Talk:Stanley Bruce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Stanley Bruce is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
im doing an assignment on him
- please sign your entries ...ok, they were anonymous and 18 months ago. hope the assignment is finished now m.e. 10:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move back to Stanley Bruce
Wikipedia: naming conventions (names and titles) says:
- When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington").
--This article therefore should live at Stanley Bruce, not 1st Viscount Bruce. Slac speak up! 08:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The naming convention refers to Prime Ministers of Great Britain who are ennobled, not those of Commonwealth countries. There is a very notable difference, especially given the fact that Australia was so much more closely-tied with Britain then that the post of Australian Prime Minister was not of the prestige and independence it carries today. Therefore, the page should be titled as would be any, for example, Governor-General or local Premier — with the title. Wally 21:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- But it seems hard to justify that there should be one rule for British Prime Ministers and another for Australian Prime Ministers especially since as you mention, they were so close. Moreover, the policy doesn't specifically mention "British". The reason for the policy is to ensure that public figures are listed under the name by which they are most frequently known: Lord Houpeton was known as Lord Houpeton, so that's where the page is. Anthony Eden, despite the fact that he was ennobled after his prime ministership is known as Anthony Eden, and similarly with Bruce. It's simply a matter of listing the page under what he is most commonly known. Forrest should simply be listed as Forrest, since histories of his Premiership refer to him as Forrest, not as Lord Forrest. Slac speak up! 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the title was Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, not Viscount Bruce, it should either be at Stanley Bruce or Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne. The current location, at any rate, is wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a convention not to include the "of" part of British peers' titles. The conventions on this subject are extremely complicated. Only User:Emsworth seems to understand them, so perhaps you should ask him. Adam 00:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Every modern peerage is created in two parts: the actual title, and a territorial designation, the latter normally in the form "of X in the County of Y". Lady Thatcher, for instance, was created "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire"; her title is "Baroness Thatcher", not "Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven", as the "of Kesteven" is what's normally colloquially referred to as "after the comma". Some peerages, however, have "of X" bits before as well as after the comma: Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for instance, was created "Baron Falconer of Thoroton, of Thoroton in the County of Nottinghamshire"; his title is "Baron Falconer of Thoroton", not "Baron Falconer", and he can never correctly be referred to as "Lord Falconer" (though he often is). Bruce's peerage was of the latter type: he was created "Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, of Westminster Gardens in the City of Westminster"; his title was therefore "Viscount Bruce of Melbourne", not "Viscount Bruce" (there already being a plain "Bruce" title in "Earl Bruce, of Whorlton in the County of York", an Earldom created as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Ailesbury). Proteus (Talk) 08:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to note that I cannot claim to know more about the nobility than Proteus, who is truly an expert on the subject. His statement above on territorial designations above is absolutely correct. Thus, the article belongs at either Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, or at Stanley Bruce. -- Emsworth 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's true that he was plain Mr Bruce when he was Prime Minister, but he lived for 38 years after leaving that office, and held a variety of other posts, and for two-thirds of that time he was known as Lord Bruce. One could make a good case that was known to more people as Lord Bruce than he was as Mr Bruce. But I don't much care which title for the article is used: debates like this greatly increase my admiration for Robespierre. Adam 13:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment scale
This shows as only of "mid" importance. I must respectfully disagree. He was a PM, and the only PM in Australia to lose his own seat. I'd say that he was very significant. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
