Talk:Alec Douglas-Home/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Quote "Over the course of the following six years Home was notably loyal to Heath, ...."

I seem to remember, though am not congruently certain, that Sir Alec was Shadow Foreign Secretary in Mr Heath's Shadow Cabinet. I seem to remember Sir Alec being asked, some short time after his resignation, by a television reporter, whether he would (be willing to?) serve in the Shadow Cabinet (I forget the exact form of the question), and Sir Alec replying that that was entirely a matter for the new leader. However, I cannot remember whether that was when Sir Alec resigned or when Mr Heath had been elected.

Songwriter 21:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Quote "to be qualified to re-enter parliament as an MP ....".

Well, he could not, at that time, become an MP while a peer, yet he also needed to be elected as an MP. There was a bye-election for a constituency with a name which sounded like (I am unsure of the spelling) Kinross and West Perthshire. Whether the seat was vacant or whether someone resigned to produce a bye-election I do not know.

Songwriter 21:49 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The seat was already vacant and the existing candidate agreed to step aside and allo Home to stand.
Timrollpickering 10:44 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quote "by a murky process the details of which were not clear".

Whether they were clear at the time I am unsure, yet I have seen an account of what happened subsequently somewhere. It might have been in a book entitled "Governing without a majority" but I am not sure on that.

This was the only time, so far, during her reign that Queen Elizabeth II has had to be involved in deciding who would be Prime Minister. I seem to remember that the account claimed that the Queen sought advice from Sir Winston Churchill (at that time by then an earlier Conservative Prime Minister) and whoever was the Conservative party leader in the House of Lords at the time. The Queen had also visited Mr Macmillan in hospital.

Mr Heath was the first leader of the Conservative Party who gained the post by election rather than by "emerging" as I once saw the previous process described. In fact, Mr Heath had the highest number of votes in the first round, but did not win outright. When the result of the vote was announced he was thus due to face a second vote against Mr Maudling, who was a close second in the first round. In the event, Mr Maudling withdraw from the contest and Mr Heath became leader of the party without a second vote. I think that Mr Heath then chose Mr Maudling to become Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he so served.

Songwriter 22:22 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think you're mixing leadership contests. In 1957 the Queen appointed Macmillan on the basis of advice from two senior Cabinet members and Churchill. No advice was given by the resigning Eden. In 1963 Macmillan gave the Queen formal advice to send for Home, based on "soundings" on the various sections of the Conservative party.
The Queen is also invoked in the outcome of the February 1974 general election - this did not produce a clear result and Ted Heath did not resign for several days while he tried to form a majority. Many felt this was wrong as the one clear thing was that he had lost and that the Queen should have dismissed him.
Also the earlier 1911 leadership election did come to a contest (the party was in opposition; technically this contest was only for the leadership in the Commons not the whole party) and ballot papers were prepared for it, but in the end two of the three candidates withdrew to encourage unity.
Timrollpickering 10:44 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Correct. I've changed the article to make it more accurate in that respect. I've made one other change. It is questionable to call him a Scottish politician. Since home rule was granted, there are in effect four categories of politician. Those who serve in the Scottish parlament, and so deserve to be called Scottish politicians, those who serve in the Welsh Assembly, and so deserve to be called Welsh politicians, those who serve in the Northern Ireland politicians and so deserve to be called Northern Ireland politicians and those who are not working at the regional level but are members of the United Kingdom parliament and who, to distinguish them from the others, should be called, British politicians. FearÉIREANN 19:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think also that Home sat in the Lords under an English, British or United Kingdom peerage - a 14th Earl would have also inherited several lesser peerages as well. Home was certainly automatically transferred to the Lords on his father's death in 1951, which happened in the English/British/United Kingdom peerage but not in the Scottish Peerage (although the later 1963 Peerage Act chaged this).

from sometime in mid 19C, Earls of Home were guaranteed -rather than subject to election from the Scottish peers- a seat under the UK Barony of Douglas. Sir Alec's largest estate was in the Lanarkshire village of Douglas. (He was first M.P. for Lanark). He was the first Minister of State at the Scottish Office and the first minister resident in Scotland. This was one reason why he was so unknown "down South" and why MacMillan's making him Foreign Sec' was so controversial. The peerage disclaimer had to list his individual peerages. Academically, an ancient one was later discovered. As that hadn't been entered on the list, his second stint as M.P. was nicely illegal... AR

Although there is perhaps a case to think of him as a Scottish politician as well as in the early 1950s he was a high profile minister in the Scottish Office.
Timrollpickering 10:44 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Tory leader in the House of Lords at the time was Lord Hailsham, apparently. Might the Lord Chancellor (Lord Dilhorne) have also been involved in the decision? john 20:03, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it not be better to swap the photos around so the one from around the time of his premiership appears in the box?

No, his face is distorted in the second one. We need a direct facial portrait for the box. --Jiang

I have a very good reason for "Home" to be pronounced as the name spells. It is because the common usage of the word used for "house", which is "home". You may have heard just a few pronounce the name "Home" as "Hume", and there is a discrepancy because someone may accidentally spell his name as "Alec Douglas-Hume." So I think that there may be an alternate spelling. --65.73.0.137

The Hume, Home, Houme, Hoome and Huym families all belong to the same clan and therefore have the same name, but different families use different spellings. Sir Alec's has only ever been known as "Home", despite pronounciation as 'Hume' --Mmartins 06:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
No, I haven't heard "just a few" pronounce his name like that - everyone I've ever heard mention him has used the correct pronunciation. He was the Prime Minister, so it's not unreasonable that people would know how to pronounce his name. If anyone pronounces it "Home" they are simply ignorant, not using an alternative pronunciation. Proteus (Talk) 08:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. ALL British tv and radio stations pronounce his name "Hume", and always have, for the 40 years I've been listening to them at least, which goes back to his Premiership. People would have noticed if it was a mispronounciation! Arwel 21:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Two exclamatory remarks (one in the edit summary) for trivial reasons? Please, get a life. --65.73.0.137

House of Lords and Marquess of Salisbury

This article states Douglas-Home "was the last member of the House of Lords to be appointed Prime Minister" whereas Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury states he "was the last British Prime Minister to hold office whilst a member of the House of Lords." I can vaguely see the difference, but I don't know the precise chronology of when Douglas-Home officially became PM and officially left the Lords. Someone who does might tease out this point; it's the kind of ambiguity that spoils pub quizzes. jnestorius(talk) 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If I remember what I've read correctly, Douglas-Home did not immediately accept the Queen's commission outright but instead requested the opportunity to confirm that he "could command a majority" and indeed was formally "elected" leader at a meeting of Conservative MPs, peers, candidates and National Union dignities (in 1922 Bonar Law similarly sought confirmation of his position at such a meeting, although I don't think the National Union was formally involved then; however Baldwin, Chamberlain, Eden and Macmillan all accepted the premiership and then were elected). Indeed Enoch Powell and Iain Macleod tried to get Rab Butler to head a refusal to serve under Home in the belief that this would make a Home premiership impossible and so Butler would have to be appointed - this would have been entirely in line with Home at that point not formally being PM (although in the event Butler declined to play along). So the chronology of exactly when Home became PM - the provisional commission or the definitve one - and just when the renunciation of his peerage took place relative to all this becomes crucial. Timrollpickering 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The information on the Douglas-Home page is correct. I've checked several of the biographpies cited and Home was Prime Minister while in the House of Lords, albeit for a short period. The Salisbury article is therefore inaccurate in this regard and should be amended. Flozu 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Was he really a Roman Catholic? Lately, Fleet Street has been reporting that there has never been a Roman Catholic PM, in reference to Tony Blair's imminent conversion. Can somebody please address Home's religion in greater detail? --216.73.249.238 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No he definately was not a Roman Catholic. I suspect he was actualy Church of Scotland but couldnt say for sure. Galloglass 22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, somebody should change the infobox when his religion is ascertained. I have provisionally changed his religious affiliation to "Protestant (not verified)"--I figure vagueness is preferable to flat-out inaccuracy. --68.173.7.33 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than speculating, which is against Wikipedia rules, why not just say "unknown"? When and if we discover his religion, we can change it. -- JackofOz 06:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

According to The Dictionary of National Biography, Douglas-Home's religious views were influenced by the preaching of Rev. Billy Graham. However, it doesn't go into any more detail than this. Homagetocatalonia 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Officeholder boxes

Shouldn't Home's officeboxes be in the order of office he held; so the last office he held was that of Foreign Secretary under Edward Heath not Prime Minister as it currently denotes; he was not Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary as Ted Heath was PM and so therefore Home's last office was that of Foreign Secretary. Should the officeboxes be reformed to indicate so?? --PoliceChief (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deuputy Prime Minister, Rab Butler

In '4. Appointment as Prime Minister' Rab Butler is stated as being the Deputy Prime Minister. In parentheses is an explanation that "officially no such constitutional office then existed". This gives the impression that the office didn't exist then but does now. It is not an official office of State and never has been.

I would ask other contributors whether we even need the explanation at all given that the article is about Douglas-Home not Butler. How about hyperlinking 'Deputy Prime Minister', and then if users want to find out more about the title they can. C.harrison1988 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, in official governments lists the ministerial title for Butler was the "First Secretary of State" and the title "Deputy Prime Minister" was not formally used. I think in more recent times official lists have used DPM, and of course John Prescott headed a department called the "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think the point the text is trying to make is that being called "Deputy Prime Minister" doesn't make one automatically the heir apparent (unlike "Vice President of the United States") and that there was no constitutional breach in not appointing Butler. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't get Alma Mater to show up on sidebar box

I added his missing alma mater of Christ Church, Oxford to the sidebar section, on Dec. 23, 2008, but for some reason it doesn't show up on the screen. Perhaps someone could fix this. User:FrankEldonDixon, 10:13 (GMT+5), 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem, you were just missing an underscore from the variable (alma_mater instead of alma mater). Road Wizard (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

Can someone who knows their way around wiki better than me restore the old pre 'Elmarko5' image and also have a look at the rest of his uploads as he/she seems to have done the same on several important pages. Thanks Galloglass 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I found an image which I believe to be permissible. Holford (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in any house of parliament

Quote "and for the next two weeks belonged to neither house of parliament - an extremely uncommon (although not unique) occurrence for a sitting Prime Minister". Who were the others? Enquiring minds would like to know?

There were some in other countries, such as John Gorton in Australia (a Senator who won the sudden leadership contest when Harold Holt was declared dead and who transferred to the lower house), but I can't think of any other British PM who was incumbent whilst outside the Parliament. There was once a law that forced newly appointed ministers to seek re-election (although I think it only applied at the beginning of a period of office - Churchill doesn't appear to have fought by-elections when he moved positions in 1910, 1911, 1915, 1919 and 1921) and some PMs would have had to go through the formal process (Pitt the Younger certainly did) but hardly anyone considers this. Gladstone lost his seat in the 1868 general election but had been elected in another (in those days people could stand in more than one and polling was spread out, making such survival techniques possible). I can't think of any other sitting or incoming PM being defeated. Timrollpickering 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There were 2 other Australian incidences:
  • Edmund Barton was appointed the 1st PM on 1 January 1901, but the Parliament did not exist until the elections were held in late March. In the interim, by default, he belonged to no house of parliament.
  • Stanley Bruce is so far the only sitting Australian PM to lose his own seat at a general election. (We await with interest the outcome of John Howard's campaign for his seat of Bennelong at the 2007 elections.) The 1929 election was held on 12 October, and Bruce was defeated personally in his seat of Flinders. His government was also defeated by Labor's Jim Scullin. Bruce continued as PM until his commission was terminated on 22 October. So, he was PM for 11 days (12 - 22 October 1929) without being a member of parliament. -- JackofOz 10:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You may want to update the Gorton article - it's currently citing Barton as the only other case. Timrollpickering 11:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the good pick up. -- JackofOz 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The other point in all this is that in many other countries there is either a law requiring ministers to not be members of Parliament or a tradition of appointing from outside parliament. I don't think Dominique de Villepin was ever elected in France. One PM in Belgium in the late 1930s - Paul van Zeeland if memory serves correct - was initially appointed from completely outside the parliament, but whilst in office won a seat (in a by-election, taking it off the fascists). So internationally at least Home's position was probably far from unique. 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
All incumbent ministers are members of neither House during a dissolution of Parliament. Opera hat (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hon. Lord Dunglass, MP (1951)

Why was he called 'The Hon. Lord Dunglass, MP' for some period in 1951? I thought the only class of person called 'The Hon. Lord Something' were Senators of the College of Justice (if not also a privy counsellor or peer).--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hon. Lord Dunglass is absolutely correct. Lord Dunglass is a subsidiary title to the Earldom of Home; ADH held the title as a courtesy title, before he inherited the Earldom. The Honourable is an honorific style automatically conferred on the sons of Earls - ADH was the son of Charles Douglas-Home, 13th Earl of Home, who was still alive at the time. BartBassist (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

House of Lords

I wonder did he sit as "Earl of Home" in the Lords when he succeeded his father in 1951? It seems to me that he could not sit in the Lords as an Scottish Earl without being elected. --219.77.156.223 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Earls of Home hold several titles in addition to that of Earl. As a peerage of the United Kingdom, the title Baron Douglas would have given him an automatic right to sit in the Lords without the need for election as a Scottish peer. I am not certain of the conventions, but I think I read somewhere that peers are always referred to by their highest title even if they are sitting in the Lords by way of a lesser title. Therefore he could sit in the Lords as Baron Douglas but be referred to as Earl of Home. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes this is always the case - similarly Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, after he inherited the earldom, was always called "Earl of Longford" despite this being an Irish peerage and his sitting in the Lords by right of UK Baronies. The rule, however, doesn't apply to titles outside the British Isles - for instance each Duke of Wellington has been called that, not "Prince of Waterloo". Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An image

God, it's a good thing we deleted that image of him. Otherwise wikipedia would have been sued by whoever owned the copyright to some picture of a British prime minister from 40 years ago that is all over the internet, and things would be awful. Surely we can find a picture of him - if there aren't any public domain images, aren't we justified in using a copyrighted one? john k (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page of the deleted image, File:Alechome.jpg, you will see a deletion log explaining that the image lacked adequate "licensing or source information". What that means is that the person who uploaded the image either forgot to tag the image with an appropriate copyright notice compatible with a fair-use claim, or they did not explain clearly who the original source of the image was. I suspect it was the second point that caused the problem as many editors forget to say who produced the image (thereby making it unclear who owns the copyright and invalidating the claimed license tag).
As Douglas-Home died some years ago a claim of fair-use would probably be valid as it is no longer possible to take a free image of him. However the three things that are needed are:
1. An image with a clearly explained source (who took/made the image and when - or the individual/group that owns the copyright if not the original creator)
2. The applicable copyright licence tag for the image.
3. A detailed fair-use rationale for why the image should be used on Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission. A separate rationale is required for each article the image is used on.
If you can find an image and are able to meet the three requirements above, then please feel free to upload it. Road Wizard (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is just an absurdly onerous process, given that the previous image was on Wikipedia for five and a half years without the copyright holder, whoever that may be, sending us a cease and desist order. I'll add that the policy which requires us to know the source and copyright holder of every non-free image is just totally ridiculous - there's absolutely no requirement in fair use law of such a thing, and it basically prevents us from ever using the large category of things that are under copyright but whose copyright holder is unknown. The whole policy is totally absurd. john k (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue the policy then take it up on a policy page. A discussion on this article talk page will not change the fact that an administrator will delete any images they find that do not conform to the above requirements. As Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When uploading an image appears to cover the issue you are having a problem with then Wikipedia talk:Citing sources may be a good place to start. Road Wizard (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A non-free image will not be acceptable in this article, because it is replaceable. There's a public domain video that includes footage of Douglas-Home in the National Archives. http://research.archives.gov/description/28498 Someone just needs to go in person and get a screenshot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Completely fucking absurd. john k (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I already commented above before I saw this later thread. I seems to me that image from the Parliament website is allowed under the terms there. Since it is attached to a timeline when he was in the House of Lords and responsible for helping to pass the Life Peerages Act in 1958, it is also likely a pre-1958 photo and in the public domain. That being said, I'm sure there will be some convoluted faux-legal reason to reject it. Holford (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If it does date from before 1958 then it would indeed qualify for a public domain release of Crown Copyright material. However as there is no clear date of creation and you have added a standard Crown Copyright tag a Fair Use rationale is required for each article the image is used on. If a fair use rationale is not added, one of the image-patrol bots will tag it for speedy deletion.
If you want to try to justify the Public Domain status you could write to the Parliamentary authorities to check if the image is still under copyright (until the age is verified we will have to assume that it is copyrighted). Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, deeply tedious. Okay, so the website says that its use for non-commercial research, or for "criticism, review, or news reporting." Wikipedia itself would fall under this, but under our misguided policy that we want everything on Wikipedia to be legal for use not only on Wikipedia, but also by obnoxious commercial Wikipedia mirror sites, I suppose that's not enough. However, it also says that we can apply for a parliamentary license. It would of course be useful if someone could get parliament to authorize wikipedia to use such images, but, really, we already have the right to use it. Our own policy forbids us from doing something completely legal for the conenience of a bunch of vultures. john k (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If we can keep the deleting bots at bay, I have emailed Clan Home to see if they will provide us with an image and permission to use it. Holford (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Great work. If they agree, please make sure that they provide the wording found at WP:CONSENT or upload the image themselves (with appropriate copyright and source tags). Road Wizard (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago an editor contacted the Controller of HMSO (the designated owner of Crown Copyright) to verify whether the terms of Crown Copyright and its various waivers (including licences) are compatible with the GFDL. The answer that came back is that they are not compatible. Until Crown Copyright expires and the material is in the public domain it can only be handled here under a claim of fair use. This is not just a matter of policy but a legal issue of the incompatible copyright terms. As far as I can see there are three choices; 1) accept that Crown Copyright materials can only ever be used under a fair use rationale, 2) change Wikipedia's policy of releasing information under the GFDL so that we can comply with the terms of Crown Copyright, 3) change Wikipedia's policy so that we can use the material in breach of the copyright terms (and deal with whatever consequences may follow).
For choices 2 & 3 you will again need to find a suitable forum on Wikipedia to argue your case, though I suspect you won't get very far.
However there is a bright side to Crown Copyright; most materials are released into the public domain after a period of 50 years. If it can be verified that the image used on the website was taken before 1958 then it will be in the Public Domain and therefore free, but I think it is also quite likely that they could have used a stock image of him when he was either Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister in the 1960s. Also, while the page that the image was found on was about the Life Peerages Act 1958, Home didn't become a Life Peer until 1974. Road Wizard (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't send the wording. Let's see if I hear anything back and then I will broach it (unless they read about it here, of course). I think he was on the page about the Life Peerages Act because he was Leader of the House of Lords in 1958 and guided the legislation through. Holford (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
2 would seem good to me. The fact that we exclude material that is released under a "non-commercial uses" license seems ridiculous to me. We are basically excluding material we can use on the basis the commecial republishers of Wikipedia cannot use it. As far as I can tell, at this point commercial republishers of Wikipedia largely consist of parasitic mirror sites which exist to get clicks to make money from advertisers based on Wikipedia content. Why we limit Wikipedia content so as to convenience such parasites is totally beyond me. john k (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The image has been deleted once again. Holford (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

http://lifepeeragesact.parliament.uk/lifePeeragesAct/detail.php?id=117 Seriously, we need a picture of the man.--KrossTransmit? 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Agree that it is ridiculous that wikipedia doesn't have a photo of the man. One is available on flickr: someone (with more wikipedia authority than me) might be able to persuade its uploader to change its licence. BartBassist (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggest consulting the US National Archives. Home visited the US several times as PM and Foreign Secretary. White House pix, federal copyright, free use!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've sent a message to the owner of that flickr image above, and the user has agreed to let us use it. I'll have the user email the OTRS team at Commons for verification, and upload it as soon as I get verification. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Another option might be the image used by Britannica Online; surely its licence must be in order, if Britannica are able to use it? BartBassist (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
They might have licensed it from a photographer or news service. Just because they did doesn't mean we can. First, who is to pay? Second, creative commons licencing is very broad. I don't think this is a viable option.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

However

This mucks up the lead; it looks clumsy and is not really how talented writers use the word. As a featured article this should use "brilliant prose". This isn't an example of brilliant prose. --John (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

De gustibus. If it worries you that much then remove it. I see you have a thing about it. You are wrong, me judice, but I don't wish to cause you distress. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact that an article has passed FAC doesn't mean it's set in stone, but FWIW I looked very carefully at the lead (as I usually do) before closing the nom and considered that the sentence worked better with the "however" than without, both aesthetically and clarity-wise. You guys work it out, but personally I'd be sorry to see it go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The point is that Home was PM but was better known for something else. "However" being (to adapt Mark Twain on cauliflower and cabbage) only "but" with a college education, it is better to leave it as drawn because it makes the point that X does not equal Y. Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
However, why do we have it not at the start of the sentence? We'd never write "His reputation, but, rests more on ...". It serves a sort of similar function to "but" and "nevertheless", but is not really a synonym of either. There's a long tradition (not always observed) of eschewing sentence-initial "but" in formal writing, but no such limitation applies to "however". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The meaning may still be there, wherever it's placed, but for me the cadence is better as it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's really important to emphasise the contradiction between his short spell as PM and his more important work (something I am not sure I agree with), why not just use "but"? --John (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a radical idea: Since "his reputation rests more on his two spells as the UK's foreign minister than on his brief and uneventful premiership", which goes directly to which parts of his career contributed more significantly to his wiki-notability than others, why not mention his foreign ministries first? And then we can mention his premiership using "also". There's no rule that being the Prime Minister automatically gets mentioned before any other achievements. If Glenda Jackson became PM, I hope we would still give pride of place to her magnificent acting career. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

Alexander ("Alec") Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel (/ˈhjuːm/ HYOOM), KT, PC (2 July 1903 – 9 October 1995) was a British Conservative politician who served two spells as the UK's foreign minister, and was Prime Minister from October 1963 to October 1964.

  • To me, this is briefer, carries the same information and fulfils JackofOz's excellent suggestion of ordering from most to least important. Could regular editors live with this? --John (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This seems a somewhat extreme redrawing to accommodate one editor's misunderstanding of the function of the word "however". See Fowler (2nd edition (Gowers) p. 251 and 3rd edition (Burchfield) p. 367. It would be very strange in an article on a British prime minister not to mention from the start that he or she had held that office, however briefly, before going on to mention other posts he held however longer and to however more important effect. I haven't checked, but I should be surprised if there were any British PMs, even the Goderiches of this world, whose articles did not mention at the top that he or she held that office. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Later: I have checked the other PMs who have later service in common with Home, mentioned in Footnote 14 (which I'm sure John has checked). It is true that Wellington's military feats come first, but that is not to be wondered at, but in the articles on Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, Arthur Balfour, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald their premierships are all mentioned first, as one would expect. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the original formulation: 1. He was a UK politician who served as Prime Minister. That tells us about his "notability": He was a Prime Minister of the UK, for gawd's sake. This conjures images of Churchill chomping on a cigar; a post of worldwide influence. 2. Nevertheless, or despite that lofty office (which means "however"), his reputation as a statesman rests more on his two periods as the UK's foreign minister. So, I think it is helpful to use the "however" to alert casual readers that there is a surprising or startling fact coming that is not consistent with their assumptions arising from the first sentence. So, again, I think that the wording agreed to at FAC was optimal for the first paragraph. But, regardless of what I think, John, lots of experienced editors read this article before it was promoted to FA, and nearly all of them would have focused very closely on the opening paragraph. Thus, there was a consensus to use this language, and you would need to demonstrate a strong consensus to overturn the earlier agreement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Wellington is a relevant comparison; Home was likewise not mostly notable for his premiership, and we currently express this in a slightly convoluted way. Ssilvers, thanks for reminding me of the need to engage with editors towards a consensus. This is what I am trying to do here, sorry if that wasn't clear. I would suggest, if my proposed trim is too radical, using "but" rather than "however". It's two syllables shorter and carries the same weight, if you insist on going with the convoluted sentence structure. In my opinion. --John (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Without wishing to suggest that the above remark reflects on John's grasp of the subject, may one ask for examples of FAs by John that we can view with a comparative eye? Tim riley (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
John, can you not just sit back and enjoy the article for what it is? It's been a monumental effort by Tim who got this upto FA within weeks and I think to demote it for the sake of one word which has two syllables more than one would like would be a great shame. For what it's worth, I am very much in favour of its current version and would protest most strongly if its changed for such a minor reason. Now, I am no brilliant academic so excuse me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that "however" would be used if one is speaking upon a subject with an inevitable ending, however something happened which was unexpected and prevented that ending from naturally happening. It was the correct adverb to use compared to others such as; "yet", "notwithstanding" "nevertheless" or "anyway". -- Cassianto (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Cassianto, no I cannot "just sit back and enjoy the article for what it is", it is not in my nature. I am not proposing to demote it but to improve it by removing a long-winded construction in the first sentence. Tim riley, we do not own our work on Wikipedia and it may be a mistake to be so defensive of the current state of the article. I think Battle of Vukovar was the last FA I played a major part in improving, but I would not take offence if you were to suggest improvements in it. I hope I could expect the same courtesy here. --John (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
John, I don't think anyone is having a go at you for expressing an opinion, it's just that most of them don't agree with you. I also don't see Tim displaying "ownership" here, he's merely pointed out that the current wording had consensus at FAC, and it appears to me that the most involved in this thread are also in favour of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Where were you at FAC John? Although I appreciate that FA's are being improved all the time, I cannot help but think you are wrong here. Sorry, but I think it's great as it is. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well indeed. I must have missed that, I would have opposed for the dreadful prose. I will certainly try to be more vigilant for all of your future contributions to FAC to prevent any more glitches like this from sneaking through and devaluing the FAC stamp, whatever that is worth these days. This will be my last post here, so may I say in closing how rude and uncollegial I have found your responses to my proposal to improve the article. See you around, perhaps. --John (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
How sad! We're all out of step except for one. He may be, indeed is, ignorant about the use of "however", but I'm sure he means well and is a good faith WP editor. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cricketing information

When I began upgrading the article before taking it to FA there were two competing info-boxes, one on politics and one on cricket, [1] – different widths and it looked a mess, most unimpressive to any visiting reader's eye. I couldn't find a way of making the latter merge with the former, and took a chance and left the cricket box out. I think most users would agree that in Lord Home's case, the politics box takes priority, but ideally we should follow the norm for articles under the cricket project, and I'd be grateful for suggestions of how we might incorporate both political and cricket info into the info-box without mucking up the layout. All contributions gladly received. – Tim Riley (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: the same applies to the article on the Rev David Sheppard who has a C of E box and a cricket box (not that sort of cricket box!) jostling each other, which would be better merged if possible. Grateful for any suggestions on that, too. Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Philopophy?

Note #1 reads "In the same 1963 memorandum, Home revealed more of his individual political philopophy". Is that deliberate, or a typo for "philosophy"? Eric Corbett 15:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening word

User:Nford24 has changed the opening words of the article from "Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel ..." by deleting the "Sir", on the grounds that "Peer's [sic] do not use the title 'Sir'". I'd be interested to know what other editors think about this. Sir Alec is a titular nightmare with his multiple aliases; I feel the lack of "Sir" at the beginning is not quite right, but I take Nford's point too. All comments gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My gut tells me he's right, Tim. Many peers also received knighthoods, some pre-peerage, some post-peerage. It's only the ones who were knighted pre-peerage who got to call themselves Sir (at least until they ascended to the Gods). Alec is a special case; he's best known as PM of the UK, at which time he was simply Sir Alec (after he disclaimed his inherited peerage). But he later got a life peerage, so he lost the Sir. We normally acknowledge in the lede the highest and latest title the subject had, which would be his 2nd peerage, which subsumes any knighthoods as far as pre-nominals go. Those of a certain vintage have the formulation "Sir Alec Douglas-Home" firmly cemented into their brains, and it seems kinda wrong to leave the Sir out, but if you think it through, you'll agree I'm right (as I always am ** cough **).
I note that we don't have a chronological list of his styles and titles throughout life. That should probably be rectified, although I wonder if he'll come close to matching Sir Philip Game's list (24 entries). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The opening wording Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel is quite correct. Regardless of him having a knighthood, he could not use the title Sir after being made a Life Peer or when we used the title 14th Earl of Home. My suggestion is to add a chronological list like Jack of Oz has suggested. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 00:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Also since it would seem by removal of the 'Sir' has been reverted with a poor reason and at the moment I don't really care for an edit war I have emailed a PhD from Cambridge to get a final opinion. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 00:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the reason given "yes they do" (take Sir) is gainsaid by the universal practice of NOT showing the word Sir. Check the following for examples of knighted peers where we omit the word Sir: Andrew Lloyd Webber, Yehudi Menuhin, Benjamin Disraeli, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, Richard Casey, Baron Casey, Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. I'm restoring your version. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have a consensus. It still looks a bit odd to me, but I'm happy to go with the majority. Looking to other encyclopedias for a steer is not much use: the first line of the ODNB article is "Home, Alexander Frederick [Alec] Douglas-, fourteenth earl of Home and Baron Home of the Hirsel (1903–1995)…". whereas Britannica begins "Sir Alec Douglas-Home, also called (1951–63) Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home, or (from 1974) Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel of Coldstream (born July 2, 1903, London, Eng.—died Oct. 9, 1995)…" As to a list of AD-H's forms of address from cradle to grave, God forbid! Such things are no doubt thrilling to those who get their kicks by reading Debrett in bed, but do not belong in a biographical article in a respectable encyclopedia: cf. ODNB, Britannica, ADB and the old DNB which eschew them. Tim riley (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has lots of them, Tim. Lots. I think they're quite helpful and informative. For one thing, they serve as a check that we've covered in the text all the important changes of status, name, titles, and honours. For people like AD-H, I'd have thought it was essential. But that's me. Vive la différence! -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say I'm with Tim on forms of address. Other encyclopedias manage to do without great long lists of styles, titles, honours and awards (not to mention accompanying ribbons!) and so can ours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless you and Tim are sockpuppets of each other :), can you explain what you mean by "Needless to say I'm with Tim on forms of address", Ian? Do you not exercise your own independent judgement in such matters? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You're not exactly AGF are you, Jack? Nford and I (I thought you as well, perhaps I'm wrong) have been involved in various discussions re. lists of honours and awards (and ribbons) in biographical articles. My position on these is the same as ever, hence my "needless to say". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
An opening like "needless to say" supposes your audience already knows the background to whatever comes next. I don't know anything about your wiki-relationship with Tim Riley, and that's why I asked the question. If our paths have ever crossed before, I don't remember. That sometimes happens when you hang around WP for almost 10 years, when you've spent the last 18 months as a more than full-time Wikipedian, and when you have over 8,000 articles on your watchlist. Sorry if my little joke abut sockpuppets fell flat, but I did put a smiley there to indicate it was not a serious comment. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No prob. I knew the sockpuppet thing was a joke, it was more the suggestion that I didn't have my own opinion. Needless to say (!) I do, and it just happens to agree with Tim's here. BTW, it's possible I was confusing your name with PalawanOz, apologies if so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
With someone like Home who was in public life for a long time under multiple names/titles the need for a clear table stating what his name and title were at any given moment is even more useful than for most peers who only got a name change upon retirement. However the distinction between all the post nominals can be excessive. I think this may need a more centralised discussion because otherwise we get different articles conveying information in different formats which is unhelpful for the mutliple article reader. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Whether, as a matter of editorial policy, we should or should not have such lists in our articles, is never going to be settled on this page. The status quo, as I said above, is that a very large number of our articles do have them, and they will all have to be removed if our policy changes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I know on Wikipedia the practice is generally not to include "Sir" for peers who are also knights or baronets, but I don't see why not. Burke and Debrett (surely the authorities in this area) do include the "Sir" when giving a peer's full name, and given that he was known as "Sir Alec Douglas-Home" while Prime Minister and after seems more of a reason to include it in this case. User:Nford24 says above that "[r]egardless of him having a knighthood, he could not use the title Sir after being made a Life Peer or when we used the title 14th Earl of Home." Well, yes, but he also wouldn't use his Christian names or surname, either, and they're still there. Opera hat (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Howard's comments

Hi Tim. I noted with disappointment that you reverted my very short edit as "peripheral." I take it as read we both want a better article etc. but I'm old enough to remember the shocked disbelief at Home's appointment ..and not just from workers reading the Mirror. Howard did express what I remember was a widespread feeling that Home wasn't up to the job and was selected because of his background rather than the benefit of the country. I'm not sure what the problem is, Howard was a top journalist -see his obituary details & his views on why Home was selected are clearly important. Could you clarify & hopefully we should get an agreement? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem about adding the quotation from Howard is that it unbalances the content at that point of the article. We have quoted the editorial views of The Mirror, The Times, The Guardian and The Observer, all critical of Home's appointment. To add the personal opinion of an individual journalist – similarly critical – adds nothing to the reader's understanding that the press was anti, and risks the charge of WP:UNDUE. The point that needs making here is not the somewhat predictable one that a young writer with an overt pro-Labour anti-Tory stance was against Home, but the rather more remarkable circumstance that right wing, middle-of-the-road, liberal and left wing papers all disapproved of the appointment. – Tim riley talk 06:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Firstly Tim, thanks for a courteous & clear response. I entirely agree that the press was both united and hostile and the article covers this well. Whilst it shows the cabinet selected Home, it accepts that the public believed that it was Macmillan's personal choice and no reason was given to them. Quite clearly the appointment was divisive.
I believe Howard expressed the views of furious unconsulted voters of all political allegiances in saying the suspected reason was that MacMillan preferred a fellow Etonian and this had nothing to do with democracy. Have you any problems if I rewrite the sentence accurately summarizing Howards beliefs? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No problems at all! I seek always to avoid any hint of WP:OWN. Please draft away, preparing meanwhile to square up for a friendly brawl if I disagree. I'm still agnostic about citing an individual journo's views as opposed to the papers' editorial lines. We can refer any disagreement to the many editors who watch the page. Three falls or a submission to decide the result. Tim riley talk 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No brawl needed as far as I'm concerned: very concise, clear and to the point. But you need a citation to end the paragraph, if you'd be so kind. Tim riley talk 16:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. I very rarely get reverted but I believe our discussion improved the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Greatly pleased that we are as the lawyers say ad idem. Very best regards, Tim riley talk 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice to Duchess of Roxburghe

I'd like to add a snippet -see below on Mary Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe -partly because it shows Home providing 1st class practical advice & partly because -to be honest -it shows an astonishingly misogynist medieval law apparently still in force in 1953. Unfortunately there's no obvious place -& yes it could be omitted- but I would like to add it after the bits about Scotland new pillar boxes. Suggestions welcome.

Home also advised Mary Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe then facing eviction under obscure law by her husband, suggesting she inform the insurance company that the Duke had cut off the water supply within Floors Castle. JRPG (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd advise against it. In the necessarily close confines of an encyclopedia article we have to boil all the material we gather down into the indispensable facts, and as neither Home's weighty biographer Thorpe or Home himself in his autobiography (a delightful book – so different from most politicians' memoirs) thinks this episode worth mention I'd vote to go along with their judgment. No reason why it shouldn't go in the Duchess's article, though. Tim riley talk 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Section headings

Only 2 of the sections - Opposition, 1964–70 and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1970–74 - have dates in them. Why? It should be all of them or none of them. Additionally, why have one of the sections titled "Foreign secretary" and another "Foreign and Commonwealth Office"? They should either be "Foreign secretary" and "Foreign and Commonwealth secretary" or "Foreign Office" and "Foreign and Commonwealth Office". There's no reason to have them at different titles like that. Tiller54 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think the headings are fine (as presumably did all the reviewers at PR and FAC) but if there is a consensus for change I will of course happily go along with it. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lords and commons

Given the to-ing and fro-ing today, I think the original "must" should be returned to the article, not the more nebulous "should". - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No. They mean different things. There is no law that says a peer absolutely cannot be Prime Minister. But that is the established convention. "Should" must remain. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Naturally I concur with SchroCat. To use "should" suggests that there is any option, which there isn't, as all the sources agree. It is pure theology, on the lines of "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle", to say that because there is no law that the PM must be in the Commons he/she could sit in the Lords if he/she liked, and I think it would be unfair to our readers to lead the unwary among them to imagine that there is the slightest possibility that a PM could remain in the Lords. Tim riley talk 11:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
But, Tim, doesn't the Douglas-Home case show that a PM can sit in the Lords, if only for a short time? By your reasoning, Home could never have become PM until such time as he had disclaimed his peerage. In fact, he became PM immediately, despite being a member of the House of Lords at the time. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Brain just catching up with eyes and clocking whom I'm arguing with: hearty greetings, dear Jack! Sorry to have missed the guest list till now! Tim riley talk 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"remain" is what I said above, and is what I meant. No PM could then or could now remain in the Lords. Let us consider our readers, state the realities and not indulge in theology. Tim riley talk 14:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, his brief membership of the House of Lords as PM doesn't really prove anything and is just a political trivial pursuit question ("who was the last PM to be a peer?"). It's actually a good example of how conventions evolve: in 1923 a PM in the Lords was still a realistic possibility, but it was just one of several reasons given to block Curzon who was considered obnoxious. In 1940 Halifax used his membership of the Lords as an excuse to decline the premiership, as he had no wish to be a figurehead PM with Churchill running the war (no, it wasn't because he wanted to make peace - that came a few weeks later), but if he had accepted it, we don't know whether he would have taken up the King's suggestion of a special Act to allow him to sit in the Commons. By 1963 it was taken for granted that as a matter of political practicality the PM must be in the Commons. The word "convention" covers a multitude of sins, from rules which are observed as if they were law (e.g. the Cabinet, with its rules of collective responsibility, does not actually exist in law), to quaint customs which exist until somebody breaks them (e.g. that the Speakership alternates between the two main parties, and the new Speaker feigns reluctance as he is dragged to the chair). This sort of convention - hard political reality - is somewhere in the middle.Paulturtle (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References and Sources

Given that it is cited 22 times in the article, perhaps it would make sense to list Hurd's ODNB article as being a "source" as well as just putting it in the footnotes? john k (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

One understands the point, but we must be consistent. If that particular online source is moved to the sources section then all the others need to be too. That's a helluva job, and one I boggle at. I followed a familiar pattern when bringing the article to FA, listing online sources under References and printed ones under Sources. Rather an odd proceeding, now I think about it, but one follows a familiar pattern perhaps too unquestioningly. At all events, though not in principle against overhauling the citation arrangements I really think that if we do it, it should be done systematically rather than piecemeal. Tim riley talk 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Inept section heading

A featured article, approved by numerous reviewers, does not need a 95-word section arbitrarily broken off from the main narrative. I have reverted, accordingly, Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Dichtung, I strongly advise you not to revert again, but to discuss why you feel such a section is needed. It is not a requirement, nor does it appear in the overwhelming majority of FA-grade articles. If you think otherwise, the process has to be open discussion to come to a WP:consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of idiom

I have attempted to remove an idiom from the text without success. The line reads: "some commentators have maintained that Macleod's death and replacement by the less substantial figure of Barber dealt a fatal blow to the economic success of the Heath government." I'm not sure how the economic success of a government can suffer a "fatal blow"? Economic success can be undermined, eroded, impaired, ruined, and so forth, but how can it suffer a "fatal blow"? It's not even a living thing? WP:IDIOM states that "clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions", yet my attempts to remedy this poorly worded statement have fallen through the cracks. See them down there, between the cracks? Magnolia677 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The recent change seriously watered down what the sources say. If it would soothe Magnolia's outraged feelings I could dig out the ipsissima verba and put them in quotes. They will say that IM's death dealt a fatal blow to H's government's economic success. Tim riley talk 08:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do that. Until then I will revert the edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You have no consensus to do any such thing. Until Tim returns with the quote he is seeking, the article should stay as it was before you made your first change. Why don't you do the right thing and self-revert now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you read WP:IDIOM and stop defending a sloppy edit? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I see Magnolia had a brief go with "undermined" rather than "dealt a blow". That will do just as well, I think, and will save me a trip to the British Library over such a small matter. It is true that the OED marks this usage as "figurative" but I can live with that if other editors can, and I don't think it breaches WP:IDIOM any more than "dealt a blow" does. I'll change to "fatally undermined". (The misconception that "fatal" applies only to animate beings is contradicted by the OED: cf a Fatal Error message on one's computer.) Tim riley talk 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Works for me Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Territorial Army service reference removed, corrected and reinstated

Last year I placed under the section "Early years" a paragraph giving his service promotions as an officer in the Ayrshire Yeomanry during the Interwar years but this appears to have been removed (by whom I could not trace). The information was sourced to his biography in the annual Kelly's Handbook (and, if I remember rightly, other contemporary sources). This would have been useful as an illustration of his physical fitness, an added interest to his cricket, and would have given context to his later medical rejection for active service in WWII. I also mentioned his service in the article on the Ayrshire Yeomanry (but this sentence is still there).Cloptonson (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I now realize I had the regiment wrong - it was the Lanarkshire Yeomanry (I am not Scots but am aware that and Ayrshire are counties in same region). I will reinstate the corrected reference to his TA service. To the user who removed it, thank you for removing an error, although removal is better understood when reason is given in the Edit summary.Cloptonson (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I have now added the information - it was not until I edited that I discovered it had been hidden on grounds of a violation, having been cited to one book. I have cited his promotions to the next Kelly's Handbook published following the promotion year, in place of relying on one reference book. Those with access to the London Gazette can cite them to the LG to enhance their veracity.Cloptonson (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent IB changes

Therequiembellishere, as per the note I left on your talk page, can I ask you to explain the rationale behind your changes. It may be very good and the right way to go, but the edit summary box isn't the right place for a proper explanation - particularly after so many reverts. We are all rationale beings here and open to good constructive changes to the article, so if you could perhaps explain 'what and why', it can be considered here a little better than in the heat of ongoing reversions. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alec Douglas-Home. 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) 22:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of "Prime Minister" and "prime minister"

See MOS:JOBTITLES; this explains it better than I could. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alec_Douglas-Home/Archive_1&oldid=1136289953"