Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 12 February 2008

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

His father, Michael David - a Scots Guards officer - died from wounds received at Dunkirk; his father, Felix, also an officer in the Scots Guards, died

--So who was his father? Michael David or Felix? --Aggiebud 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He was one of those hereditary peers expelled from the Upper House by the Blair Labour government. The Lord Sudeley has been active in the Monday Club, a traditional conservative group since the 1960s.

• This is one of several skewed edits written by the same editor or editors. See also Western Goals Institute for more information. CJCurrie 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have followed CJCurrie here. The above is a factual statement. its not a question of whether Mr.Currie likes it. Its a question of whether it is true, or not. Just how does he get away with these comments? Robert I 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence quoted is not strictly NPOV. David | Talk 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it struck me as a bit skewed (the word "expelled" seems somewhat contentious). My main objection was to the second sentence, in any event. CJCurrie 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was saying - it's not neutral to refer to someone as being expelled because it implies a punishment and a forceful move. Best to use a neutral phrase such as "He was among the hereditary peers whose membership of the House of Lords ceased in 1999.". David | Talk 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I misread your initial post, sorry. CJCurrie 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the hereditary peerage were expelled from Their House, where they have sat for 1000 years. At least thats the way they and just about everyone else sees it. Robert I 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear that Sudeley is one of those in the group of 100 or so peers who are going to raise a constitutional legal challenge against their expulsions. 86.129.69.37 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic facts

Can someone explain why non-notable club memberships and such like are encyclopaedic? Also a lot here is uncited, and this reads like a fairly absurd puff-piece combined with WW entry. Unless a reason is given, harsher cleanup will be undertaken. Relata refero (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you call non-notable club memberships are consistently referred to in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, they are particularly relevant when he did launch a campaign to save the modernisation of Brooks's, I believe. No doubt there's a source out there. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We both know that there was a point in time when club memberships conveyed encyclopaedic information to those capable of understanding it; that is no longer the case. I imagine that the old DNB had that information for excellent reasons; I would be perturbed if more recent entries contain that information; if they do, it is likely for continuity and we are hardly expected to do likewise. If a particular membership is indeed notable it will, as you say, be confirmed by external sources as notable. Relata refero (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a little too opinionated. You can be as "perturbed" as you like. The various memberships tell the reader something of the subject. That is why they are included in Debretts, Burkes, Whittakers, Kellys, Dods, and just about any other biographical entries one can name. You should maybe stick to subjects about which you have a better grasp. Biographies are clearly not your thing. Chelsea Tory (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, in this day and age, they tell us nothing. Debretts is many things, but it is not an encyclopaedia and Misplaced Pages is not a directory.

I tire, frankly, of you telling me what I do and do not grasp. I would quote Browning at you, if I knew it would register. Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very superior, aren't you. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, which non-notable club memberships did you actually propose to remove? The Conservative Monday Club and the International Monarchist League both seem fairly relevant in light of his political activities. Choess (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more Brooks'! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the authors of the article could move some of the citations inline, for consistency; it does look like much of the material is sourced, but it's hard to know what came from what reference. Choess (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Low-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles