Talk:William Russell, Lord Russell

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Bedfordshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The infobox box status of this article has been marked as: Complete

Moved from Wikipedia:Cleanup - November 29, 2005

William Russell, Lord Russell - it's from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, so if I was to suggest that it was just bad writing, that would probably make me a philistine. Well, then, I'm a philistine....
In January 1680, Russell, along with Cavendish, Capell, Powell, Essex and Lyttleton, tendered his resignation to the king, which was received by Charles with all my heart.

Some of the references have become obscure over time, and some of the language is a little archaic, but more than this, I think this was just bad writing in 1911, and it's just bad writing now. TheMadBaron 09:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some fixing; more is needed. Besides the archaic language, the original article assumed a fairly intimate knowledge of English politics (e.g., mentioning "the country party" without any further explanation). But Russell was an important politician, so the article is clearly needed (and should not be shortened much more, I think). John Broughton 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Seems a little clumsy. What about William, Lord Russell or Lord William Russell, both of which already redirect to here? --Dweller 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As he was the younger son of a duke, the correct namespace is Lord William Russell. He was not 'William, Lord Russell' or 'Lord Russell'. The current article title treats him as if he were a life peer! I suggest someone moves it. 86.29.203.187 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, I am wrong, ignore that. Looking back through the article's history, it turns out that Lord Russell was a courtesy title that passed to him upon the death of his brother, a fact which someone decided helpfully to edit out at some point. As this happened in 1678 (according to the original article version), and his father wasn't created duke of bedford until 1694, he was never Lord William Russell, so I'm not sure why the redirect exists. The fact that he had a courtesy title held by the earl of bedford seems to have vanished from the article as it currently stands, as has the fact that his brother predeceased him. What left is the statement that he was the third son, which gives a misleading impression. I don't know why the relevant information was removed, by someone ought to put it back. 86.29.203.187 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had the courtesy title from 1678-1683, during much of the period when he was most prominent; so the article title is correct. I have altered the captions of the pictures to "William, Lord Russell". However several things about the article are unsatisfactory. It mentions colleagues, including Lyttleton (?Lyttelton), Hampden (who was linked to the correct person's grandfather), Powell (with a link to some one already dead), and Cavendish. These people need to be identified are correctly linked. Unfortunately they do not appear in the ODNB article. I hope to try to sort this out. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undertaken a major edit, using Dictionary of Natioanl Biography and other sources. I have sought to link all names, but may not have it quite right. I have omitted the reference to Lyttleton, presumably Sir Henry Lyttelton, 2nd Baronet, as he is not mentioned in the sources that I used. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]