeoning of the process. Keri (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that The Traditionalist has fully read WP:NCPEER. Sir can be used in the article name for disambigution and peerage title is used for disambigution (when needed) for peers who were well-known before receiving the peerage. WP:TITLESINTITLES doesn't generally prohibit the use of Sir in article names. --Editor FIN (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: From WP:NCPEER: A baronet should never be referred to with the title but without "Sir" preceding (e.g. do not use "William Williams, 2nd Baronet").--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also from WP:NCPEER: Members of the British peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title" [...] There are several exceptions to these rules [...] Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher"). [...] An exception to the above exceptions is where the peerage title is useful for disambiguation, e.g. Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury.
In other words, when the only alternative to William Williams, Baron Williams of Wilmington is William Williams (politician), we should use the former.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised you would be so misleading, User:The Traditionalist. WP:NCPEER states "Baronets should, if no disambiguation is required, have their article located at the simple name, e.g. George Albu (rather than "Sir George Albu, 1st Baronet")" It also states "Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" (which is a redirect)." AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sir George Young isn't a knight, so your 2nd point has no practical relevance. As to the first, Sir George Young isn't the only politician named "George Young", was titled before he became a politician and not after he retired, and has always been referred to as "Sir" throughout his professional life. Keri (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Keri - you do realise the move request isn't to Sir George Young right? The proposed move is to George Young, Baron Young of Cookham. A title he did not have prior to entering politics. AusLondonder (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm merely responding to your flawed arguments. You might also note that Sir George Young, 6th Baronet has been suggested by 2 other editors above. Keri (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So you respond with more flawed arguments? I would oppose a move to Sir George Young, 6th Baronet, because virtually no source during his time an MP described him in that way. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Consensus as determined here is to move the page. It just needs to be decided now whether that is to Sir George Young, 6th Baronet or George Young, Baron Young of Cookham. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Keri (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME works in the reverse, too: I may remove the title if the holder is universally known without it, but I may add it if the holder is universally known with it. It is that simple.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but are you saying Young is "universally" known as "George Young, Baron Young of Cookham"? AusLondonder (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: No, not at all. I said that he is universally known as "Sir George Young[, 6th Baronet]".--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense, User:The Traditionalist. Let's have a look at some sources:
AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You completely missed the point. The use of square brackets to enclose "6th Baronet" indicates that it is subordinate to the subordinate clause (in this case, "Sir George Young"). The Traditionalist is demonstrating that he is widely known as "Sir George Young", not "George Young". Per NCPEER, the article would not be titled "Sir George Young", it would be "Sir George Young, 6th Baronet". Every single one of those sources you link explicitly calls him "Sir George Young", not "George Young" or "George Young (politician)". Keri (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Which means that per WP:NCPEER his article should absolutely not be titled Sir George Young, 6th Baronet under any circumstances. WP:NCPEER states "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell"). Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher")." AusLondonder (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, Keri, if you support the title being "Sir George Young, 6th Baronet" is there any reason you have !voted to move to George Young, Baron Young of Cookham? AusLondonder (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Keri: This is precisely what I meant.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I cannot find the reason for you not being able to comprehend what we are saying. I will say it again. Pay attention:

  • We have here this distinguished gentleman whose first name is "George" and his surname is "Young".
  • This gentleman inherited his title, the Young baronetcy of Formosa Place, in 1960.
  • He entered politics in 1974, after inheriting the title, as you can see. Thus, for the whole of his interesting political career, he was known as "Sir George Young", since "Sir" is an inalienable part of a Baronet's style.
  • He was raised to the peerage in 2015, with the title of Baron Young of Cookham, of Cookham in the Royal County of Berkshire
  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should not move the article to reflect his being given a peerage, because he was very famous before being given a peerage.
  • On the other hand, it is improper to refer to him just as "Sir George Young". Thus "Sir George Young, 6th Baronet" is the ideal heading for the article.

--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that Keri voted for "George Young, Baron Young of Cookham" because moving the article back to "Sir George Young, 6th Baronet" had not been suggested yet.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's a lot of bomb-throwing here. I wrote the baronet naming convention back in the dark ages, so let me shed some light. The purpose of it was provide a common disambiguated article title for baronets, similar to what already existed for peers. There are three possible article titles:
  • Any of these is acceptable for various reasons. If he's frequently referred to as "Sir George Young" then the first of these is the more natural disambiguation. Newspapers don't often reference baronetcies directly, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a baronet. May I suggest Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon as a useful precedent? He's best known as Sir Edward Grey, his peerage came after the active point in his career, but the article is still located where it is because it's a natural title and because it would be strange to locate the article based on his baronetcy when he ascended to a higher title. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mackensen: I agree that "Sir George Young, 6th Baronet" is the more natural heading, per WP:COMMONNAME, however, if we are to follow Lord Grey's example, we should move the page to "George Young, Baron Young of Cookham". I disagree with you that it would be strange to locate the article based on a junior title. There is precedent for that, too.--The Traditionalist (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I completely oppose a move to Sir George Young, 6th Baronet per WP:NCPEER which states "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")". I would suggest keeping the current name or, for disambiguation purposes and per WP:COMMONNAME, a move to Sir George Young AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Sir George Young" as a compromise.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Young,_Baron_Young_of_Cookham/Archive_1&oldid=1076357738"