Talk:James Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern

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

Halsbury[edit]

Currently, the page seems not to mention his connection with Halsbury - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsbury%27s_Laws_of_England - perhaps it should.

82.163.24.100 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Mais oui! moved this page to the current title, away from the normal title of 'Baron'. I think it should be moved back. The reason given was "judicial title most notable" but I think that's confused. He doesn't have a separate judicial title of "Lord" - his title is "Baron". For consistency with other law lords, we should use the title of Baron.

Part of the confusion may arise because the proper form of address for a Baron is "Lord". But a form of address is not part of someone's name - a title is.

I should add, for completeness, that there are now two Supreme Court justices in the UK (only one I think) who are not also Barons, and it has been decided that Supreme Court justices will be entitled to the courtesy title of "Lord" - if that were the case for Lord Mackay, I would support that the article be named as it is today. See for reference: John Dyson, Lord Dyson and Nicholas Wilson, Lord Wilson of Culworth --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your confusion probably arises out of unfamiliarity with the Scottish legal system. The Scottish judiciary are all given the judicial title "Lord Surname or Someplace", irrespective of whether or not they are also a baron. So, Mackay was universally known simply as "Lord Mackay", in common with all his judge colleagues, never as "Baron Mackay". cf. James Burnett, Lord Monboddo etc. Mais oui! (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For absolute clarity, I would like to point out that your statement "He doesn't have a separate judicial title of "Lord"" is, in fact, the diametric opposite of the facts. He most certainly does have a separate judicial title. (Not trying to be rude, just trying to be crystal clear.)Mais oui! (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, and the education on Scottish legal titles is quite welcome. I'm not sure I agree in this case, but clearly I need to learn more and so I'm glad I brought this up for discussion rather than reverting you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to be consistent, though using "Lord" rather than Baron seems a reasonable rule to consider for Law Lords and their equivalents. It's no different than using Tony or Bill rather than Anthony or William, as we do in our articles on Messrs Blair and Clinton. --Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see which is the case here, but I would support Lord or Baron - whichever is most commonly used in reliable sources, per WP:How2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that in all such cases (not just with law lords, in fact but with all male life peers) "Lord X" is far more commonly encountered than "Baron X" (though this may not be the case with Baronesses). The other possibility, of course, is simply to use the personal name.--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Baron' is right, 'Lord' is wrong, in the title. James Mackay was created a Baron of the United Kingdom for Life on 6 July 1979. He was a Senator of the College of Justice as 'Lord Mackay of Clashfern' but only between 1984 and 1985; he then became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and subsequently served as Lord Chancellor within the United Kingdom. His Scottish judicial title, although it formally continues after he left office, is outranked by the United Kingdom Barony. A Scottish judicial title is merely a title conferring no precedence outside Scotland, and even within Scotland it is outranked by a Barony of the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But as a Baron, he's still called Lord, right? As other Barons are. So it isn't necessarily "wrong" to use Lord in the title (since our titles are supposed to reflect how people are best known, not necessarily their most senior or legally correct title).--Kotniski (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be right in thinking that you haven't been much involved in peerage related articles? Because a simple application of the 'use common names' principle in peerage articles would cause a great deal of confusion. The title 'Lord' is used in many circumstances:
  • 'Lord' is an informal term used for a Peer of any rank from Baron to Duke.
  • All members of the House of Lords are known as 'Lords of Parliament', including Bishops (who are not Peers).
  • The lowest rank in the Peerage of Scotland is Lord. The equivalent rank in the Peerages of England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom is Baron.
  • The Lord of the Manor title in England and Wales is held by the owners of certain pieces of land, but is not a Peerage title. These are the titles bought and sold, frequently on the misunderstanding that they are Peerages or confer some degree of precedence.
  • Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland are awarded a legal title of 'Lord' which is not a Peerage. For example Alastair Campbell became 'Lord Bracadale'.
  • Since the UK Supreme Court was created in 2009, new Judges have not received Peerages under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 but instead take a legal title of 'Lord' along similar lines to the Scottish situation. For example John Dyson became 'Lord Dyson'. This is also not a Peerage.
For reasons of clarity as well as disambiguation it would be very confusing to use the term 'Lord' without any further explanation. It also demotes the subject to refer to them by an inferior title when they hold a more important one. Although a Peer of the rank of Baron is almost always referred to as 'Lord', it is a long-established consensus on Wikipedia to use the formal term of Baron instead. The only exceptions are where a Peer is far better known without their peerage (eg David Puttnam), but even there the article begins with the full title. In this immediate case, Lord Mackay had already been raised to the Peerage as a Baron of the United Kingdom before he became a Senator of the College of Justice, and took the same title for his Scottish judicial name as for his Peerage. It might be arguable that in 1984-85 while he was actually serving in his Scottish judicial role, that his title there was predominant. It cannot really be arguable before that time, and it is difficult to argue it since that time - it would be arguing, in effect, that a role he briefly held 26 years ago is more important than one he has held continuously for 32 years. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It also demotes the subject to refer to them by an inferior title when they hold a more important one." - Thanks for that! That's the best Wiki laugh I've had in a long time. Nasty big ole Wikipedia has clearly been picking on these poor folks then:
  • Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (almost universally referred to as such in reliable ext refs, and thus in his Wiki article, despite his highest title actually being Duke of Albany)
  • David Steel (who has repeatedly publicly stated that he does NOT want to be referred to by his peerage title, and which his Wiki article reflects by duly leaving out the Baron bit)
Mais oui! (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if your reply was more pertinent. The two cases you mention are hardly comparable. Darnley is a historical figure who is mainly known to historians by the title he bore during the Lennox crisis. David Steel, as with other figures such as Roy Hattersley, has received a Peerage but prefers still to be known by his common name. Lord Mackay of Clashfern is neither historical nor does he eschew his Peerage title. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a very pertinent example: Lord Mackay's boss Margaret Thatcher.
Your statement "is mainly known to historians by the title he bore during the Lennox crisis" is actually very revealing: you are acknowledging that what a person was known as when they were primarily notable is a major consideration. Look at the thousands of newspaper articles about Lord Mackay during the 80s (and to a much lesser extent 90s): he was almost without exception known by his judicial title: Lord Mackay. That is true even today whenever he is mentioned. He is notable for being a prominent jurist then politician, not for being a recipient of a title which almost no-one knows about, because it was never referred to in reliable ext refs, eg media reports. Mais oui! (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Margaret Thatcher is among the class I mentioned above by example of David Puttnam - Peers who were far better known by their names, not their Peerage titles. That's clearly not relevant to Lord Mackay. Lord Mackay is principally known for being Lord Chancellor in the UK Government for ten years, and therefore by his Peerage title which is Baron Mackay of Clashfern. Popular usage may use the term 'Lord' but Wikipedia doesn't: people known as 'Lord' through being a Baron are invariably referred to as Barons on Wikipedia. I shan't bother to dig out examples because there are thousands. Lord Mackay is not mainly known for his brief period as a Senator of the College of Justice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular usage may use the term 'Lord' but Wikipedia doesn't" -> case opened and closed M'lud. You have just admitted that you think that Wikipedia should deliberately not use the name by which a person was/is commonly known. In other words: a special case. Mais oui! (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the long-established guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility, which makes it clear that 'Baron' should be used and not 'Lord' for Barons. Not a special case but the established naming rule. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help but notice that things have gone quiet since a link to the Naming conventions was posted. Is it now accepted that this applies and that 'Baron' is correct? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it most certainly is not "accepted". I have a one year old child who requires much attention, as well as 2 other kids, wife, full time job etc etc etc. Never assume that lack of a prompt reply implies acquiescence. To summarise my feelings (and this does not just apply to this daft wee dispute), I just cannot be arsed. Wikipedia is in many respects an utter farce, and the fact that Wikiprojects go about blatantly breaking crystal clear Wikipedia conventions like wp:commonname is just one of the more infantile phenomena. The plain fact of the matter is that your (ahem) "Wikiproject" (sic) gets away with such behaviour because nobody gives a flying f*** about the tens of thousands of stubs about aristocratic nincompoops and chinless wonders. It is only in a much-visited article like Margaret Thatcher that common sense prevails and manages to override the silly wp vote-stackers. I could go on, but what is the point? Wikipedia is noticeably quieter than it used to be: many major, important topics remain Stub or Start class, or horrific POV messes, and many major articles I watch receive no edits whatsoever, or just reverting of vandalism. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark, and mind-bogglingly numptiness like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility is merely a minor symtom of the underlying malignancy. So, an English Baronetcy trumps a Scottish Lordship? Plus ça change... Mais oui! (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which WikiProject you mean but whichever it is I do not consider myself part of it. The point of the naming convention is for consistency and disambiguation, given that many Peers have similar names and titles. And I would absolutely insist that Lord Mackay's brief term in the Court of Session is not what he is most notable for. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Late to the party; been on holiday) But the point of our general policy on article titles is to produce recognizable titles. I don't dispute that the NCROY guideline currently recommends "Baron" in cases like this - but I would suggest that may be the wrong way to do it. Given the fact that it produces titles (like this one) that are far less recognizable than the alternatives. --Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Mackay,_Baron_Mackay_of_Clashfern&oldid=1208666451"