Talk:Order of Merit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opening sentence

According to the opening sentence the Order of Merit is an order recognizing distinguished service in the armed forces, science, art, literature, or for the promotion of culture. But in the list of present holders we find the Duke of Edinburgh, Lady Thatcher, Lady Boothroyd, Lord Eames and Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien – all of them very distinguished no doubt, but not in the fields that the Order of Merit is said to cover. So there is a contradiction. Something should be done about it.Hertel47 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the page might be better if we could see the field in which the recipients excelled, rather than going to each seperate page. Stevenscollege 9/5/2005

Definitely. Thanks for that! I'd been vaguely wondering who some of them were. Proteus (Talk) 08:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Im wondering if we need the links mentioned under the "See Also" heading, that are also mentioned in the "Table of the British honours system" box, I dont think we need two seperate links to the same page. Stevenscollege 10/7/05

Disambiguation page ?

I think there should be a disambig page for Order of Merit, For example there is the Order of Merit of the Principality of Leichtenstein, and I believe there is (or at least was) one in Germany as well. Dowew 03:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Dowew has a point. Order of Merit Liechtenstein deserves a place on this dab page. Why, you may ask, don't you not fix the article appropriately? Well, we probably will – in due time --Ezeu 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page from "Order of Merit" to "Order of Merit (Commonwealth)" as there are many orders of merit. Could an administrator move the disambiguation page from Order of Merit (disambiguation) to simply "Order of Merit" please. Cheers, Likedeeler 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this page back to Order of Merit and the disambiguation page to Order of Merit (disambiguation), since this is the primary topic and the one that most articles are linking to. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- Necrothesp 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ODM has specific guidelines for disambiguation. Given that medal names are often shared over various national honours systems, articles pertaining to these are disambiguated as a matter of course. When we are talking about the Cross of Valour, which is the primary decoration? The decoration of that name awarded by Canada or that awarded by Australia? It's a bit of a sterile argument, hence best avoided. As far as the OM goes, the Order of Merit (Russian Federation) seems to be the only listing on the disambiguation page which has the same wording - given that this has not been written yet, we can probably do without disambiguation until it is.

Xdamr^talk 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The British OM should be the primary topic since it is the most linked to, as per the standard disambiguation guidelines. ODM is only a project and its guidelines do not therefore supersede established generic guidelines. To quote the disambiguation guidelines:

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top."

If you have a look at the links to Order of Merit (bearing in mind that many links were recently changed from Order of Merit to Order of Merit (Commonwealth), which is incorrect anyway, after this article was originally renamed), I think you'll see what most are actually referring to and are likely to refer to in the future (unsurprisingly on English Wikipedia). You can't really compare it to the two Crosses of Valour, which are both awarded by English-speaking countries of similar size and are thus likely to be linked to equally often. We are aiming for maximum usability and it thus makes more sense for "Order of Merit" to link to this article, which is likely to be what the editor inserting the links intends, than to a disambiguation article. -- Necrothesp 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to prefer the British Order of Merit to any other ones. The fact that more articles link to the British one is simply because this is the English-speaking wiki. Things surely are different in the French or German wikipedia. If the British think they must name it simply "Order of Merit" rather than "British Order of Merit" it should still be treated just like any other order of merit. And it's not like the British invented the whole thing, the Pour le Mérite was established long before (1740) the British came into being in 1902. Likedeeler 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. As I note above, I accept that at this point disambiguation is unnecessary (and that 'Commonwealth' was the wrong disambiguator in any event), but to privilege one nation's medal over another's strikes me as being a violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV. It is correct that that WP:ODM is merely a project, but it should also be noted that WP:DISAMBIG is a guideline, free to be departed from as and when appropriate. I would consider that this nexus of nationality, name, and subject is one which justifies such a departure.

Xdamr^talk 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're inclined to ignore Wikipedia guidelines on article naming? Why exactly? Yes, things would be different on another language Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia and links from other wikis are irrelevant to us. In any case, how many other orders are just called the Order of Merit, in English? Most of them are in reality in another language. As in Pour le Mérite, which you may notice is actually in French (and doesn't actually mean "Order of Merit" in any case)! If a person speaking English says "Order of Merit" which one are they most likely to be referring to? That's the salient question. The answer, I think, is the British one, particularly since it's one of the few that's only ever referred to as the "Order of Merit" without a national qualifier (you may not like it, but it's a fact - it's simply not referred to as the "British Order of Merit"). This is simply a matter of usability, not a matter of favouring one nation's honours over another. It's the same as London defaulting to London, England, not London, Ontario (and equally Paris defaulting to Paris, France and not Paris, Texas). Because if someone links to those cities from another article, on balance of probabilities it's most likely that's the city they're referring to. Same situation here. -- Necrothesp 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If a person who speaks English sais "Order of Merit", then he or she means "Order of Merit" - an order which exists in a variety of countries such as the USA, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. If many articles link to the British one, well, then perhaps those lings should be changed. There are nearly 40 "Orders of Merit" on the disambiguation page and I see no reason for preferential treatment of the British one other than the obvious national pride of an Englishman. As a compromise, I would suggest listing the British order first on the disambiguation page before all the others. Axt (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Status of Order

I was just reading through the British honours list and most of the articles mention the status of honours in comparison to the other honours availible whislt this article only mentions that the Merit is one of the highest regular honours today. Would the article read better if this was expanded to explain where the honour is on the British scale and how this compares with its use in the commonwealth?

Link to Australian Knights and Dames

What's the justification for having a link to Australian Knights and Dames from this page? There's no link to any list of holders of any other honours. Haydn01 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that too - it seemed a little out of place -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you two. However, it's not localised to this page, and as is often the case on WP, there's not much consistency.

A bit of history: In early March 2008, an anon added the link to a number of pages. It has been removed from OBE, but not the others (yet).

• Royal Victorian Order - added, still there.
• OBE - added, removed June 2008 with the comment: Not relevant. That is a list of knights of another order.
• Order of Merit - added, still there.
• Order of St Michael and St George - added, still there.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. Refer also to Australian knights and dames#See also).

Thanks for that pdf. We all seem to agree that it's inconsistent, and so it would seem did the person who removed the link from OBE. In fact it's worse than inconsistent; the Order of Merit article describes the award, and there's a separate page listing the current holders. If anywhere, the link to AK&D should be from the latter. But I suggest the best solution would be to include the AK&D page in the Award winners category, and remove all of the above links to (and from) it. Haydn01 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[[:category:Award winners]] gives category:Award winners. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, that sounds like a reasonable plan. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again pdf. Changes made as agreed Haydn01 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to change the other pages? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Postnominal confusion with Order of Manitoba

The postnominal for the Order of Manitoba is also OM, I've recently discovered. This leads to the situation where one reads, eg. "Neil Young OM" and wonders why one had never heard about his appointment to the Order of Merit. Then one clicks the link, gets to Order of Manitoba, and says "Ah, I see now". That's all very well for online use, but an appearance of "Neil Young OM" in a book or magazine could well be misconstrued. Also, Canadian citizens are eligible to be appointed to both awards, leading to a name like "George Smith OM OM". Is there any protocol that bans the use of a postnominal that's already in use for a different award? Well, obviously not, since we have an example here. But can anyone tell me what's going to happen when Mr Smith gets both awards? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally post nominals and titles are only applied to substantive (not honorary) awards so there should be no conflict between orders in different countries. However, the Commonwealth Realms are slightly different and presumably the national Chanceries communicate with one-another to avoid this sort of situation. However, from reading the article on Orders, decorations, and medals of the Canadian provinces it would seem that "the federal government did not recognize these honours and decorations, fearing duplications and citing the fact that the Queen had not authorized them". This issue has been resolved, but the Canadian provinces that had previously created their own orders clearly did not check (or did not care) about any conflict of post nominal letters. The example given of "George Smith OM OM" would certainly sound/look quite silly. It's probably one of those things that they're hoping won't happen. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of previous holders of the Order of Merit

A list of all of the holders of the O.M. between 1902 and 2002 has been added for information.

Martin

91.110.169.204 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry Jackson

Can anyone throw any light on Henry Jackson, OM., FBA. (1839-1921) the only O.M. with no article?

See: Henry Jackson (classicist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.206.153 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignia

The image used in the infobox of this article clearly shows that the order's medalion bears the words FOR MERIT in the central disk. However, the Prince of Wales' website illustrates an OM insignia that has the Queen's cypher - EIIR - in the same place. Has the design of the OM's badge changed since Dorothy Hodgkin was appointed? Or, does the PoW's site show the reverse of the insignia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it just shows the other side of the medal. The OM medal has "FOR MERIT" on the front of the medal, and a cipher on the back.

Past Members

Congratulations to whoever improved the above list! It looks so much better than my original one. Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot flags corrected.

Martin Packer 91.110.196.74 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Member lists

I love all your little flags, but I have just corrected Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot by the way!

Can we discuss what your parameters were for birth outside the U.K. and formal titles etc asap? --Martin 91.110.236.6 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean about parameters for non-UK birth and formal titles, though. Could you clarify? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK apart from Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot, I am not convinced of the accuracy of the 'Past' list from The Earl Roberts to say Henry Jackson - incidentally I wrote the new article for Henry Jackson - the only O.M. without an article and I still don't know why he deserved one! Look at some of their articles and there are those born outside Britain? Do they deserve extra flags or not? Also there is now an 'inconsistency' over the titles and ranks which was not there before.

The original list at least fully described titles/ranks from an impecable source, and even when I slightly abbreviated them for length, they gave good descriptions. I can see you have done an awful lot of work on the list of 'Past' members, but is it entirely accurate or to what level?

I am going to put in the 'Past' members dates of death by the way to give length of membership. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had considered this before, but opted not to follow through as each person's date of death is shown in their article, hence it seemed superfluous to have it in the OM article as well. I suppose it does no harm to have it, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the frames which will make it look a lot tidier; I will eventually put all the other 'dates of death' (termination of O.M. membership in) until you want to of course?

At the moment, I am more concerned about the accuracy of the flags as I have already found THREE errors: Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot & Henry James; do you want to do all of the checking? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on adding the dates of death as well, when I have a need to do something dull tomorrow.

Per flags: Robert Robinson was born and worked in the UK; T.S. Eliot was born in Missouri; Hnery James was born in New York. I went through each and every article earlier this evening checking places of birth and where adulthood was spent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry James, O.M.

Surely he was Anglo-American? So I have added your Stars & Stripes! Please confirm whether you agree or not? Unfortunately I just reached my boredom threshold at 40# (plus a.n.other), more shortly! Again, you need to decide your parameters for dual nationality please AND exactly why some titles/ranks have gone missing? My original list was of official titles/ranks of course.

In the meantime, please look at re-instating FULL dates for 'Current' and 'Honorary' OM members. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There never were full dates for current members, only years, which are still there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are WRONG! All O.M. members up to 2000 originally had complete appointment dates showing!

Go back to February 2009 and see (for example):

113. The Duke of Edinburgh, KG., KT., OM., GBE., AC., QSO., FRS. (b. 1921) 10th June 1968

so I think you should re-instate all of those official (full) appointment dates please a.s.a.p.? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying now; you're speaking of when current members were also listed in the past members section. We're both right, then, as the page used to show only the year of appointment in the "Current members" area (what I was referring to) and full dates in the "Past members: 1902 to 2002" section (what you were referring to). Then, yes, the full dates can be put in the present "Current members" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having now put the dates back, I note that all appointments after 2002 do not have (nor ever did have) full dates. What was your source for those for 2002 and earlier? The Gazette? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the question of the Royal Household, with regard to current members 169-175 and honorary member 11. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can conclusively prove otherwise, there is no way Dorothy Hodgkin had dual Egyptian-British nationality, so I have deleted the Egyptian flag for the time being! Can I suggest you need to review the rules for NATIONALITY as soon as possible and apply them consistently? For example, Sir Aaron Klug is of Lithuanian origin/born in South Africa, but presumably 'British'! ps On second thoughts, I am wrong about him being born in South Africa - but what about Sir Tom Stoppard "Born Tomáš Straussler in Zlín, Czechoslovakia" - does he deserve a second flag or not? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am merely going by what the biography articles say. If I missed some, please add what's missing. Also, I've so far only been able to go through the past members list; I shall try and make a go through the present members today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear "Miesianical" (?),

I have filled in the dates of 'departure' for the Past Honorary's, but for a health reason I have "run out of steam", so may resume the rest later on today. I do like your sample of images in the otherwise vacant column, and suggest that you should select more to fill it up all the way down! Personally I would like to see the British O.M. scientists if possible, especially my "hero": the late and great FRANCIS CRICK, followed closely by PAUL DIRAC please. Perhaps you can do a sample from each decade? Can you run your choice of images past me before adding them?

I am trying to remain more 'constructive' rather 'critical' by the way - even if overall the information on the Past O.M.'s has been 'dumbed down' to some extent, as was referred to above.

I do know that Dorothy Hodgkin was born in Egypt, but did that necessarily make her of 'dual Egyptian-British nationality'; I really don't think so, but if you can prove she was - by all means reinstate the Egyptian flag! The last person I met (of dual Australian-British nationality) seemed to say it was a matter of choice [i.e. not 'automatic'] and gave her the right to reside to both countries, but most importantly the right to return and live in "Oz". --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anything has been dumbed down; it is Wikipedia policy to keep detailed information on a subject in that subject's article and summaries employed if that subject is mentioned elsewhere. The flags were a way, I thought, to illustrate how the order's membership is and has been composed; i.e. its international stature, and which countries have qualified as foreign and which have not. It also seemed to potentially help readers quickly see how many persons from their country had been inducted into the OM. Of course, that approach leads to the question of what to do with those who were born and possibly raised in one country but lived also in another. It seems logical to me to show both their country of birth and that of later residence, regardless of the individual's personal preference or identity; they were born somewhere, whether they liked it or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I leave YOU to fill in the remaining dates of deaths please as it is most tedious? I still think you should check all of your flags against their articles (especially Sir Tom Stoppard!). It's nice to get a Canadian perspective on the world - a pleasant change from 'American' all the time. I do have a Canadian connection in my late Great Aunt Lilian MacAdam [one of my paternal 'Packer' grandfather's sisters] emigrated to New Brunswick, from where she wrote to tell me that it was "God's own country", whatever that was supposed to mean! I look forward to seeing all the dates of death in place, and perhaps you can take up my suggestion about adding further images, but not all from the former colonies please? In days of yore, you were "British" wherever you were born, ie anywhere in the former Empire/later the Commonwealth!

Sadly we [the 'Brits.'] do seem to have effectively lost touch with the Commonwealth countries, now that we are part of EUROPE, and yet at the same time have devolved to a 'quasi-Former Yugoslavia', with England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Strictly speaking, the flags were not really necessary but I think they look "nice" and I would have been more impressed with 100% accuracy (and still hope to be) BUT a lot of information on the 'Past' Substantive O.M. members has been lost; you only have to compare Current Members with Past Members to see that. In other words, Current Members still show their titles, honours, decorations etc. Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think current members are of more importance to the article than past members? It's just that the titles, post-nominals, & etc., for some 160 + people is a lot of information; generally, lists of members end up looking something like this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Great idea, but poorly implemented I'm afraid. can we see the Greek Flag for Prince Philip as he was born on the 'Greek' Island of Corfu? And the first of the Past Members (Substantive): The Earl Roberts was born in India by the way! It will be well worth cross-checking ALL of them against their own articles, as was previously suggested but apparently ignored. It is not a question of 'dual nationality' but where they were actually born, so do please check their Wiki articles? NB: "In days of yore, you were 'British' wherever you were born, ie anywhere in the former Empire/later the Commonwealth!" So why split hairs over Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand etc? Ironically these days only Northern Ireland Protestants call themselves 'British'!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/Listofcurrentmembers.aspx

Suggest someone in Canada needs to check his list in the article against the above URL's list?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

After 1931, the Dominions ceased to be legally British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/OrderofMerit.aspx

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think some of these flags are a good idea at all. For example, Sir Tom Stoppard. He was born in Czechoslovakia, presumably as a Czech citizen. Later he moved to the UK and became a British citizen. His substantive appointment to the Order of Merit was only possible because of his British citizenship. Otherwise, it would have had to be honorary. Whatever his history prior to becoming a British citizen may have been, that's all irrelevant. So showing whatever flags he may also have been previously associated with is also irrelevant. Same applies to the Duke of Edinburgh, Lucien Freud and Aaron Klug. The only real value in these flags is to show which Commonwealth Realm the member belongs to, because it's not necessarily the UK. In Stoppard's case, it is the UK. In Dame Joan Sutherland's case, it's Australia. Had Dame Joan been born in Mongolia, that would be just as irrelevant to this list. All that matters is that she was an Australian citizen at the time she was appointed to the Order. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still firmly of the view that "country of origin and country or countries of later residence, respectively" are completely irrelevant to this article. What does it matter that Yehudi Menuhin was born a US citizen and also lived in Switzerland for some period of his life? Of what possible interest or relevance is that to his appearance on a list of members of the Order of Merit? If we want to know such facts about his life, we have his own article to go to at the click of a mouse. All we want or need to know in this article is which one of the 16 Commonwealth realms was he a member of. That's all. Showing the Greek flag against Prince Philip is really lame, I have to say. Yes, we all know he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but he renounced all those titles before he married, and 20 years before he got the OM. The Greek flag just has no place here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. The flags should show which commonwealth realm the person is or was a citizen of that qualified them for the OM, not countries of origin or later residence. I suppose this will bring up the people who insist that the royal family is not British, but that's silly. The Queen herself belongs to all the Commonwealth Realms; her family are UK citizens. john k (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the edits. I suppose we shall have to see if I am reverted. john k (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, John. You have my support, obviously. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds sensible to me, too. I think part of the problem has been that nobody quite agreed on exactly what criteria should be applied to decide which flag should be used. But "which Commonwealth realm was the recipient a citizen of?" seems a good choice: it conveys relevant information but (hopefully) isn't going to lead either to disputes over which flag should be used, or to some people ending up with unwieldy collections of flags. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a few with multiple flags - specifically the ones who originated in one commonwealth realm but were living in another when they got the OM...wasn't sure what to do with those. john k (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship is problematic as the criteria for which flag to use, given that citizenship didn't exist even in the UK until the 1940s. Also, do we know for sure that all the people listed in the article were citizens of the country they resided in? And, for the Royal Family, there's no proof they're UK citizens, and there is proof they're not foreigners to Canada. But, for non-royals, I suppose a flag representing the individual's country of residence at the time of appointment into the order makes sense.

Alternatively, the flags could simply all be deleted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, nationality, rather than citizenship, then. As far as the royal family, why doesn't country of residence matter for them? All of them reside in the UK. As far as what their nationality is, our article on British nationality indicates that "before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality irrespective of the status of parents, with an exception only for children of diplomats and enemy aliens." So obviously the Prince of Wales is a British national. The Duke of Edinburgh was naturalized in 1947, and was a British national already by virtue of the long-forgotten Sophia Naturalization Act 1705. So they both reside in the UK and are British nationals. The problem would seem to be pre-1948 awards to commonwealth figures, since at that point everyone was technically a British subject; not sure how that works. Removing the flags might be wisest. john k (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

Technically, per WP:BRD, after I revert you, the onus is on you to discuss why your change should be accepted before you revert my revert. However, technicalities aside, I fear this page is going to turn into a gallery of images of random appointees rather than being an article about the order with some illustrations pertaining to the order itself, such as it's first female member, the first New Zealander, & etc. One portrait for each decade amounts to eleven images! And what criteria is followed when deciding which person represents the decade? Let's have some rationale here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that a column heading to explain the flags should be your first priority? The use of multiple flags does need to be explained in my opinion, so do let's see it!

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue at hand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but it is very important as lay readers will not readily understand the complexity of 'your' duplicate/triplicate flags for the same O.M. members. Even I am uncertain about your rationale for them. Picture-wise we need "the first Australian/first Jewish" O.M. member (same man!) to go alongside the first New Zealander/the first Canadian - so can you oblige me please?

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your request. Are you asking me to put a picture in for you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I have already inserted the 'first Australian' O.M. member - perhaps you would like to have a go at the 'first South African', after you have come up with a suitable column heading for the flags? Personally I think the flags should be simplified to just one per person, i.e. for the country of birth - but this would not necessarily make Earl Roberts an "Indian" (sic)!

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the flags is another matter (the pattern seems fairly obvious and other lists use the same tactic - e.g. Time Person of the Year - without needing any explanation). There's still no rationale for which images are included and which are not. Is it just random, personal preference? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, multiple flags are NOT obvious and have added an unnecessary degree of complication; quoting "Time Person of the Year" does not support your argument I'm afraid. While I like the flags, I think a column heading of "Country of Origin" would be most appropriate, with just ONE flag per son to denote the country in which he/she was born; unfortunately this would make Earl Roberts an 'Indian', albeit a "British Indian"! Good luck with the 'First South African'! Nitramrekcap (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're still diverting the topic. What logic is guiding the ever growing number of images in this article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Miesianiacal" (what does that mean?),

You are quite right of course, but a sample [OED definition = "small representative part or quantity"] does fill the otherwise empty space! I think the images should illustrate the diversity of O.M. members by nationality and also their areas of expertise. Personally I am only really interested in the scientific ones such as Francis Crick, Dorothy Hodgkin, and Max Perutz - especially Crick as I was involved in his forthcoming (second) biography, but unfortunately we failed to record the formal date of his O.M. in the book, pub. on 09-01-2009.

Can I presume that you do not object to the new 1st Column heading for Past Members/Substantive?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The images do fill up empty space, but, in Wikipedia, images aren't really intended to be mere decoration; they should impart some information. Firsts and lasts are generally notable, or controversial or unique subjects. Liking scientists doesn't quite qualify as a method by which we can govern the use of illustrations. With the old method of listing the former methods, I was able to space the images out; the table format, unfortunately, doesn't seem to allow that same arrangement. I wonder if there's some way to achieve both... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read "Martin, Stanley (2007?). The Order of Merit 1902-2002: One Hundred Years of Matchless Honour. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 1-86064-848-7"? [I have a copy arriving later this week.]

Incidentally there is some O.M. stuff in "What a Time I'm Having, Selected Letters of Max Perutz", published by CSHL Press last year; fortunately my copy came free-of-charge from them!

HAS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE LOST HER FLAG FOR 'FLORENCE, TUSCANY'? I HOPE YOU LIKE ENHANCED IMAGES!

Martin

19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This matter was never resolved, and now Martin/Nitramrekcap/multiple-different-IPs is back at reinserting images without any evident rationale besides personal preference. Can he now, after eight months, reveal his formula? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WINSTON CHURCHILL

Moved to Talk:Winston Churchill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not only was Sir Winston's full surname Spencer-Churchill, it was also his good lady wife's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_Churchill,_Baroness_Spencer-Churchill

so "Miesianiacal" check outSpencer-Churchill on Wikipedia AND YOU WILL FIND LOADS OF THEM!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For the third time (twice in edit summaries and once now), this is not a matter for discussion at this article. It should be taken up at Talk:Winston Churchill. Also, Wikipedia doesn't reference itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

His surname is Churchill. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

His full surname was SPENCER-CHURCHILL.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Miesianiacal that this isn't the correct place to have this discussion: Winston Churchill is, and this article should follow the convention adhered to in that article. That said, the BMD indices for England and Wales list a Winston Leonard Churchill born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire (volume 3a page 695) in Oct-Dec 1874. A Winston Leonard S Churchill was married in St George, Hanover Square, London, Middlesex (volume 1a page 1110) in Jul-Sep 1908 to Clementine Ogilvy Hozier. And a Winston L S Churchill died, aged 90, in Kensington (volume 5c, page 1192) in Jan-Mar 1965. So there're three official documents in which his surname is listed as Churchill, not Spencer Churchill or Spencer-Churchill (in all three cases he's listed under C, not S, in the indices). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Try keying in SPENCER-CHURCHILL on Wikipedia search and see what you get? His family's surname?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Precedence in each realm

Is this vast chunk of text really necessary? (The overall article has a strong Canadian bias?)

If as much effort had gone into the article generally, we would not still be adding Flags and the dates of deceased Honoraries being appointed! Can the CANADIAN content be toned down please?

"Similarly, though it is not listed in the Canadian order of precedence for honours, decorations, and medals, except relating to those who were appointed to the order prior to 1 June 1972,[11] Christopher McCreery stated in his book The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development that the Order of Merit was the highest civilian award for merit a Canadian could receive.[12] McCreery reiterated this point in the press following the appointment of Jean Chrétien to the Order of Merit on 13 July 2009, stating "it [the Order of Merit] is ahead even of the Order of Canada,"[13] and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, an editor of Burke's Peerage, echoed McCreery's views in stating that the Order of Merit outranked the Order of Canada.[14] Some orders of precedence are as follows:..."

Nitramrekcap (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your concern? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can the CANADIAN content be toned down please?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What does "toned down" mean? What's there is verifiably cited and directly related to the subject of the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Knighthoods

Does anyone object to knighthoods being 'reinstated' for the Past/Substantive members, or not?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you then going to add all the post-nominal letters as well? Also, if you're going to add all the honorary prefixes, please do so correctly; the way you've started creates either dead links or redirects. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that it's necessary to include full postnominal letters and titles for all past members of the Order. I've no strong objection to doing so, but it strikes me that (a) in some cases it will be difficult to ensure we get the full list and (b) it might make the list look a bit cluttered. -- Dr Nicholas Jackson BA (Ebor) MSc PhD (Warw) FBS (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The addition of the directions on where to find past members' titles and post-nominals is also unneccessary; in general, Wikipedia users know how to use Wikipedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sir" for knights and baronets is a basic part of the name. Postnominals are not. john k (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbering of OM's

"Mieseniacal", have you got a copy of STANLEY MARTIN's book from 2007, as it looks like the sequential numbering of the WIKI list is not consistent with his? (I suspect he knows better!)

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have the book. Please remember, though, that it wasn't I who set the sequence here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

THE ORIGINAL NUMBERING SEQUENCE FOR O.M. MEMBERS FROM 1902 TO 2002 WAS SEQUENTIAL IN ORDER OF APPOINTMENT; ALL THE CURRENT MEMBERS HAVE BEEN RE-NUMBERED SEQUENTIALLY FROM 1 TO 24 OF COURSE!

I think in that case we had better adopt his numbering sequence, although having seen the other errors and ommissions in his APPENDIX C where Wikipedia articles/'your' names are right and his are wrong (seriously!), I think we had better tread carefully; his list of MEMBERS OF THE ORDER OF MERIT: 1902 TO 2002 is not that a good list of complete names, but his numbering is far better than this disjointed WIKI article.

Also on the last page, it says "Sir David (Frederick) ATTENBOROUGH" was born on [quote] "8 May 192". I suggest you buy a copy as soon as possible, See your Talk page for details!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-nominals note

As I have said before here and in a number of edit summaries, this hatnote regarding where users can find post-nominal letters is note only irrelevant to this article, it is not consistent with Wikipedia's style. If, Nitramrekcap, you insist on post-nominal letters for the past members of the OM, insert them for each individual. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (PS- Thanks to Rrius for fixing what Nitramrekcap apparently would not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

"For complete post-nominal letters, see the respective individual articles for OM past members."

Why should the list for PAST members exclude post-nominals, when CURRENT members show their's?

1#: Their post-nominals should NOT have been excluded by whoever previously 'edited' them out.

2#: Their pre-nominal titles are incomplete as they do not include military ranks, see S. Martin's book, Appendix C.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is solely yours, but if you insist on pursuing it, your present "solution" of the hatnote isn't acceptable. Either the post-noms for current members are deleted, or those for past members are restored. The question, though, is why do either? I initially pared down all the detail in the past members list as it seemed superfluous - military ranks, honorific titles, peerage titles, and post-nominal letters; present members of the order are more pertinent to the subject. Slowly, all that excess has been creeping back in, and I find myself asking again: why? We certainly aren't here to plagiarize S. Martin. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see a need to include full lists of postnominal letters for either the current or former members. Including them for the current members is probably a reasonable compromise, but I wouldn't object to those being removed for uniformity's sake. Including them for the entire list of former members is certainly overkill - that information is readily available on the individual article pages for the people concerned, and if included in this article would look rather cluttered. I also agree that the hatnote isn't warranted: at best it's redundant, since anyone who wants to know that information will obviously know to click on the links. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the doll photo?

Why is the photograph of an Edward VII doll ([1]) used in this article instead of a photograph of the king himself? It is bizarre and almost shocking to encounter that photograph when looking for serious information on a potentially serious subject. It's especially unsettling that it's captioned in this article as if it is an actual photograph of the king!

This photograph seems to me to be completely inappropriate in an encyclopedia article, unless the article is about portrait dolls of famous people. It undermines any seriousness this particular article might otherwise have. If it must include a photograph of the king—which is reasonable since he founded the Order of Merit—at least use a real photograph of the real person, not something that looks like it came out of a doll collector's catalog.--Jim10701 (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the image. Though, I imagine you were capable of doing so yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RETURN OF INSIGNIA

Example:

Francis Crick's grandaughter Camberley returned his Insignia of the Order of Merit on October 19, 2005 - as detailed below -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article580360.ece

BUCKINGHAM PALACE October 19: His Excellency Mr Robert Holmes Tuttle was received in audience by The Queen today and presented the Letters of Recall of his predecessor and his own Letters of Credence as Ambassador from the United States of America to the Court of St James’s. Mrs Tuttle was also received by Her Majesty. Sir Michael Jay (Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) was present. Mr Justice McFarlane was received by The Queen upon his appointment as a Justice of the High Court when Her Majesty conferred upon him the honour of Knighthood and invested him with the Insignia of a Knight Bachelor. The Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was received by The Queen when Her Majesty invested him with the Insignia of a Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle. Miss Camberley Crick was received by The Queen and delivered up the Insignia of the Order of Merit worn by her grandfather, the late Professor Francis Crick. The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) had an audience of Her Majesty this evening."

91.110.236.38 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that return of the insignia is required, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

IT DOES IN "MARTIN 2007"; SURELY YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK BY NOW? WHY ELSE: "Miss Camberley Crick was received by The Queen and delivered up the Insignia of the Order of Merit worn by her grandfather, the late Professor Francis Crick. SHE WAS RETURNING HIS INSIGNIA TO THE QUEEN!

91.110.236.38 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Nitramrekcap, I have not, and whether or not I have is irrelevant. If you have a source, put it in as an inline citation. It's not my job to do so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs more references to "Martin, 2007" to be credible, and a lot less on Canada?) 91.110.133.34 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The court circular entry does not support the claim that insignia must be returned; only that an insignia was returned. Please provide a more definitive reference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; it was clearly easier for me to do it for you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Current substantive members

This is how 24 members are formally referred to on the British Monarchy Order of Merit website:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/Listofcurrentmembers.aspx

"His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, K.G., K.T., O.M., G.B.E., A.C., Q.S.O., F.R.S. 10th June, 1968

The Reverend Professor William Owen Chadwick, O.M., K.B.E., F.B.A. 11th November, 1983

Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, O.M., F.R.S. 11th November, 1983

Doctor Frederick Sanger, O.M., C.H., C.B.E., F.R.S. 11th February, 1986

The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda, Lady Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S. 7th December, 1990

Dame Joan Sutherland, O.M., A.C., D.B.E. 27th November, 1991

Sir Michael Francis Atiyah, O.M., F.R.S. 17th November, 1992

Lucian Freud, O.M., C.H. 6th December, 1993

Sir Aaron Klug, O.M., F.R.S. 23rd October, 1995

Norman Robert, Lord Foster of Thames Bank, O.M., R.A. 25th November, 1997

Sir James Whyte Black, O.M., F.R.S. 9th May, 2000

Sir Anthony Alfred Caro, O.M., C.B.E. 9th May, 2000

Professor Sir Roger Penrose, O.M., F.R.S. 9th May, 2000

Sir Thomas Stoppard, O.M., C.B.E. 9th May, 2000

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, K.G., K.T., G.C.B., O.M., A.K., Q.S.O., A.D.C. 27th June, 2002

Robert McCredie, Lord May of Oxford, O.M., A.C., F.R.S. 28th October, 2002

Nathaniel Charles Jacob, Lord Rothschild, O.M., G.B.E. 28th October, 2002

Sir David Frederick Attenborough, O.M., C.H., C.V.O., C.B.E., F.R.S. 28th April, 2005

The Right Honourable Betty, Baroness Boothroyd, O.M. 28th April, 2005

Professor Sir Michael Eliot Howard, O.M., C.H., C.B.E., M.C. 28th April, 2005

The Right Reverend and Right Honourable Robert Henry Alexander, Lord Eames, O.M. 13th June, 2007

Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, O.M., K.B.E. 13th June, 2007

The Right Honourable Martin John, Lord Rees of Ludlow, O.M., P.R.S. 13th June" (?)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/NewappointmenttotheOrderofMerit.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.248.60 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the article's list of their titles and honours should match the above 100%!

ps See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Order_of_Merit :AN 'ORPHAN' ARTICLE!

91.110.248.60 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion about the postnominal letters, for the same reasons I gave the last time you brought this issue up. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too have reversed my stance on the post-noms; it's simply too much of a mess and ultimately not relevant to the article's subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MISSED OFF THE LIST ON THE BRITISH MONARCHY WEB SITE IS A WELL-KNOWN CANADIAN EX-PRIME MINISTER:

(186) Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien, former Canadian Prime Minister, appointed 13 July 2009[16

91.110.140.2 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You better write the Royal Household requesting demanding they correct the ommission. Be sure to use bolded all-caps; people respond very well to that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External links and further reading

Per WP:ELYES: "What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
"Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
Per WP:FURTHER: "Further reading: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links [1] British Monarchy website: The Order of Merit [2]"a list of current members of the Order of Merit, along with the dates of their appointments to the Order." [edit] Further Reading Martin, Stanley (2007). The Order of Merit: One Hundred Years of Matchless Honour. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-86064-848-9.

HAVE BEEN REINSTATED SO THIS ARTICLE HAS SOME AIR OF 'NON-CANADIAN' NORMALITY! ALL ARE ESSENTIAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.158.63 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You evidently didn't read the exerpts of Wiki-policy that I highlighted above. Please do so and stop reverting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't understand what point you're trying to make, Nitramrekcap (I'm assuming, from marked similarities in writing style, that the anonymous user at 91.110.158.63 is indeed Nitramrekcap, and apologise if this is incorrect). I've read the article carefully and watched recent edits by both you and Miesianiacal, and I really can't see any Canadian bias anywhere. Nor do I see why the two external links and reference to the Martin book warrant including in the article in their own section in addition to the references section (where they are already referred to multiple times). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've separated the Martin book out into a "References" section so it can be highlighted without duplication. I can't find a way to do the same for the website, however; not that either needed such special treatment in the first place.

As for "Canadian bias"; Nitramrekcap's being going on about it for months but refuses to point out where it actually is. I've come to simply ignore his protestations in that regard. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

CANADIAN BIAS

Precedence in each realm As the Order of Merit is open to the citizens of sixteen different countries, each with their own system of orders, decorations, and medals, the order's place of precedence varies from country to country. While in the United Kingdom, members rank below Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, it has been claimed by Stanley Martin, in his book The Order of Merit 1902-2002: One Hundred Years of Matchless Honour, that the Order of Merit is actually the pinnacle of the British honours system.[17] Similarly, though it is not listed in the Canadian order of precedence for honours, decorations, and medals, except relating to those who were appointed to the order prior to 1 June 1972,[18] Christopher McCreery stated in his book The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development that the Order of Merit was the highest civilian award for merit a Canadian could receive.[19] McCreery reiterated this point in the press following the appointment of Jean Chrétien to the Order of Merit on 13 July 2009, stating "it [the Order of Merit] is ahead even of the Order of Canada,"[20] and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, an editor of Burke's Peerage, echoed McCreery's views in stating that the Order of Merit outranked the Order of Canada.[21]

Too much about Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.219.252 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see any Canadian bias here. Yes, there's specific mention of Canada in a couple of places in the article, but this is because Canada occupies an interesting constitutional position that directly impinges on the Order of Merit. Also, please stop adding in those extra links to sources that are adequately cited elsewhere in the article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Should the detail go into a note, do you think? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

News article

The BBC saying that it is probably the highest award in the UK and certainly the most exclusive here. 22:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

HENRY JAMES

"Henry James, first American-born member, reinstated! Has someone got something against Yanks?"

CANADIAN BIAS AGAIN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.132.103 (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the more pertinent question is: By what rationale does the first "Yank"-born member qualify for an image in the article? All the other images are British Empire/British Commonwealth/Commonwealth realms related. America does not fall within that criteria.

PS- Sign in before you edit, please, Nitramrekcap. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop going on about this supposed Canadian bias. Merely mentioning Canada a few times, in an appropriate context, in an article which actually pertains to the entire Commonwealth (including Canada) does not qualify as "bias". You've been throwing around these accusations for months now, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and it's getting boring now. Please give it a rest. (Also, you're not fooling anybody by hiding behind anonymous IP addresses.)

Regarding Henry James, I myself have no objections to his inclusion, nor to his exclusion. While a number of illustrations to accompany and support the text are a Good Thing, they shouldn't be allowed to overwhelm or distract from the actual content of the article. Maybe allowing Henry James would be ok, maybe he's one portrait too far. I personally think that we should err on the side of caution. But if you can write down a coherent, well-defined policy for which portraits should be included and which shouldn't (preferably without resorting to block capitals or exclamation marks) then I'm sure we'd be willing to discuss it in good faith. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"British order"

It would seem that User:Nitramrekcap is back and his tactics haven't changed at all: revert warring, all-caps shouting, a refusal to take his issues to the talk page, and the use of random anonymous IPs to edit, making it impossible to contact him on a personal talk page.

It would be appreciated if he could here provide his reliably sourced evidence for his claim that the Order of Merit is only a British order. Membership is the personal gift of the monarch, made without advice from ministers, British or otherwise; how, then, is an honour bestowed by the Queen of Australia on an Australian a specifically British honour? Sources already in the article prove that citizens of all the Queen's realms have been inducted into the Order of Merit as full members, not honorary ones, which is a position reserved for foreigners. The order is included within the systems of honours in a number of countries that aren't Britain, and there's more than one source asserting that the Order of Merit is a domestic order in Canada; the highest available to Canadians, in fact. Perhaps Nitramrekap has proof that the British Empire has been reconstituted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very tiresome and frustrating. He's shown time and time again that he's unwilling to engage in any kind of rational discussion about the supposed issues (whatever they might be). I also don't think it's worth wasting any more time or effort trying to refute whatever his latest bugbear happens to be - simply reverting the edits should be fine in most cases. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly founded as a British order (Edward VII was not the King of Australia or the King of Canada). john k (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks for that. I'm a little hazy on the exact constitutional status of Australia and Canada at that point, but I think you're right about Edward VII. Nevertheless, the OM currently appears to not solely a British order, but one open to citizens of Commonwealth states too. My loss of patience with User:Nitramrekcap stems from his ongoing refusal to enter into discussion, or provide any kind of justification for his edits. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be described as only a British order, but I do think that it should be acknowledged that it originated as a British order, if that makes sense. john k (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is self-evident that the O.M. is a 'British' (in the widest possible sense geographically and politically) award; to deny otherwise is lunatic. As for the excessive Canadian influence on the article, you only have to read the following note: "(French: Ordre du Mérite)". Why is this necessary at all? I rest my case...

If only you would rest your case. The rest of us have discussed this issue (see above) and it seems that a consensus has been reached that the OM originated as a British order, but that it is now to at least some extent a Commonwealth order. (The note concerning its status in Canada, far from representing any undue bias or influence, is entirely relevant.) I believe that this position is supported by verifiable facts, but I'm sure we're all willing to revise our opinions in the light of further information. So if you've got further information, in the form of properly-cited, reputable sources, then please let's see it. But if all you've got is indignant accusations of bias, and loud, unsupported assertions that you're right and everyone else is wrong, then that's not good enough. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see we're still getting drive-by attacks from Nitramrekcap: [2], [3]. Reverting his edits doesn't seem to prompt him at all towards discussing his desired changes here and, if it countinues this way, could it not be construed as a long-term revert war? Perhaps an IP range block would be more effective. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's still at it: [4]. Can nothing be done to stop an IP from conducting what's effectively a slow-motion edit war? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we can request semi-protected status for this page, to prevent unregistered users from editing the page. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea. Though, Nitramrekap (now the anon) does only pop up here every year or so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Order_of_Merit

Category:Members of the Order of Merit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This category lists people who have been appointed to the Order of Merit in the British Honours System, including Honorary."

"British" 2.30.208.88 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So? 1) Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. 2) The Order of Merit is a part of the British honours system. It's also part of the Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand honours systems. Given the last, I'll pose to you the same questions I asked you over three years ago and you never answered: Membership is the personal gift of the monarch, made without advice from ministers, British or otherwise; how, then, is an honour bestowed by the Queen of Australia on an Australian a specifically British honour? Sources already in the article prove that citizens of all the Queen's realms have been inducted into the Order of Merit as full members, not honorary ones, which is a position reserved for foreigners. The order is included within the systems of honours in a number of countries that aren't Britain, and there's more than one source asserting that the Order of Merit is a domestic order in Canada; the highest available to Canadians, in fact. Perhaps Nitramrekap has proof that the British Empire has been reconstituted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Military members

At present the article says that people could be appointed to the military division of the Order, with crossed swords on the insignia, and that Lord Mountbatten was the last surviving military member. Please could someone with sources make a note in the list of past members where a recipient was in the military division? Opera hat (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the military division of the Order have a different ribbon? ie, with the colours reversed- orange being on the left, and blue being on the right side of the ribbon? It would also help if the article had an image of the military insignia. Are there any sources on the web which list the military members of the Order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.146.64 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Try Martin (2007), as cited in the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'British' Order of Merit

Henry Jackson was the only member of the Order of Merit NOT to have a Wikipedia article, but does anyone know what he did to deserve the Order of Merit - apart from the obvious connection of the University of Cambridge with members of the Royal Family? He now has his own article of course! 91.110.179.89 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipe linking

In this edit, I removed a slew of pipe links I found to be entirely unnecessary; mostly like "[[Archibald Geikie|Sir Archibald Geikie]]" to "Sir [[Archibald Geikie]]" and "[[Charles Scott Sherrington|Sir Charles Scott Sherrington]]" to "Sir [[Charles Scott Sherrington]]" and the occasional one like "[[Dudley Pound|Sir Alfred Dudley Pickman Rogers Pound]]" to "Sir [[Dudley Pound]]". I also made sure all the entries with the prefix "Sir" then had the prefix outside the link, for consistency throughout the list. An anonymous user then reverted that edit, but didn't explain what the objection was. If he or she could please elaborate on their motive, we might be able to decide upon some agreeable alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you did not put all the "sirs" out of the links. Two, the list was like this for too much time. Three, it would be good to have the actual title or name. Four, it is not that bad to have pipe links anyway.--178.128.169.158 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right; I did miss some "Sir"s. Thank you for notifying me of the omissions.

I don't understand what you mean by "too much" time, or how it's an argument in favour of keeping pipe links

I believe all the titles are there; unless you're referring to the baronets, specifically. If so, I'll admit my unfamiliarity with baronetcies; is "baronet" an actual title?

It's not bad to have pipe links, but they needn't be used without a reason. I don't yet see a reason to use pipe links just to a) include the suffix "Sir" in the link or b) give the person's full name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Baronets are exactly between Sirs and other Peers. They have no right in the House of Lords, neither had before the Peerage Act 1999. The best way to write it is: Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronet. Neither "The Baronet Smith" nor "Sir John Smith". The first is wrong while the second is not that good.--178.128.169.158 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. I will return those to the article and finish tidying up my missed "Sir"s. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that "baronet" should be included when no other postnominals are. Opera hat (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's usual practice to include "Sir" in a pipe link. It's part of the person's name, so having it outside the link is like writing "the United States of America" or "Madonna Ciccone" - it just looks odd. I can see no reason to use full names though - unused middle names belong at the start of a person's article and pretty much nowhere else. Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Proteus. "Sir" is normally included in pipe links and it looks much nicer. I also used the name the name the person had when they received the Order of Merit, which is also the usual way it is done on Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we're to have otherwise totally unnecessary pipe links simply because it "looks much nicer"? I thought liking something didn't count as justification in Wikipedia. "Sir" also is not part of a person's name; it's an honorific. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Gazette references

I recently added citations for a few names from the London Gazette. On 3 January User:46.246.230.229 removed them "to make the list better looking" and added a link to http://www.leighrayment.com/orders/orderofmerit.htm instead. Admittedly Rayment's site does include the full list, but it is a self-published site, whereas the Gazette is the official paper where government appointments are listed. I think ideally each name should have its citation from the London Gazette. What do others think about this? Opera hat (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Gazette is official reference.--Yopie (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed - David Biddulph (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed - Verifiability makes individual references the best option. The Gazette is definitely a reliable source and the best source for appointments to the order. EricSerge (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Peerage titles

I find the use of the casual "lord" in reference to two members of the British peerage mentioned in this article to be problematic: Firstly, it's inconsistent; "lord" can be used to refer to any person with a peerage title, of which there are many included in this page, but it's only done for two; why just them? Secondly, since it can be used for any person with a peerage title, how is one to know whether the "lord" in question is a baron, an earl, a marquess, or whatever? I think it's best to stick to the individual's proper title. Using the more formal "the Lord [of] [X]" indicates clearly that the person is/was a baron; "the Earl [of] [X]", "the Marquess [of] [X]" are self-evident. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a guideline on how peers should be referred to in running text. "In other situations, peers should usually be referred to simply as, for instance, "Lord Salisbury" (henceforth "the short form"), both when mentioned in other articles and in their own articles..." In lists the formal style of "The Lord X" is always used. Tryde (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that Wikiproject. Now, let me direct you, after your second revert, to WP:BRD, which guides you to not revert a revert of your edit and discuss the change you wish to make, instead.

The Wikiproject suggestions, however, aren't an actual Wikipedia guideline and don't recommend against the use of formal address over the casual "Lord [X]". In fact, they state that formal address can be employed when "it is important that their exact rank... is stated". In light of my above points, I believe this is an occasion where it is important to avoid confusion caused by ambiguity and inconsistency. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Baron#Style_of_address: "Normally one refers to or addresses Baron [X] as Lord [X] and his wife as Lady [X]." To be honest, I don't know what your point is. Tryde (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My point: Your use of "Lord [of] [X]" in reference to two individuals mentioned in the article is ambiguous and inconsistent. Why is it the formal "the Marquess of Salisbury", "the Earl Mountbatten of Burma", and "the Earl Roberts", but the casual "Lord Barham" and "Lord Rutherford of Nelson" instead of "the Lord Barham" and "the Lord Rutherford of Nelson"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord Salisbury is not casual, that's how a peer is referred to in the House of Lords, for instance. I have never seen a peer referred to as "the Lord X" in running text, no one would dream of referring to the Lord Byron or the Lord Tennyson in running text. You must separate the more formal style used in lists and infoboxes on Wikipedia from the style used in running text and captions. Tryde (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see clearly where you've addressed the issues with your edit (which you've reverted back, yet again, against not only the status quo and myself but also another editor now; you've been editing here long enough to be aware of what edit-warring is and its dangers). Are you suggesting that "the Marquess of Salisbury", "the Earl Mountbatten of Burma", and "the Earl Roberts" should all be changed to "Lord of Salisbury", "Lord Mountbatten of Burma", and "Lord Roberts", respectively? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the oddest discussion I have ever had with another editor on Wikipedia... I will raise the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage to get some input from other editors who are familiar with peerage issues. Tryde (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of Dukes, who would always be referred in-line as "the Duke of X", it is the norm to drop the rank (and the "of"). So it would be "Lord Salisbury" or "Lord Onslow" instead of "the Marquess of Salisbury" or "the Earl of Onslow". It isn't informal; it's the normal register for edited writing. -Rrius (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. The use of 'the' is quite wrong in almost all inline contexts. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is it specified that the "the" is wrong?

Regardless, this is about whether or not to use full titles and whether or not to use them consistently. I've seen no clear answer from anyone except Rrius; though, even his leaves me wondering: why are Dukes treated so specially? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are now four users who have pointed out that "Lord X" is the normal way to refer to a Baron in running text. As Rrius pointed out dukes are always referred to as "the Duke of X" and never as "Lord X". Full titles are used in lists and info boxes - in running text Lord X is used, as this is normal English. In the case of earls and marquesses both "the Earl of Onslow"/"the Marquess of Salisbury" or "Lord Onslow/Salisbury" can be used - the latter style makes for easier reading. Can we agree to use "Lord Barham" (in order to use normal English) in the article? Tryde (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The two ways one can refer to a baron, and the fact that the difference is merely between the presence or absence of a "the", seems to be the source of confusion here. From Baron#Style of address: A baron is formally addressed as "The Lord [Barony]" and in common parlance as "Lord [X]". Earls, viscounts, and marquesses, on the other hand, are only addressed as "Lord [X]" in the context of casual conversation. It's therefore contradictory to, in this article, use the formal style "the Marquess of Salisbury", "the Earl Mountbatten of Burma", and "the Earl Roberts", but the informal "Lord Barham" and "Lord Rutherford of Nelson", as opposed to the formal "the Lord Barham" and "the Lord Rutherford of Nelson". If people think all the aforementioned peers should simply be referred to as "Lord [X]", then so be it (though, I wonder how one is supposed to know from such an arrangement who is an earl, a marquess, a viscount, or a baron), so long as it's consistent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You have just argued my case. I'm glad that were finally in agreement. The only thing you have misunderstood is that referring to for instance a marquess as "Lord X" is not casual - that's how a marquess is referred to in the House of Lords. I will change the content back to normal English. The formal style is still used in the list of course, as is the custom on Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the article to make it consistent, since that is what I strove for from the start and with which you say we're now in agreement. Though, my other question still remains: How is one now supposed to know who is an earl, a marquess, a viscount, or a baron?

I only refer to the use of "Lord [X]" as "informal" so as to differentiate it from the fuller and decidedly more formal "the [title] [of] [X]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in lists of former members

Living members are listed by their current title, e.g. Margaret Thatcher (OM 1990, Baroness 1992) is listed as "The Baroness Thatcher". This makes sense. For the list of former members, is it intended that recipients should be listed with the title they held at the time they were awarded the OM, or the title they held at the end of their lives? At present the article does both, e.g. Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener (Baron 1898, OM 1902, Viscount 1902, Earl 1914) is listed as "The Lord Kitchener of Khartoum", while John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn (OM 1902, Viscount 1908) is listed as "The Viscount Morley of Blackburn". Opera hat (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The name they had when appointed to the Order of Merit should be used as this is the praxis on Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good - I'll correct any others I notice, then. Is this convention set out in any Manual of Style guidance or similar? Opera hat (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

A few weeks ago someone added a POV tag to the "Substantive Members" section, together with the comment "substantive is subjective". It's my understanding that whether someone is a substantive or honorary member of the Order is not subjective, but instead is objectively well-defined: members are substantive if they are Commonwealth citizens, and honorary if not. Is this correct, and if so shall we remove the tag? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag - let me know if you disagree, and we can talk about it. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that individual misunderstood the meaning of "substantive". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge

The Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground contains the graves of two Nobel Prizewinners (who were also members of the Order of Merit*), five other members of the Order of Merit**, 15 knights, and eight Masters of Cambridge colleges, plus 50 - 60 people with entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

• Sir John Cockcroft and Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, both Nobel Prize winners;
  • Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb, G. E. Moore, Sir Arthur Eddington, J.G. Frazer, and Henry Jackson

Is this the largest single concentration of former Members of the Order of Merit? Martin Packer 2.27.125.11 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Impressive, but not quite. From a quick survey, it looks like Westminster Abbey has more: Clement Attlee, Ernest Rutherford, Lord Kelvin, John Masefield, Laurence Olivier, Ralph Vaughan Williams, J. J. Thomson, Lord Passfield, and possibly a few others I've missed. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your erudite comment Nicholas! I am talking 'bodies' not ashes of course. I was just pleased to discover the last resting place of Henry Jackson, the only former member of the Order of Merit not to have had a Wikipedia article. I will have to re-visit when it stops raining. Martin2.24.34.104 (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas, according to Stanley Martin there are 26 OM's "buried or commemorated" in Westminster Abbey, while St Paul's Cathedral has the "graves and memorials" of 6 OM's; unfortunately Stanley Martin doesn't mention the Ascension Burial Ground, Cambridge with its 7 OM's as above.

St.Paul's Cathedrals OM's are: Alma-Tadema, Beatty, Holman Hunt, Jellicoe, Roberts, Wolseley,

Martin 2.24.4.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Max Perutz, OM and Nobel Prize winner is also buried in the Ascension Burial Ground by the way.

Martin 2.30.189.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Andrew Huxley

Unfortunately he is still listed on:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/Listofcurrentmembers.aspx

by webeditor@royal.gsx.gov.uk so I have asked for him to be deleted.

Martin Packer 2.30.188.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles again

A recent edit added the title "Dr" to Frederick Sanger's entry in the list of current members, and I've deleted this for consistency with the rest of the article, which currently just lists titles for those with knighthoods/damehoods or peerages. As I see it, we have a few options: either we leave things as they are, or we go through the entire list adding Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Prof/etc to every single name that doesn't already have a title. I'd far prefer the former option, not least because it'd be extremely time-consuming to make sure we'd got the right title in each case, and also because the latter option would make the list look unduly cluttered. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Even 1,000%. Sir/Dame/Lord/Lady etc are essentially part of their name. Dr/Mrs/Prof/the Hon etc are not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, I think it's a matter of context. This is an article about a component of the Commonwealth honours system, so it's reasonable to include related titles such as knighthoods, damehoods and peerages, but including others is probably pushing it a little bit. Also, a lot of these people will have honorary doctorates from various universities, which therefore accord the holder the title "Dr" (although it's sometimes considered bad form to actually use it). We probably want to avoid opening that particular can of worms if at all possible. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we just follow Her Majesty's example: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/Listofcurrentmembers.aspx

2.27.113.113 (talk)

But we're already not following the royal website's example exactly because (a) for example, we've got Margaret Thatcher listed as "The Baroness Thatcher" rather than "The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda, Lady Thatcher", (b) they call him "Doctor Frederick Sanger" rather than "Dr Frederick Sanger" which is the (more usual) form you've used, and (c) as you yourself point out in the very previous section, the royal website is factually incorrect in still including the late Sir Andrew Huxley. I think it's more important that this article is internally consistent in itself, than whether it strictly follows the pattern of some external website. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From WP:CREDENTIAL: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Apostles

Stanley Martin lists the following eight future OM's as members of 'The Apostles', the elite intellectual society at Cambridge, (in alphabetical order): Forster, Jackson, Jebb, Keynes, G.E. Moore, Russell, G.O. Trevelyan, Whitehead. Of these eight, three 'share' the Ascension Parish Burial Ground : Jackson, Jebb, and Moore. Jackson is commemorated on: [5] and Jebb on [6] and Moore on [7] .

Cambridge, in particular Trinity College, has not surprisingly dominated the Order of Merit!

2.24.32.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vacancies for the Order of Merit

I just referred the diary columnist of the "Daily Mail" to the O.M. article as he apparently thinks there is only one vacancy; for further info.: Stanley Martin c/o Maj. Gen. 'Roddy' Porter. Less said about 'Ephraim Hardcastle' (Peter McKay)'s diary entry on the O.M. the better!

2.27.125.40 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Martin, CVO

I am talking to him now and intend to send him a copy of the OM Wikipedia article for his expert comments on whether the Order of Merit is 'British' in the widest sense of the word: Watch This Space! (I have also sent him OM references from the biography of Doctor HENRY JACKSON, OM) 2.30.207.23 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is all very well, but you will still need to provide citations to reputable sources such as books, journal articles or authoritative web-based articles. Merely coming back to us and saying "Stanley Martin CVO wrote me a letter to say he agrees with me" is in no sense sufficient. Before proceeding any further, I urge you to carefully read WP:ORIGINAL and try to understand why the rest of us keep reverting your unsourced changes.

Also, you deleted one of my comments earlier on this page, perhaps accidentally. Please don't do that again (see WP:TPO). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I am sending Stanley Morton a copy of the OM Wikipedia article on Monday; you will have noticed my #163/#164 changeover to make the numbers consistent with his book; I do suggest the Wikipedia still has a MAJOR problem with the consistency/correctness of titles? Martin Packer.

2.30.208.88 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Names & Titles

At least there is now some consistency between the names & titles listed and the captions to the pictures for #1 ROBERTS and #49 RUTHERFORD, although there is still some way to go! 2.30.211.84 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Morton, CVO

I just spoke at length with him; unfortunately he is not impressed with the article. IF anyone wants to consult him, I will gladly arrange an introduction? I do like the new layout, especially as there is scope for an additional two images of past members! Keep up the good work 'CANADA'.

2.27.122.159 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)