Talk:Peter Hennessy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Houses

In this edit Cournazac suggests corrections to the road names and queries them not being typical council housing. The corrections are obviously right, and are needed only because the original editor had transcribed them wrongly from the radio programme which was the source, so that's fair enough and I will correct them to Cournazac's spellings. Where this falls down (apart from the question of editing queries into the body text, which we don't do) is on the question of those addresses not being council estates. This is rather the point, and one doesn't even need to hear the original broadcast; it is there on the referenced BBC page about the programme, where it says: "The youngest in a large Irish Catholic family living in council-requisitioned houses, Peter discovers that these same properties are now selling for more than two million pounds." So no, they are not council houses, and never were. So thanks Cournazac for raising this, and I will amend the text to take both of these things into account. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Council-requisitioned' means requisitioned by the council, not from them, as part of the post-war rehousing scheme that had been postponed because of the war. So although not built as council housing, they operated under the authority of the council, hence making them, by definition, council houses- posh or otherwise. Which do YOU mean? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort it out how you like. I'm too busy to do twattish interaction with SHOUTING. DBaK (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is English your second language? Your post makes little sense. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on title

Hi. I thought it looked odd/bad with his title in bold way down the article ("His title was announced on 8 November as Baron Hennessy of Nympsfield...") so I took it out. Then I decided it looked odd/bad with no emphasis so I italicized it. Now I can't make my mind up (as in "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.") between bold., italic, quote marks, or nothing - or something else? Is there some proper MoS advice on this? I'd be happy to see a ruling, but less happy to see it messed around at random based on the prejudices or unsupported beliefs of idiots like, er, me. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, the subject is best known by Peter Hennessy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hennessy → Peter Hennessy, Baron Hennessy of Nympsfield.

Oppose - Known for being Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary, University of London and not as a peer. Also no disambiguation is required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - He's best known by far as "Peter Hennessy".--Britannicus (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but WP:NCPEER says; "Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled". Surely, Hennessy is best known by his personal name at this point in time. Snowman (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Has been a very well-known academic as plain "Peter Hennessy". That may change in the future, but for now he is best known without his title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear that Bill Clinton etc is just that and not some longer title. I would have thought that WP:COMMONNAME trumps the rather more specialized WP:NCPEER, but even that concedes that people like Margaret Thatcher are better listed as such rather than as Baroness Whatnot. I have no doubt that Hennessy is better known as Peter Hennessy, not his title - especially not his full formal title as here - and that that's where the article should be. Everything else can redirect here, and no problem is caused. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do wish the previous moves in and out and all round about had also been discussed in this way - we might have avoided some hassle, let alone the "Boron" one! :) DBaK (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - well known not just as a Lord. — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Former academics who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-political crossbench peer

Please check the term "non-political crossbench peer", which doesn't seem to be correct. Should this be changed to "crossbench peer without being member of a party"? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Educated

I'm not sure about the change to "was educated". If I nitpick, it seems to suggest that he was educated at only that one secondary school and that the primary school, the other secondary, and Cambridge (!) whatever they did do, it didn't educate him per se. I know we can get tied in knots with all the "was a student at/studied at/attended/etc" wordings but I did wonder if something less general for that one school could be cooked up? with best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Pretty) mild agreement. I tend to avoid the term "was educated" for the reasons you indicate. It's evident that Peter Hennessy picked up some education from somewhere along the way, but I don't see any reason in what is written in this wiki-entry to state which (if any) of the academic establishments he attended in his first (say) 25 years contributed to his education. So .... since you raise the issue, why don't you change the text to something that raises fewer questions of the unnecessary sort? Happy Sunday Charles01 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections

The article presents the radio series "Reflections" as if it just went on from July to August 2013, but there have been episodes of the programme since then. Vorbee (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC) The programme continues to be on - it was on this morning (July 31 2018) with an interview with Paddy Ashdown. Vorbee (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

1 – Why do a third of the titles in his bibliography lack a publisher's name? 2 – Why does the caption to his Coat of Arms not describe what we actually see? Where is there a worker bee holding a pen? Or other bees "on either side"? 217.155.200.241 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]