Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning
|
|
| Contents |
Proposed move
Is there something wrong with Alfred Thompson Denning, Lord Denning of Whitchurch? -- Kaihsu 15:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
- It is incorrect because "of Whitchurch" is a "territorial qualification" which should not be used in even the most formal writing. Furthermore, "Alfred Denning, Baron Denning" is, in this case, more correct than "Alfred Denning, Lord Denning." -- Emsworth 14:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Speaking of article names, is there a specific reason why it's not just called "Lord Denning"? Following the naming conventions the most commonly used name should be used. Though Denning may have had a title of "Baron of Whitchurch", etc., he has always referred to as "Lord Denning" in legal literature and court decisions. Given that he is probably one of the most cited Judges in the 20th century, I would put a lot of weight on that name being the "convention". Any thoughts? -- PullUpYourSocks 20:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's probably most appropriate to move all the quotes to wikiquote. I think it's important to show some quotes since part of the real charm of Denning is his writing style. However, I don't think large blocks of quote really fit well here. I suspect it was a large factor in getting denied as a Feature Candidate. I hope no one objects. Please feel free to give some suggestions. Cheers! PullUpYourSocks 03:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
- The redirect from Lord Denning is sufficient. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agree absolutely with everything said by John. Mackensen (talk) 07:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for all the usual reasons. Jooler
Comments
Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9342275) has it as "Denning, Alfred Thompson Denning, Baron", though I agree that the current name is a little clumsy. The suggested move brings it into line with List of cases involving Lord Denning but out of line with other similar articles, like Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (though it is at the moment anyway). violet/riga (t) 19:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give much value to the naming of List of cases involving Lord Denning since I made it. PullUpYourSocks 02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names. Some time ago I made the mistake of linking the Duke of Wellington to the first Duke. This set of a storm because some people look at these things from the other end. As the full title should be given (As it is on Margret Thatcher page) are you suggesting changing the title. If not then what is wrong with the current redirect Lord Denning? Philip Baird Shearer 20:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the title of Baron is appropriate for the article name at all, his status as a baron is incidental to his fame. He is not famous as a baron just as Margret Thatcher isn't famous for her title. In fact, I don't even think recieved the title until well into his career. The crux of my reasoning is that the name "Lord Denning" has huge cachet value in law, it's a name synonymous with many concepts of law, and the name itself has historical and symbolic significance. As I mentioned elsewhere, he's written about quite often in the highest courts around the world. If you go to a legal database like http://www.worldlii.org and search for "Lord Denning" you'll find many of references to him, but you won't find any reference to Baron Denning or Alfred Denning. -- PullUpYourSocks 02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Most peers are "best known as Lord so and so" but this is a clumsy form that doesn't sit well for encyclopedias. Note that we don't call the page on Hailsham "Lord Hailsham" and not just because both father and son were known by it. The conventions on peerages have been discussed for quite some time - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage for instance - and it would be clumsy to start making changes on individual pages that would throw the whole system into a mess. Timrollpickering 09:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What Timrollpickering says. Near every peer is best known as "Lord Soandso". We can't put articles there, because that would make a mess. We have clear standards for articles on peers, and this fits in with that perfectly well. Note that Lord Byron is at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, Lord Tennyson is at Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, and so forth. john k 15:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would not go so far to suggest that the naming convention for Peers should be changed, keeping a tidy consistency goes a long way, however if (and that’s a big if) there ever were a case for exception I think this would be one. My main issue is that I don’t think it’s appropriate to use titular names that are ancillary or completely unrelated to why we should care about this person. The identifying name that is most famous, I feel, should trump formal titles. On a global scale no one knows of Denning as a baron or even really for his peerage. In fact, once he earned his peerage he didn’t even stay at the House of Lords for more than a few years until he moved back down the Court of Appeal but the name stuck anyway. In the capacities as a baron or peer he did not do anything very notable. Instead, he’s known almost exclusively around the world as “Lord Denning”, the maverick judge on the Court of Appeal. Actually, he is probably the only (or at least the most famous) Judge who is studied in countries outside of the UK. The name earned a mythical quality, irrespective of his status in the House of Lords. I can sympathize with the preference towards formal titles and would leave the final judgment to those with deeper knowledge of the subject of naming conventions. Nevertheless, I think there is a compelling argument to use the name that is more internationally recognized. -- PullUpYourSocks 16:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking about. Surely Lord Denning, whom I had never heard of until this dispute, is not better known than Lord Byron or Lord Palmerston, or any of the many other Barons, Viscounts, Earls, and Marquesses known as "Lord Soandso." I see nothing in this particular case that justifies revision of our general peerage naming conventions. john k 18:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- RIght, I should clarify myself and say he's the 20th century's most well-known judge from the UK. He fame exists primarily in the legal world, but within that world his name is huge. I think the fact that he is not well known outside that world goes towards my argument as him as an exception. Like Conrad Black or say Paul McCartney they are both famous within their own spheres (in PM's case, a bit outside too!), but just because each earned a royal title should not mean that he should necessarily be referred to it in most cases. In thd case of Denning, as with Conrad and Paul, the title is peripheral to who they are. The Lord Palmerston example speaks directly to my point as well, he is famous as a peer, part of the aristocracy of the time. Both him and Byron had hereditary titles so I'm sure that the title of Baron or Viscount were very important in identifying who they were, it was part of their identity. Denning recieved his title only as an accolade to what he had accomplished in the legal world. I think the "Lord" part of the name is the deceiving part. His status as Lord is totally unremarkable, but his status as a Judge however is remarkable, it only so happens the nick-name "Lord Denning" has stuck to him so well. -- PullUpYourSocks 20:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense. Palmerston wasn't even in the House of Lords, since he was an Irish Peer. He is famous as Lord Palmerston because that is what you call someone who is a Viscount. Similarly, Lord Byron is called Lord Byron not because his hereditary peerage was particularly important, but simply because this is what a baron is called by. It is exactly the same situation as with Lord Denning. He is famous, and is mostly known as Lord Denning. he is called Lord Denning because he was a life peer. And he is mostly known as Lord Denning, because that is what judges who are lords are mostly known by. Conrad Black became famous before he was a lord, and is mostly known as Conrad Black, although he's occasionally called Lord Black. Basically, we have two options for peers. If the peer is not known by their peerage title, you use their name, e.g. Conrad Black, Harold Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher, and so forth. If they are best known as "Lord Soandso," they go at their name and peerage title, as George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, Alfred Denning, Baron Denning, Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Those are your options. In this case, the proper place is very clear, as you yourself point out. He is known as Lord Denning. Therefore, he goes at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. If you think this is a bad convention, you're welcome to try and get it changed (although I know that I would argue against the change). But this particular example is very clearly not one where an exception to a general rule should be made. john k 20:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Denning's most famous accomplishments were before his peerage, but only appreciated in the legal world once he gained the title so the title was pretty much inescapable. I appreciate your argument for the strict use of the title, but what I'm trying to get at is that his fame under the two words "Lord Denning" is so significant that it has effectively changed what was just a title governed by a titular formula to a nickname that is so broadly recognised that it becomes almost farcical to refer to him generically as "Baron Denning". I think it is this issue of "fame" that I am not able convince others of, and honestly I don't know what more I can tell you to do so. There does not seem to be anyone who knows who Denning is beyond what this article says or what can be found on google, nor are there many legal professionals lurking around the 'pedia who could vouche for this, so I'm at a loss. To satisfy your discomfort in the use of "Lord" alone, I would suggest compromising by using his name Alfred Thompon Denning as it would be more useful than the archaic title of "Baron Denning". However, as my argument does not seem to be gaining any traction with those around, I will leave the issue alone. I appreciate being heared out. -- PullUpYourSocks 04:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lord Denning is simply what he is referred to because he was a baron. This is absolutely no different from Lord Byron, which is just as recognized, and referring to a far more famous figure. This page is exactly where it should be. john k 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Decision
Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 19:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)