Jump to content

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

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

Marriage

[edit]

This section starts with Palmerston married his mistress of many years. A mistress is defined as a woman (other than the man's wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man. So the implication is that he had a wife previous to Emily Lamb but theres no mention of her in the text. It's confusing . Was Emily Lamb his first wife ? In that case she was never his mistress. I get that she was married to Cowper so she could be described as a paramour prior to her marriage to Palmerston. There doesnt seems to be a male term for mistress. I also think this section could be rewritten excluding names that arent really necessary to the plot ( such as the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury) . Everybody in the aristocracy is related to somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:ECD:5C01:D154:EEEA:BBB8:2A63 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Casus belli for Austrian Fleet in English Channel...or was it the Baltic?

[edit]

This section is confusing:

In April Austria's navy was on its way to attack Copenhagen, and Palmerston saw the Austrian ambassador and informed him that Britain could not allow their navy to sail through the English Channel if their intent was to attack Denmark, and if it entered the Baltic the result would be war with Britain. The ambassador replied that the Austrian navy would not enter the Baltic and it did not do so.[83]

What exactly was Palmerston's threat? War if the Austrians entered the Channel? Or war if they entered the Baltic? I ask because it seems odd that the UK would state that they would not let the Austrians into the Channel, but that war wouldn't take place until the Austrians cleared the Channel, sailed up the North Sea, and made it all the way to the Baltic. On a basic level, why wouldn't the Royal Navy want to strike first when the Austrians were in the Channel to begin with?

The citation is to Ridley - could someone with access to that book please check the citation? Tks. Jkp1187 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

The sentence pair: "As a nobleman he was entitled to take his MA without examinations, but Palmerston wished to obtain his degree through examinations. This was declined, although he was allowed to take the examinations, where he obtained first-class honours." doesn't make sense. Needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.218.7 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Would someone please confirm that "Earl Grey, Lord Grey" is the correct form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzmandavid (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I deleted the following timeline:

1784 Born.

1807. Junior Lord of Admirality under Lord Portland. 1809 Secretary at War (till 1828). 1827 Elevated to cabinet under George Canning.

1828 Secretary at War under Duke of Wellington, resigns over Manchester/Brimingham parliamentary representation.

1830 Foreign Secretary under Earl Grey (till 1841).

1846-52 Foreign Secretary under Lord John Russell (till 1851 when he resigned, weeks later bringing down the Russell government).

1852 Home Secretary under Earl of Aberdeen (till Aberdeen's government is brought down by failure in the Crimea war).

1852 Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury.

1856 Peace in Crimea.

1857 Chinese policy crisis, Palmerston loses confidence of Commons but wins election.

1858 resigns over policy on revolutionarys harboured by Britain.

1859 Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury.

1865 Dies (in office).

If someone wants to make complete sentences out of this and merge it into the article instead of just leaving this as sentence fragments, please do so. -- Zoe


Ermm... I'm new here but why delete the page? If there is a question of style surely just making a comment on this talk page would have been better. Instead, I now feel upset that you've removed some of my hard work and (in my view) reduced the usefulness of the encyclopedia.

Nferrier

I'm with Nferrier on this one. There's no reason to remove it purely for grammatical or stylistic reasons. --Dante Alighieri 22:45 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


Anyway, I've changed it. Personally I think timelines are quite useful when you have areas of knowledge not well covered, they mean it's quick and easy to get knowledge onto the net. Removing knowledge from the wiki is surely a bad idea. -- Nferrier

It's general Wikipedia policy that we use complete sentences. -- Zoe

Well, we are talking about timelines here. Check out the entries for dates (i.e, 1846), and you'll see that it's not what I would call general policy in that sort of situation. --Dante Alighieri 00:38 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Hmmm... imho it's still better to not remove knowledge from this wiki because it's prime function is to be a repository of knowledge, not a repository of nicely formatted knowledge. According to the rules of the wiki you should have changed the page to use scentances - if you didn't have time to do that then maybe you should have left it... or put something on the talk page and come back to it later (otherwise you're not giving newbies the chance to learn the rules and improve their contributions). User:Nferrier

I DID put something in the talk page indicating why I deleted the info I did and what needed to be done. It wasn't a matter of not having time, it was a matter of not having the inclination to rewrite the whole thing. -- Zoe

This article reads like it was copied from somewhere (out of copyright encyclopedia?) -- it should say somewhere where this was taken from. There are obvious OCR errors in the text, too.

I made the first version of this article. I wrote it from my own memory of Palmerston's career. The dates and quotes are a matter of public record. The article was radically restructred by others so I can't speak for them. However, originally it was an original /8-> -- Nferrier

Much of it is from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which I copied it from. If there are OCR errors, they should be corrected - I thought I got most of them. john k 20:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

which pocket borough?

[edit]

I have not corrected it as yet, but my sources indicate in 1807 Palmerston was elected for Newport and not Newtown on the Isle of Wight. Both were pocket boroughs although Newtown was amongst the more rotten of the rotten boroughs due to its small size and thus, alongside the similarity in the name, this mistake could easily have been made in more than one source. Any further research on this would be good. (Dainamo, not logged on 14 June 2004)

Although there are other resources on google search giving Newtown, there appears to be more authorative resources in addition to Britannica 1998 edition giving Newport as the correct pocket borough. Additionally patron of pocket borough linked with Palmerston was Sir Leonard Holmes, linked with Newport and not one of the two controlling families of Newtown. Hence, changed it Dainamo


Definitely Newport: According to James Chamber's biography of Palmerston (Palmerston: The People's Darling), it was Newport on the Isle of Wight, but that Palmerston himself was in the habit of incorrectly referring to it as Newton, as did his political patron Earl Malmesbury, who was slightly deaf. -- Q.

Name

[edit]

Did he actually use both forenames, or is this just one of the many peer articles at the full name for no real reason? Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What were his views on the US Civil War Bastie 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston and Aberdeen re the Oregon Question

[edit]

Many years ago in a work of geopolitical/diplomatic history - I think it was in AJP Taylor's 1848-1918: The Struggle for Mastery in Europe - the author says that the Treaty of Washington (the Oregon Treaty) as just ratified by the US Congress was in the mail packet and the vessel being late, still somewhere on the Atlantic when governments changed in England. Had it arrived on time, apparently Aberdeen's plan had been to reject the treaty offered and declare war, but Palmerston wanted to avoid war so signed the treaty (the author, Taylor I'm guessing, said because of his experience on Napoleonic battlefields, and I remember Austerlitz as being mentioned, or one battle in particular). Rejection of the treaty would have signalled British determination to hold to the line of the Columbia River from the 49th Parallel southwards, which had been the last British offer, and would have implied a continental war as well as, implicitly, a struggle for naval superiority in the Pacific, and in one tangential scenario implying British support, or even a protectorate, over then-still-Mexican California. Further implications are irrelevant here, but I'm hoping someone here might have expertise in foreign policy of the day and might be willing/able to comment on particulars of Aberdeen's and Palmerston's particular policies on "Oregon" (the American name for the region, which was variously the Columbia District, New Caledonia or Vancouver Island depending on where you were). The current Oregon boundary dispute and Oregon Treaty articles are very APOV (American point-of-view) although I've done some fixes; but since Canadian history does not address the diplomatic stituation here it's British imperial history that's needed to balance the American context of the current articles (q.v.); and for my own sake I'm interested in the treaty and negotiations and the manoeuvrings in relation to it; apparently Aberdeen had studied the issue through his years in office and knew what was at stake (the best land in the area, among other things, and more extensive ports and coal) while Palmerston didn't have as much of a grasp of it; there were much bigger things going on in the world but apparently for a brief few weeks now and then this became pivotal, as with the Nootka Crisis long before. Anyone got any refs/comments?Skookum1 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor has a tendency to go far out on a limb. If it is his theory, I would not include it here unless it were consensus, which I doubt. (Oregon question is another matter; and even there I would put "A.J.P. Taylor asserts..." as a warning.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

This is an article about one of the UK's greatest prime ministers, who shaped world events. Do we really need a section on a two minute discussion in some Simpson's episode. I'm sure he's been referred to in thousands of works of literature and film. --Sandy Scott 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We don't want anyone to say Pitt the Elder. Pfft, Pitt the Elder. LORD PALMERSTON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.130.136 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per an IMDB character search on "Palmerston," he actually appears as a character in The Lady with the Lamp (1951), about Florence Nightingale; Sixty Glorious Years (1938), about the reign of Queen Victoria; Victoria the Great (1937), likewise; Balaclava (1928), presumably about the Battle of Balaclava; Edward the King (1975), about the life of Edward VII; A Dispatch from Reuter's (1940), apparently about the development of the Reuters wire service; and the French movie "Le Diable boiteux," whose theme is unclear. john k 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says it's about Talleyrand. Presumably a scene late in his life. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Felix Aylmer played him in all three of the first movies. john k 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added his marriage/affair with Lady Cowper, but have not worked out how to insert references (first posting!) - the ref is to Oxford DNB, KD Reynolds 'Temple, Emily' and David Steele 'Temple, Henry John'. Hope this is ok. Subtlemouse 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston → Lord Palmerston — Hello, I think that this is the most common form of the name in English. My Britannica lists the article under "Palmerston, Lord" with the full name written afterwards. In this article itself "Lord Palmerston" appears more than 100 times. — 124.168.213.72 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: On the naming conventions page you linked it cites Palmerston as an example where peerage titles are appropriate as the article name, however the new name would make sense given he was known overwhelmingly as "Lord Palmerston".--Johnbull (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline to support here - I suggest you are on the wrong forum for this change. This is not so much a matter for this individual article as for the naming conventions themselves, which indeed give this as a specific example of when the full title is appropriate! Your quotation is misleading since in full the text is "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" (my emphasis). For what it's worth, my inclination would be for this page to be at Lord Palmerston too (although since "Lord Palmerston" is a redirect, this is a pretty moot point) but for now the naming conventions should be adhered to here, until they are changed by consensus on their own page. Deliberately ignoring our own written naming conventions on an individual article is not the way to go about creating a consistent encyclopaedia. The appropriate place for this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Several other British Prime Ministers would also be likely to have an article move if your suggestion is successful there. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is certainly opposed to the wording of WP:NCNT; on the other hand, consensus to violate a guideline is one way to change it, and this is a borderline case. We use a different title, or none at all, when there is general usage to do so (see Frederick North, Lord North and Bertrand Russell); this is similar: Lord Palmerston primarily means the Prime Minister, not the others. Lord Byron, likewise, primarily means the poet. The reasons not to move are
    • It's a good thing when names are predictable. (I would therefore include his middle name: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston)
    • If we move, some links which intend his father or grandfather will be wrong; but that may be true anyway.
Are these enough to keep the article where it is? Maybe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Palmerston redirects here, so there's no reason why the article couldn't be called that. On the other hand, Lord Palmerston redirects here, so anyone searching for it ends up here. There's no benefit to moving it. As for the dissonance between the page title and the way the subject is referred to in the article, I don't see any problem with that. The page title more or less corresponds with an index entry and nothing more. It's hardly uncommon for people to be indexed one way in a book, yet referred to differently in the text. For example, my trusty biographical dictionary of Belgian women indexes everyone under their birth name, but many subjects are referred to by their married names (which, depending on the era, will either be their husband's family name or a hyphenated combination). Let's say that I'm slightly opposed because I don't see any real benefit from moving the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per TwoMightyGods's comments above: We have a relevant guideline, this change would violate it, so seek to change the guideline, then bring this article into compliance. FactStraight (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Contrary to the guidelines, and I would oppose any move to change the guidelines as well. The system we have at the moment works, and I see no need whatsoever to change it. Proteus (Talk) 09:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Don't be silly. Craigy (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as explained by the previous editors who also oppose. Furthermore, the fact that "Lord Palmerston" appears more than 100 times in the article itself and therefore it should be moved to 'Lord Palmerston' is a strong fallacy. Demophon (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think the reasons given are adequate. Deb (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
The guideline cites Palmerston as the quintessential example of use of full title for a reason. To cite that tired-but-true example, we don't have an article at "Princess Diana" (nor "Queen Mum" nor "the Queen") even though that is the most common reference to her/them, because we balance off one norm against another -- and the one "Princess Diana" and "Lord Palmerston" violate is that they are unencyclopedically informal. He is best known as Lord Palmerston because reporters and history writers adhered to the long-established convention of referring to him as such in articles and books, knowing full well that in a more formal context -- such as an encyclopedia to which people resort when seeking an individual's proper titulature -- he would have been listed by his legal name and peerage title. All else is dumbing down, any worthwhile intent of which is best accomplished through re-directs. FactStraight (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should make it Henry John Temple. Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta all do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They also don't have a "common names" policy as we do. Proteus (Talk) 09:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His common name, 99 times out of 100, is Lord Palmerston, not Henry anything, nor 3rd Viscount. We may indeed be justified in using legal name and title for our convenience; we may even be justified in ignoring the correct form, Henry John, Viscount Palmerston. But if we do, we should follow that guidance, and not dart back in midcourse to omit his middle name; that's no policy at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord Palmerston" is not incorrect; "Princess Diana" would be. Deb (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of paragraph from the introduction

[edit]

I've removed a paragraph from the introduction. I started to explain why in the edit box, but ran out of space. I suspect it was EB 1911 text, and it was a dense web of concepts and phrases couched in old fashioned terms and likely to be misinterpreted by modern readers. And some of the information given seemed to trivial to be covered in the introduction in any case. Choalbaton (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

[edit]

I've moved this back to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston from Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. User:Proteus asked on 4 September 2005 further up the page whether he actually used both forenames, but there has been no answer. He succeeded to the viscountcy before the age of eighteen, and was presumably always addressed as "Lord Palmerston" or "Palmerston" (or, familiarly, "Pam") thereafter. Any source for what he used as his first name would either have to be from before 1802 (e.g. the Harrow school lists) or private letters from someone like Lady Palmerston. Arbitrarily placing the article at the first name, without evidence that this was the name used, results in errors like John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell and Frank Merriman, 1st Baron Merriman. In default of such evidence, the full name should be used, as would be the case in any other encyclopaedia. Opera hat (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although a competent biography might address this.

In a similar vein, whatever his mates called him, he is hardly ever known as "Henry Temple", I suggest that the primary meaning is not him but the US congressman, or failing that there is no primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Orator?

[edit]

Under the heading of Foreign Secretary, I've just read "Palmerston was a great orator". This is widely discredited by historians - he had a way with written communication, and his speech over the Don Pacifico crisis was his peak, but he was renowned for being a poor speaker in his early career. He would start sentences, and forget what it was he was saying, umming and arring. He was very effective in his use of the press to capture popular opinion, but this is very different from expressing it verbally. Palmerston was _not_ a great orator, he was a great communicator in the written form.

R

---

Its a very curious passage to include, and, like much of the rest of this article, its lifted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica but with the meaning changed. Here is the phrase in the Wikipedia article:

"Palmerston was a great orator. His language was relatively unstudied and his delivery somewhat embarrassed, but he generally found words to say the right thing at the right time and to address the House of Commons in the language best adapted to the capacity and the temper of his audience."

And here is what both the 11th and the 13th editions of Britannica says,

"Lord Palmerston was no orator; his language was unstudied, and his delivery somewhat embarrassed; but generally he found the words to say the right thing at the right time, and to address the House of Commons in the language best adapted to the capacity and the temper of his audience."

Clearly the Wikipedia author has lifted this passage and many others from Britannica, but chosen to significantly change the meaning in the process. I've seen quite a few examples of this on Wikipedia relating the the 13th Britannica, where the articles are essentially lifted, but modified in this manner. I haven't checked it recently but the article on Sparta was a stand-out example.

Is this normal and acceptable? Edit: By the way, I ask that in all humility as I really don't know how things go on Wikipedia, so I'm interested in the rules around copying a text but changing the meaning.

Ed R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.105.109 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way forward is to provide proper quotes with proper citations. It is even possible to quote and cite Britannica, as I see it. It is not valid to misquote Britannica without providing a justifications of some sort. AWhiteC (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, he made a famous speech in his constituency (Broadlands in Hampshire or some such place) some time during the 1840s or 1850s, which was one of the first occasions of a leading politician addressing the newspaper-reading public directly rather than airing his views solely in the House of Commons. Gladstone of course really started the ball rolling on that one with his speeches in places like Newcastle and Lancashire in the early 1860s. Would need to refresh my memory about the details though.Paulturtle (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marx as a source

[edit]

I don't believe Karl Marx should be a source for this article. There are plenty of scholarly biographies of Palmerston that have extensive access to his papers. Marx is not one of them. Indeed the whole tone of the recent contributions is not neutral. I will rectifying this and removing the POV and the bizarre inclusion of German names (Greaerick Enget Britain for example).--Britannicus (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated use of "Lord Palmerston" in text

[edit]

I've just being reading this article following on questions asked about Lord Palmerston in University Challenge and I'm struck by the frequency by which he is referred to as "Lord Palmerston" in the body of the article. I had an idea that it was common practice to refer to Lords as "Lord So-and-So" initially and then use their surname in further references. University Challenge (S38 E29) simply referred to him as Palmerston. I've checked the pages for a few other Lords, including Lord North and Lord Byron, on WP and these confirm my suspicions. At the present, there are 132 references to "Lord Palmerston" in the article, often in contiguous sentences, and I find this leads to a loss of readability. Anyone agree? Scartboy (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord North's surname actually was North, and Lord Byron's was Byron at least until 1822. Lord Palmerston's surname was Temple, and to use this rather than his title would lead to a much greater "loss of readability". Opera hat (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Scartboy's point is really that it is more "readable" to call people by the name by which they are commonly known. For example the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington refers to its subject as "the Duke" or "Wellington" rather than continually repeating "the Duke of Wellington". Surely Wikipedia is aiming to be comprehensible by general readers, who are not interested in the niceties of nomenclature, but just want to know about Palmerston? So can we delete most of the "Lord"s? Kinnerton (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scartboy is right. David Steele, ‘Temple, Henry John, third Viscount Palmerston (1784–1865)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online uses just "Palmerston". Indeed it has only one use of Lord Palmerston. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist?

[edit]

A. N. Wilson's (2002) 'The Victorians' claims that Palmerston had once raped a woman at Windsor Castle, p.190. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.58.239 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC) This is incorrect. I don't know what A N Wilson's book says, but Queen Victoria's correspondence of the time referred to him having entered a lady's bedroom silently and blocking the door. When she screamed, he immediately left without having approached her. This greatly influenced Queen Victoria's attitude towards him, but there was never any suggestion of rape. It should also be noted that his then mistress (and later wife), Lady Cowper was also staying in Windsor Castle on that occasion.[reply]

What about the rumour that he actually died of a heart-attack while trying to make love to a chambermaid on top of a billiard-table? 86.148.131.107 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molto ben trovato. Errantius (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers of the northern Union

[edit]

I see the sentence "In fact Irishmen did not control any major newspapers in the North" has been reinstated and the reference given as Kenneth Bourne, "British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862," The English Historical Review Vol 76 No 301 (Oct 1961) pp 600–632. Could the direct quote relevant to this be provided from the reference?--Britannicus (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godkin, E. L. "American Opinion on the Irish Question" The Nineteenth Century vol 22 (1887): 285–92. says "Most New York newspapers did not have Irish editors or leader-writers". Where Palmerston got his misinformation is a mystery--perhaps he was thinking of the leading Confederate editor (in Richmond) the Irish agitator John Mitchel, who was very anti-British. Rjensen (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

his Freemasonry

[edit]

Freemasonry played a large role in Lord Palmerston's life,[1]. Shouldn't we mention that here?

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Dillon, George F. (1950). Grand Orient Freemasonry unmasked: as the secret power behind Communism through discovery of lost lectures. [London]: Britons Pub. Society. pp. 113–9.

1st Anglo Afghan war and the invasion of Kabul 1839

[edit]

Where is the section about 1st Anglo Afghan war and the invasion of Kabul 1839 where the British army was defeated?

Removal of quotations

[edit]

I think I'll remove the quotations section. It was put in recently, it is far too long and the contributor couldn't be bothered to format it properly, or even spell "Quotations" properly at first. Suggestion: someone might care to re-introduce a subset of carefully chosen and formatted quotations. AWhiteC (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Opium War

[edit]

Why is there no (or little) mention of Palmerston's role in the First Opium War? There is only a word or two at the end of the Balkans and Near East: defending Turkey section, whereas if you look in First Opium War, it becomes apparent that Palmerston was heavily involved. What's going on? I have looked back through some of the last 500 edits, going back to 2007, and it looks as if there never was a proper mention. AWhiteC (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good point...the reason is the article was originally copied from a 1911 encyclopedia. i fixed it Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thanks! (It looks as if the 1911 encyclopaedia was ever-so-slightly biassed.) The only query in my mind now is whether there is the right balance between the coverage of the First Opium War and the Second Opium War (Arrow War). I genuinely don't know; what do you think? AWhiteC (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is the RS vary in their coverage. Ridley gives a whole chapter to the first opium war and Brown gives it a paragraph. both are very brief on arrow war..but there are several books on the arrow war, esp Deadly Dreams Opium, Imperialism, and the Arrow War (1856-1860) in China by J.Y. Wong (1980) Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better balance now, I think. We're getting there. There still some criticisms in the talk page above that need to be resolved. (You seem to be the one doing all the work, and I seem to do nothing more than make comments. Seems a good arrangement to me!) AWhiteC (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Hello there! I've just tagged the article as having too short a lede. For an article that's almost 10 thousand words long, I find it incomprehensible its lede is a mere 147 words! Basically it swiftly mentions the offices he held, and the fact he died. Not even a bare bones biography, a simple summary of his achievements or legacy. Nothing. I'm hoping someone familiar with the subject's history can offer something better than that, considering most readers statistically never get past ledes. I'm willing to help with whatever's needed. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just expand the lede from the information in the rest of the article? AWhiteC (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury and the British Consul in Jerusalem

[edit]

Have appended a short entry on Shaftesbury's lobbying of P to influence the appointment of a Consul at Jerusalem.Cpsoper (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote

[edit]

[1] Where did it go? I couldn't find it in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs more references

[edit]

There are many paragraphs and entire subsections that do not have any citations. Specifically, the following:

  • Secretary at War (3 paras)
  • Opposition (1 para)
  • Crises of 1830 (1 para)
  • Belgium (entire section)
  • France, Spain and Portugal 1830s (entire section)
  • Residences (entire section)
  • France and Spain, 1845 (1 para)
  • Support for revolutions abroad (entire section)
  • Italian independence (entire section)
  • Hungarian independence (entire section)
  • Royal and parliamentary reaction to 1848 (entire section)
  • Don Pacifico Affair (1 para)
  • Electoral reform (entire section)
  • Ending the Crimean War (entire section)
  • Resignation (entire section)
  • Opposition: 1858–1859 (entire section)
  • American Civil War (1 para)
  • Cultural references (entire section)
  • Lord Palmerston's First Cabinet (entire section)
  • Lord Palmerston's Second Cabinet (entire section)

Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these items have been addressed. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 16:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In pop culture

[edit]

I'll preserve these gems in case anyone ever does a "Lord P in popular culture":

  • The Simpsons – In the episode "Homer at the Bat", Barney Gumble and Wade Boggs come to blows over who the UK's greatest Prime Minister was; Barney supports Lord Palmerston, while Boggs favours Pitt the Elder. Barney ends the argument by knocking Boggs out cold.
  • Skyfall – A close-up shot of a statue of Lord Palmerston features in an early scene from the 23rd James Bond film. The scene is one of many in which imperial imagery features prominently.
  • Harry Potter – On Pottermore, J. K. Rowling wrote that Lord Palmerston was the subject of an irrational loathing by Priscilla Dupont, who was Minister for Magic from 1855–1858. Dupont was obliged to step down from her office after causing numerous incidents, including turning the coins in Palmerston's coat pockets into frogspawn. Ironically, Palmerston was forced to resign for unrelated reasons just two days after Dupont.

Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston-Trump historical precedent

[edit]

For his part, David Urquhart considered Palmerston a "mercenary of Russia" and founded the "Free Press" magazine in London, where he constantly promoted these views. The permanent author of this magazine was Karl Marx, who stated "from the time of Peter the Great until the Crimean war, there was a secret agreement between the London and St. Petersburg offices, and that Palmerston was a corrupt tool the Tsar policy" [1] Some people may see this as a historic precedent for the modern accusations against the President of the United States Donald Trump.

Palmerston was accused of being bribed by tsarist Russia. Trump was also accused of bribery by the current presidential Russia. Isn't this a historical precedent? Of course, it is clear that the accusations against Palmerston almost 200 years ago are monstrous nonsense. But this is a reason for historical Parallels in the accusations against the current US President. Isn't that right? 178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


November 4 is coming soon! Will something happen? :-) 178.155.64.26 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Franz Mering. "Karl Marx. His life story". Moscow. Gospolitizdat. 1957. p.264

Requested move 9 November 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston → Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston – Per WP:TITLECON; format consistent with Henry Temple, 1st Viscount Palmerston and Henry Temple, 2nd Viscount Palmerston. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reason given at #Article move above. Can you provide evidence he was known by his first name and not his middle name? Opera hat (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opera hat, see Google Books. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 February 2021

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston → Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston – Per WP:CONCISE, this is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. Google Books and GOV.UK results both indicate that he is commonly identified without his middle name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Necrothesp, User talk:Neljack. Reason: Participated in earlier discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [3], [4])

  • Support. I reiterate what I said above. The evidence does seem to support his middle name not being commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close this car crash nomination. There was a month long discussion on exactly the same proposal recently. Just two months after it closed the nominator renominated it and selectively informed only those who had supported their position. Recommend a restriction be placed on same-user renominations. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I agree that procedurally, this should perhaps not be allowed, I can see where nom is coming from. Wading through the previous RMs I can't see a single valid argument against the move... One looks at only the refs currently in the article, another appeals to a deleted NC, another to a single primary source, it goes on and on. Nom has multiple times provided a valid case in terms of policy and evidence. Our procedures are not always perfect, it took eleven years of consistent consensus that the State was not the PT of New York to actually move the article on the State. Let us not let this one go the same way! Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain to me how the nominator's evidence[5][6] is stronger than my evidence[7][8][9] and how the nominator's evidence demonstrates that Palmerston "is commonly identified without his middle name" and why you think my evidence does not demonstrate the opposite. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As shown in the ngram, two-thirds of the books published in the last 60 years use the middle name. You're now arguing that two-thirds of the books published on Palmerston in the last 60 years are about the peerage, and you wonder why I think you're deluded? If you're not deluded, you're either a liar or an idiot. Of the three, delusion is the least uncivil thing that I can say about you. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the ANI discussion, and on the nominator's talk page, now that canvassing has occurred, all previous participants in the discussion must be notified. That has not been done and so I am now pinging all those not already notified: Britannicus TwoMightyGods Pmanderson Angusmclellan FactStraight Proteus Demophon Deb Opera hat Iveagh Gardens. DrKay (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Thanks for the notification. To respond to the last comment in the last discussion, @Iveagh Gardens: see "Henry Temple" AND "Palmerston" for gov.uk hits. (discussion closed before I could respond), I don't deny that official sources may sometimes use the name Henry Temple. But in the official list of PMs drawn up 10 Downing Street, they use Henry John Temple. As someone more likely to be known as Palmerston, there's bound to be a measure of inconsistency. Our role is the balance the article title guidelines, and I'd edge towards common name over precision. The consistency argument seems weak, as there are often cases where people with the same first name as a parent specifically use the middle name to distinguish. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try to stay in the top of the pyramid.
  • Oppose. There is a well-known hierarchy of disagreement showing a pyramid of best practice at the top and worst practice at the bottom. DrKay started out at the top of this pyramid, by refuting the opening argument on common name with supporting evidence and proof of why the opening argument was flawed. The name "Henry John Temple" is more common than "Henry Temple". Neither is as common as "Lord Palmerston", but if the commonest name is not used, we should use the next most common name, not the third or fourth most common. Once an argument is refuted, editors supporting that argument should have struck out their supports as their arguments had been disproven. They didn't. Consequently, they and DrKay have slipped down into the lower sections.
With the central argument refuted, and no valid counter-refutation presented, there is no common name basis for the move. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2021 (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.

". LORD PALMERSTON" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect . LORD PALMERSTON. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#. LORD PALMERSTON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2021

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. May I suggest putting the matter to rest for a while? No such user (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston → Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, alternatively Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (without middle name), Henry J. Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (middle name abbreviated), or H. J. Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (full name abbreviated) – WP:Unnecessary disambiguation. There are no other Viscounts Palmerston called Henry John Temple. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Support. Removing unnecessary disambiguation seems reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: taking into account Necrothesp's comments below, I've added Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston as an alternative to remove unnecessary disambiguation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s certainly the convention in Burke’s and Debrett’s, the standard reference works on the peerage. I oppose the move on that basis. Opera hat (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opera hat, would you support a move to any other title? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. As other people have said, on the (few) occasions when his first name is given, it is more common than not for his middle name to be given too. Opera hat (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. No need for his middle name, since he is almost always referred to only as Lord Palmerston. No evidence that is full name is more common than just his first name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer: Please note that the comment above is blatantly false and that Necrothesp knows that it is false. DrKay (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Necrothesp does not know it is false or Necrothesp would not have said it. Would DrKay like to explain this unjustified suggestion of a lack of integrity and rapidly withdraw it and apologise per WP:AGF? If DrKay is referring to their Ngram below, then Ngrams prove nothing, since it is obvious that the full name will be used in formal descriptions. That does not make it the WP:COMMONNAME (which, as I've said, is Lord Palmerston in any case to the nth factor). Most of the books that I can find that mention his full name use full names for everyone, usually as part of a list or index. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't wish to withdraw it or apologise. I made a comment, you had a chance to respond, which you did. I'm under no obligation to explain further or apologise since it is not uncivil to say a statement is false. Imagine conversations otherwise:
Editor 1: Palmerston was a martian.
Editor 2: That is false and wrong.
Editor 1: That is an unjustified assumption of bad faith. Please withdraw it and apologise. DrKay (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON. Please leave your comments in the section below. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to say it's false if you believe it is. However, to claim, as you did, that I knowingly made a false statement and to try to persuade the closer of this is clearly uncivil and unacceptable, as it is an attack on my integrity and an attempt to undermine what I said. As a fellow admin, you should know better than to behave in this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. There is absolutely nothing with Necrothesp's comment and you know that full well. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean bludgeoning as in replying twice to my comment, barraging me with comments after every comment I've ever made on this page, and then removing my comments to another section when you don't agree with them? Look to your own behavior. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never removed your comments. I just added a header above my own comment. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said "removing my comments to another section". Below I repeated, "removed it to the discussion section" and showed a diff of you doing just that.[10] Please stop misrepresenting my comments. Please stop bludgeoning anyone who disagrees with you. DrKay (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal of either forename. All the sources in the article that use a forename in the title give both forenames. The modern literature prefers the inclusion of the middle name by a factor of at least two to one: Ngrams. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose the new alternative options of abbreviating either forename. Per WP:CONCISE: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness". Palmerston is more recognizable as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple or H. J. Temple or Henry J. Temple and articles should be at the more recognizable name. DrKay (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly true, since that was not the original proposal. Neveselbert is merely supporting an alternative, which is perfectly acceptable. He has also clearly stated that he is the nominator, so your comment adds nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I split the RM precisely because I knew you would behave like this to make life difficult for anyone trying to close the RM. Again, and I can't believe I have to say this to an admin of all people, please stop bludgeoning the process. You've already made your case. Others have the right to make theirs in the survey without having to answer to you all the time. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna posted.[13] Who replied? You did.[14] I didn't.
Necrothesp posted.[15] Who replied? You did.[16] I didn't.
Opera hat posted.[17] Who replied? You did.[18] I didn't.
I posted.[19] Who replied? You did.[20]
Apart from you, there are 4 participants in the survey: you've replied to all of them. I've replied to at most one of the other 4, and even then my so-called 'answer' is not addressed to that participant.[21]
I'm not the one doing the bludgeoning. Stop bludgeoning the process. Stop harassing me. You do not have to reply 3 times[22][23][24] every time I say something on this page. DrKay (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on removing the names. The name "Henry John Temple" is more common than "Henry Temple". Neither is as common as "Lord Palmerston", but if the commonest name is not used, we should use the next most common name, not the third or fourth most common. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the combination of COMMONNAME and NCPEER leaves a title that may be more wordy than absolutely necessary, but that's not a problem. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
DrKay, I've added Henry J. Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston and H. J. Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston as alternatives, but I still cannot fathom why it should be so necessary to include his full personal name in the title followed by "3rd Viscount Palmerston", when he was the only Viscount Palmerston named Henry John Temple. WP:FULLNAME recommends that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There is no evidence that the subject is most commonly known as Henry John Temple. He is referred to as Palmerston by nearly all the sources in the article, not as Henry John Temple. You seem to be arguing against the notion of deleting his middle name from the article entirely, rather than removing it solely from the title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is obviously most commonly known as Lord Palmerston. I never said anything otherwise, so that straw man of yours can be ignored. It is equally obvious that he is more commonly known as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple. I have proved that with the ngram. Consequently, of the two alternatives (Henry John Temple and Henry Temple), the article should be at the commoner name, which is with the middle name. Please do not reply. Please do not ping me. Deb and Celia complained about me being rude before but it is difficult to resist the temptation when faced with ill-judged replies. DrKay (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like to reply to your, frankly ill-judged, reply. Firstly, it wasn't a straw man, it was a perfectly valid point. The undisputed fact that he is most commonly known as Palmerston renders any contest between "Henry Temple" and "Henry John Temple" effectively moot, for neither are used anywhere near as often in reliable sources as his title. It may be so that he is more commonly known as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple, but this is nonetheless trumped by the fact that he is not commonly known by his personal name. WP:NCPEER recommends the title format "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". Per WP:CONCISE, "Henry Temple" is sufficient to meet the criteria. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the new alternative options per WP:CONCISE: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness". Palmerston is more recognizable as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple or H. J. Temple or Henry J. Temple and articles should be at the more recognizable name. DrKay (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still a moot point. He is not recognisable as Henry John Temple, but as Lord/Viscount Palmerston. Nobody is proposing removing "Viscount Palmerston" from the article's title. There is nothing in the WP:NCPEER guideline that necessitates including a middle name, only the personal name is required. Personal name#Western name order gives the format for a personal name in the West as given name, family name. Palmerston's given name was Henry, not "Henry John"; his family name was Temple, not "John Temple". Thus "Henry Temple" fulfils NCPEER requirements for the personal name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to support Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. However, I'm also conscious that we had an RM about that only a few months ago and it was opposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RM last month was closed as "no consensus", as opposed to "not moved". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (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.

New article covering Palmerston's tenures as foreign secretary and prime minister

[edit]

The foreign policy of Lord Palmerston during his time as foreign secretary must be discussed in more detail and more content than with the current amount of information that is present in thus article. Events and policies of Palmerston during his tenure as prime minister during both terms should also be discussed in a similar manner. This us just my opinion. I would like to have a more nuanced and balanced opinions on this idea before venturing on this new project. I would also like if a article is were to be created regarding the foreign policy of Palmerston more specifically and in which we could include his tenure at the foreign office and also his foreign policy during prime ministerships. ZombieBruce (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston&oldid=1263008698"