Jump to content

Talk:John Buchan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There is solid consensus that "John Buchan" is the common name and that it suits the relevant policies and guidelines. Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir → John Buchan – WP:COMMONNAME, pure and simple. He was a novelist first and foremost, and only acquired the fancy title late in his career. Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: "novelist first and foremost" - not according to the facts of his biography. In his own day his name and public position, and contribution as Lord Tweedsmuir to events of the 20c. which are now history, were at least as well-known as his novels, and his notability today is due more to his career in public service, especially as GG, than as one among other successful writers of popular novels of the thriller genre, like, say, Alexandre Dumas or Conrad (The Secret Agent) or Eric Ambler, none of whom had a similarly prominent position in the conduct of public affairs. Qexigator (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
+Comment: Lest we forget the other Lords T. John Buchan, 2nd Baron Tweedsmuir. obit. Friday 21 June 1996 "LORD Tweedsmuir, the son of John Buchan, the author and former Governor General of Canada, has died at the age of 84."[1]. William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir. obit. "The 3rd Lord Tweedsmuir, who died on June 29 /2008/ aged 92, was the second son of the writer John Buchan and himself the author of novels, short stories and verse; but although he never wrote a best-seller, William Buchan made his mark with a touching memoir of his father." [2] Qexigator (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Their father would be highly notable quite aside from having having received the title, the other two and particularly the other John seem encyclopedically notable for little else than inheriting that title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is an encyclopedia of wider scope than the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook. The proposal is not for "John Buchan"and against "1st Lord Tweedsmuir". Both are there, one after the other, as occurred in his life. It is a fact, as described in the article, that his contribution to global history of the 20c. in public service, up to his death in office as Lord Tweedsmuir, surpasses his contribution to the commonwealth of letters[3], but includes his wartime novels, "The Thirty-Nine Steps" and "Greenmantle" (1916)[4], his service as Director of Information in 1917, and his time as an MP. The notability of the 2nd and 3rd is, of course, merely derivative. Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The implication being he's a (now at least) fairly obscure writer, much better known for other things? This perspective is utterly unrepresentative from a WP:WORLDVIEW where his writings, particularly The 39 Steps, are still very well known and other aspects, whether this is just or not, are less so, if it all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
False inference, lacking world and historic perspective, could signify bias, not uncommon, perhaps, among some readers of light fiction or movie fans, no more interested in the man behind the name "John Buchan" than in the name of his publisher. Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh? Publisher? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Like most novelists, he had publishers for his books. He was not self-publishing. Such as, The Thirty-Nine Steps published 1915, first serialized in Blackwood's Magazine, then as a book by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what the pertinence of this is to a discussion on the article title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility. TFD (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I have read that convention and it doesn't say that it should not be used for a first creation, just that it should not if the peerage was given after the person had essentially retired which Tweedsmuir had not when he was raised to the peerage, or if he was exclusively known by his personal name which he manifestly is not either. Dabbler (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Buchan had essentially retired from his career as a public servant and was appointed governor-general, which is a ceremonial post, similar to appointment to the Lords. I think the point of the wording in the convention is that people who are ennobled are already notable - that is why they are ennobled - while their heirs are notable for being lords. TFD (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You may be right about the intent of the WP wording. But the office of GG, such as Tweedsmuir's, is no mere sinecure. In his case it included but was not confined to ceremonial duties. He was not in retirement and died in office before he would otherwise have retired. It is not analogous to "appointment to the lords" whatever that may mean, then or now. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What non-ceremonial duties did he perform? You must know that many retired public servants are appointed to vice-regal positions - Massey, Vanier, Earle Rowe, Hal Jackman, for example. TFD (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: His novels are not nearly as well known and read as once but his and his wife's significance in Canadian history, for which he was given title before arriving as Governor General, remains. Masalai (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: That may be the perspective in Canada, so is worth consideration, but it's also worth noting that this side of the pond he's far better known as a novelist, and in Canada would you really generally refer to him by the full handle (per the current article title) or indeed by his peerage alone, or would you not just refer to him as plain John Buchan? The peerage is pertinent, and rightly mentioned prominently in the lede, but per nom his common name seems more fitting as the article title. And the title is superfluous per WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
+Comment: In Canada he is known mostly as Lord Tweedsmuir, unless you are specifically talking about his books and he is probably better known as a Governor General who introduced the annually awarded Governor General's awards for literature than as a novelist. Dabbler (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply - so if this were mandatory Canadian content, the current title would be fine. But for a global project, I still feel that WP:COMMONNAME dictates John Buchan, because his books belong to the world. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is an encyclopedia not a social calendar and therefore we should use the most common name. Buchan is best known for his novels, Hitchock made The 39 Steps into a film. He was only ennobled when he was appointed governor-general. TFD (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Including noble titles where they apply, from whatever route or on whatever date they were acquired, is normal in Wikipedia; another novelist more widely known as a novelist than as a Lord was Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton. There are so many case examples of this in Wikipedia, where it is the norm, it's a bit bizarre to hear all this talk about how his fame as a novelist supersedes the relevance of his title. And NB this is not as Canadian title, though it's how he was known there in his time, but a title of the House of Lords in Britain, and therefore not insignificant in "global terms".Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously the name by which he is usually known, e.g., on VIAF. Here's the first part of the references from the DNB entry for him (omitting those that do not name him at all):
  • R. G. Blanchard, The first editions of John Buchan: a collector's bibliography (1981)
  • J. Adam Smith, John Buchan (1965)
  • J. Adam Smith, John Buchan and his world (1979)
  • A. Lownie, John Buchan (1995)
  • S. Buchan, ed., John Buchan by his wife and friends (1947)
  • John Buchan's collected poems, ed. A. Lownie and W. Milne (1996)
  • W. Buchan, John Buchan (1982)
  • M. Green, A biography of John Buchan and his sister Anna (1990)
  • D. Daniell, The interpreter's house: a critical assessment of John Buchan (1975)
  • G. Himmelfarb, ‘John Buchan: an untimely appreciation’, Encounter, 15/3 (1960), 46–53
  • J. P. Parry, ‘From the Thirty-Nine Articles to The thirty-nine steps: reflections on the thought of John Buchan’, Public and private doctrine: essays in British history presented to Maurice Cowling, ed. M. Bentley (1993), 209–35
  • C. Harvie, ‘“For Gods are Kittle Cattle”: J. G. Frazer and John Buchan’, John Buchan Journal, 9 (winter 1989), 14–26
  • J. Kruse, John Buchan (1875–1940) and the idea of empire (1989)
  • A. Kirk-Greene, ‘Buchan and Burma’, John Buchan Journal, 1 (spring 1983), 3–7
  • K. Grieves, ‘“Nelson's history of the war”: John Buchan as a contemporary military historian, 1915–22’, Journal of Contemporary History, 28 (1993), 533–55
I don't see the present title of this article there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: His fame as novelist is in no way obliterated by including his name as Lord Tweedsmuir in the title. It is self-evident that books about the man as novelist will use his name as novelist, and are directed to that section of the public which is interested in him as such, maybe to the exclusion of an interest in his important service in public life for which he is certainly notable, regardless of his novels. But that does not mean that his public service for which he has been and will be known as Tweedsmuir (not only in Canada!) is so insignificant, or merely incidental, that, unlike others mentioned above, his name as such should be eliminated from the article title, which would be to prefer ignorance over fact. Note Baron Tweedsmuir and Redirect Lord Tweedsmuir[5] and Buchan (surname) --Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Buchan did not achieve "notability" by being appointed governor-general and being ennobled, which the King thought was necessary for the performance of his office. Rather, he was already notable as a public servant and popular author.
When writers are known by their titles, they will use their titles in their writing: Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Lord Byron. That of course is the of meaning of the most common name.
Also, the reason for adding titles is disambiguation.
TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Let us not be sidetracked. Any attempt to treat John Buchan as anything but a notable novelist would be a travesty, unworthy of the article (which at present is entirely unworthy of him, and hardly seems to be about this rather well-known British novelist at all). Let's be clear about this: John Buchan is a famous novelist. That he happened also to be appointed governor of Canada is marginal, and largely unknown to his public (even though, checking the first 15 or so of the many of his books that I own, I find that that this obscure fact is noted in the introductory blurb of every single one of them). It provides an interesting background to reading Sick Heart River; it is otherwise quite irrelevant to his reputation. He was, and still is, known as "John Buchan". That is title to which this article should be moved. To return to the point, do you, Qexigator, see the name "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" in any of the references to the DNB article that I have listed above? I do not. I see that he is universally, unambiguously, referred to as "John Buchan". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let us not be sidetracked. An attempt to treat John Buchan as notable primarily as a novelist would be a travesty, unworthy of the article. Editors who have contributed to the article (not to mention many readers) will be aware that in respect of his novels, he is probably best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915), the success of which was such that it was the title of the Hitchock movie adaptation for The 39 Steps (1935 film) starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll. The movie had been aimed at the USA market, and in August 1939 (significant timing) was followed there by Orson Welles's adaptation of the novel for The Mercury Theatre on the Air. But that novel, like Buchan's Greenmantle (1916) and others had been, as the article rightly reports, part of the propaganda for the British war effort in the First World War. His Prester John (1910), "the first of his adventure novels set in South Africa", had resulted from his service in that country with Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, an initial step in his career which culminated in his appointment as GG, Canada, at one of the many critical times in international affairs. Otherwise, his novels are barely notable. Taking his fiction and non-fiction work as a whole, however, together with his public service and appointments, his nearest comparator could be Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton who has been mentioned above. Including Buchan's name as Lord Tweedsmuir in the title in no way obliterates his fame as a novelist. Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you realize that the title of the article has no bearing on how the article appears? Editors typing in "John Buchan" would go directly here instead of being re-directly here. At present my guess is that 100% of readers are re-directed here, while many editors would type in "John Buchan." Probably fewer would type in "1st Baron Tweedsmuir." In fact he was more likely to have been called "Lord Tweedsmuir" than 1st Baron. TFD (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That has little if anything to do with the points above opposing the change from "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" to "John Buchan". 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does, because the discussion is about what the article is named. The article will still begin "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH." TFD (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Overwhelmingly known as John Buchan.--Britannicus (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: As a public servant Buchan was only known as Tweedsmuir for four years at the end of his life. As a novelist he continued to publish as "John Buchan" even after his ennoblement. Of course it's natural that in Canada he should be primarily known for having been Governor-General and Lord Tweedsmuir, but to the rest of the world he is notable as the author John Buchan. Bulwer-Lytton's article should probably be moved as well. Opera hat (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support He is primarily a novelist even if his novels may not be all that widely read nowadays, but the 3 film versions of the 39 Steps plus the stage version are collectively quite well known, and it is well known that they are based on his novel. It is somewhat Canada-centric to treat his period as governor-general of Canada as of equal importance. See Bertrand Russell, Margaret Thatcher for similar cases. Of the various counter-examples which have been quoted, a handful should arguably be moved to the version without the title as well, Arthur Wellesley is actually better known as the Duke of Wellington, and William Pitt and George Brown need to be disambiguated from other well-known people of these names. PatGallacher (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main point is that there is no problem here and no need now for the proposed change. His name as Tweedsmuir has been in the article from the start in 2002[6]. Of the examples above, it would be better to bring Russell and Thatcher into line by adding the names formally granted under the laws of their country, Russell as an hereditary peer, and Thatcher as a life peer following her premiership, by which they are also known, and in each case is an aspect of notablility in public life. These are names, not merely "honorifics", or popular modes of address such as "Senator" or "Congressman" or "President". Is the POV for removing such names connected with the fact that such names are granted and held under the law of the UK and are not part of the way of life of the USA, such that even past and living presidents of that federal republic are properly known by the name lawfully given at birth, or as registered, or as later changed in a manner lawfully acceptable (under Article Two of the United States Constitution), such as: Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Obama and the others listed as POTUS? --Qexigator (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"Baron" is not a name it is a title. In this case it is a substantive rather than honorific title. "Mister" (from the French mon sieur, literally "my lord") is also a title with rules about who may use it, although they are generally ignored today, yet we do not include it in article titles. When people in the U.K. appear in court, the court uses their birth certificate name, not their titles. TFD (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
+ Apart from the main point mentioned above, any commenter looking for information online about how would such persons lawfully sign their names could see: "On formal documents the full title is used. This is why Lord Tyrrell's signature, which is thrown on the screen as Film Censor, is Tyrrell of Avon."[7] And letters patent are granted in respect of name, style and title dontcha know, as in these florid examples:[8] No need to be side-tracked by "title" such as baron or baroness. --Qexigator (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
+ From the article: Infobox signature as "Tweedsmuir"; main text, "...Buchan was... elevated to the peerage, when he was entitled by King George V as Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield in the County of Oxford"; source, London Gazette "Whitehall, June 3rd, 1935. The KING has been pleased...to confer the dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom upon John Buchan, Esquire, ... by the name, style and title of BARON TWEEDSMUIR of Elsfield in the County of Oxford."[9]
As the Tyrrell example shows, baron is not part of the name. Nor is "esquire", which is a title mid-way between mister and sir. Note that Buchan did not ask his publisher to change his name, nor did he forfeit his name on elevation to the peerage. TFD (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
None has proposed "baron"[10] or "esquire" as a name or as part of the present discussion. Esquire is antique, but the usage has persisted in the legal profession in the USA. For the information of commenters, "dignity" is a formal usage with a certain meaning in connection with UK peerages[11],[12] --Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The current title of the article is "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir." Barristers become esquires, if they are not already, when the are called to the bar. However, we do not add that title to titles of articles about barristers. TFD (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming both points, about name (per links given above, 11.56[13] and 16.38) and about antique[14]. If Wikipedia is to be believed, in USA "Esq." is also used by female lawyers, which is perhaps more bizarre than antique, but each country has its own customs. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
An 1830 manual for JPs, p. 541, explains the title of esquire, and points out that all barristers are esquires.[15] No idea why U.S. barristers retained this title after the revolution. As the manual says out, "Honours can only be conferred by the crown." The point is that we do not normally add that title to article names. TFD (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Commenters and editors will be aware that the antique use of "Esq.", and its general use into the later 20c. as a form of addressing letters in what had been considered English "polite society", have nowt to do with peerage dignities or the matter here under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Buchan was appointed to the Lords before the later 20th century. He is referred to in the Gazette announcing his appointment as "John Buchan, Esquire", which was his title.[16] Similarly, on the same page, Laing is referred to as a "gentleman." On the next page, people called Pagan and Strode are referred to as "Mr." In the list of Buckingham palace staff, some junior members have no titles at all. Clearly "esquire" is a title, but we chose not to use it in article names. TFD (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Commenters and editors can see the content of the LG there linked, and that those remarks about usage are certainly irrelevant to the points under discussion here, and possibly misleading. "Esquire", "Mr", and "gentlemen" afford no guidance to usage of the "name, style and title" for a peerage, for reasons sufficiently given above. Has it ever been proposed to include in an article heading "Esquire", "Mr" or "gentleman"? Qexigator (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you have not explained the difference between these two types of titles. TFD (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And how is any of this relevant anyway? If User:Qexigator thinks article titles should include peerages in all cases, then the change to WP:NCPEER should be proposed at that talk page, not here. The current article title is not wrong, but this discussion is about whether "John Buchan" would be a better one - i.e. whether he is more widely known as an author, or as Governor-General of Canada. Opera hat (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply I think Quexigator's contribution actually confirms the point I was making, since moving Bertrand Russell and Margaret Thatcher to the versions with the titles would be contrary to current naming conventions, see WP:NCROY. This proposed move is in accordance with the current naming conventions, if people want to change them so be it. I checked the article and most biographies etc. call him plain John Buchan, over a dozen books by him have their own article which suggests that he is still primarily a writer. PatGallacher (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: More "porky" than "policy", perhaps, or wishful thinking. Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have had a look at the List of Governors-General of Canada and they look like a pretty obscure bunch who few non-Canadians will have heard of, and I suspect many of them are not widely remembered even in Canada (Earl Alexander of Tunis might be the one exception). If his period as GG of Canada is still remembered then I suggest this is because they took the unusual step of appointing a well-known writer to this post. An example of his continued importance as a writer is that there have been TV adaptations of 2 of his novels, Huntingtower and John McNab, within the period I can remember, the former was fairly popular. PatGallacher (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That tends to support the reasons against the proposed change, seeing that the notability of his public career including his final appointment as GG is not less than others appointed to that office; that such of his works of fiction as are notable have been given articles to themselves; that the rest of his published writings are probably less well-known than his position as the public servant who was advanced to the peerage as Lord Tweedsmuir, which rightly forms the main part of the article. The fact is that, from the point of view of the man's biography, the article itself shows that his novel writing was a spin-off from his public career. It is that which makes him more interesting than most other writers of similar fiction, whether or not his public career is of any interest to many who have read his fiction with enjoyment. He had no part in the TV and other posthumous adaptations, but it may have been useful to those who made them to be able to use his name. Nor should Wikipedia adopt the stance that a country such as Canada is virtually a nonentity. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The case of naming Alexander's article is even worse than here. Like Buchan he had a distinguished career before his appointment as governor-general and was elevated to the peerage upon his appointment. However, unlike Buchan, he survived the appointment, and received an earldom upon his return. But no one argues that his article should be named "Viscount Alexander", even though that is the most common name when referring to his time in Canada. TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Again this tends to support the reasons against the proposed change, seeing that it is obviously right for a person with such a career in public service to have the article title include the peerage name and title given at the end of his career, not one which he had had before then. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
What about William Shakespeare (1564-1616)? In 1596, his father was awarded a coat of arms, which elevated William to an esquire. Should we change the name of that article too? TFD (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That goes even further from the point under discussion here. Even if anyone considered it worth mooting in connection with Shakespeare's life, there must be few who need to be reminded that acquiring the gentry status signified by a grant of arms is poles apart from advancement to a peerage in connection with a career in public service. Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
John Shakespeare was elevated to the gentry in recognition of his career in public service. There are many post-nominal titles awarded for public service that we do not include in article names, such as OM, OO. Not all peerages are awarded for public service, Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland received a dukedom for her personal services to the king. And of course most were inherited. TFD (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This line of reasoning against the proposal just seems to accentuate the superfluity of the title in the article name. Is it really being argued that biographical articles of people already and largely notable for other things should have added to their title the last/biggest gong that happened to be given to them, as a matter of course? Again WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". He's known as John Buchan, mention his elevation to Tweedsmuir in the article but it's not defining and it's not needed in the title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No it is not being so argued, as can be seen from the reasons given above opposing the change. Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm really confused then as to what your argument actually is. Why does WP:PRECISION require (or indeed, allow) his title in the article ? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors and commenters can see from the reasons given above that the proposed change is opposed because it would be a pointless and unneeded disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This does not address WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
...and you might want un-bold the word "opposed" in your last comment in case someone thinks you're "voting" twice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
done. Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on all of the above: Editors, commenters and readers can see that it doesn't take a "policy" to show that there is no problem with the article title to be fixed as proposed, though some, it seems, may be confused about that. Why persist? Qexigator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for unbolding the word "opposed" as requested. If you are now saying "that there is no problem with the article title to be fixed as proposed", can you clarify that this means you are withdrawing your opposition to the requested move? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the unintended ambiguity. My position remains against as above, on the basis of the article content, historical and literary perspective and general principle: "The main point is that there is no problem here and no need now for the proposed change. His name as Tweedsmuir has been in the article from the start in 2002" - "...his contribution to global history of the 20c. in public service, up to his death in office as Lord Tweedsmuir, surpasses his contribution to the commonwealth of letters, but includes his wartime novels, The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle (1916), his service as Director of Information in 1917, and his time as an MP." - "...he is probably best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915)...But that novel, like his Greenmantle (1916) and others had been, as the article rightly reports, part of the propaganda for the British war effort in the First World War. His Prester John (1910), 'the first of his adventure novels set in South Africa', had resulted from his service in that country with Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, an initial step in his career which culminated in his appointment as GG, Canada, at one of the many critical times in international affairs. Otherwise, his novels are barely notable." - "..from the point of view of the man's biography, the article itself shows that his novel writing was a spin-off from his public career." - "...the proposed change...would be a pointless and unneeded disservice to Wikipedia and its readers". Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Even were that so, WP:PRECISION? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is any of that not so? Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not addressing "any of that" (here, but I did above, several days ago). You're (continuously) not addressing WP:PRECISION. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can see that I, and others opposing, have addressed the relevant points. Please do not hector one who does not happen to agree with you about this. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "hectoring" you. I've put a point to which you continually respond to by talking about different matters entirely. You are choosing to respond, I'm simply pointing out that you keep answering a question I'm not asking and not answering one that I am. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Noted, without rancour. My answers to the proposal are as above. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NCROY is specifically noted as an exception to WP:PRECISION. John Buchan was 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, so the former guideline is applicable here. However, the relevant section (WP:NCPEER) says that the peerage title should not be included in the article title for "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names". Opera hat (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And has already been pointed out, in Canada he is almost exclusively known by his title rather than his personal name. Now the rest of Wikipedia may think that Canada is unimportant, but Tweedsmuir was important to Canada in many ways despite his relatively short term of office cut short by his death. There are a number of public parks, schools etc. named Tweedsmuir after the Governor General. How many are named Buchan after the novelist? Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with that (and I hope nobody would), but is he actually known as "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" or just as plain old "Lord Tweedsmuir"? Deb (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a John Buchan School, near Paderborn in Germany (for British military communities). Don't know of a John Buchan Park but I'm not sure there's a Tweedsmuir Society, Tweedsmuir Way or a Tweedsmuir Museum either. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there's a John Buchan Road in Oxford. Deb (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tweedsmuir House, St Michael's College School, Toronto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.192.212 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buchan/Archive_2&oldid=1136848138"