Talk:Richard Dannatt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Daily Mail Interview

Breaking news story at the moment that General Dannatt is seeking withdrawal from Iraq (BBC News: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal).

Interview in tomorrow's Daily Mail (Daily Mail: Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon').

I suggest this may be noteworthy in main article once all the facts and commentary has settled down. --Leigh 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. I got a bit excited there and put something in the main article. I was going to revert but two people have picked it up and started to develop. JoelUK 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should be developed, in news terms this is a very significant story - watch for his appearance on BBC One's Breakfast at 0810. Escaper7 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, today, October 13, the general unsaid what he spoke yesterday. Even Blair now agrees with him. The meaning of the words suffered a change... 201.19.182.192 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole section appears to be much ado about nothing and should probably be removed. Jim2345 20:15 , 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

We seem to be getting rather hot under the collar on who said what to whom! Why not fight it out on the talk page, and then we can all join in?Phase4 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The story summary box is meant to be used to add information to help editors track the history of an article, not for personal disagreements or edit wars. Please see: Wikipedia's policy on civility which applies to all parts of articles including edit summaries. Also, it's usually courteous to discuss major changes before editing on the article talk page- and this especially applies to moving, controversial stories. Escaper7 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Should the heading Controversial Daily Mail interview of October 2006 be subbed to just Daily Mail interview of October 2006? If you're a typical Daily Mail reader, or someone who agrees with the general, you won't find the article "controversial" at all. I think it might help the NPOV of this article, and also shorten it a bit - then the Wiki reader can decide for themselves whether the article was controversial with all sides of the story listed under one heading. (...and yes I am aware that it's unprecedented for a senior military figure to enter a political debate). Any thoughts? Escaper7 12:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No comments by other editors on this - so I've changed the heading - probably better to let readers decide for themselves whether they thought the article was controversial. Escaper7 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

At present the article says that Dannatt was commissioned in 1971 and was an officer cadet whilst at Durham until 1976. This seems very unlikely / is a contradicion. Greenshed 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that the commissioning date is right (see MoD profile and NATO profile) and therefore by implication that the Durham date is wrong. I will delete the Durham date: if anyone has evidence to the contary please revert. Dormskirk 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Private life

Re his support for Norwich City Football Club, see discussions at User_talk:217.155.39.159 and here. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Little hope to be CDS??

At present the article has the following uncited text:

The normal service allocation follows in the sequence Royal Navy (the Senior Service), the Army (formerly the Junior Service) and then the Royal Air Force (since its inception this has been the Junior Service). Promotion to CDS normally follows on having been head of the providing Service (First Sea Lord, Chief of the General Staff or Chief of the Air Staff). Dannatt served as CGS during the period of an Air Force CDS (Air Chief Marshal Sir Graham Eric Stirrup). The next candidate would be the current First Sea Lord and Dannatt could have had little hope to be promoted over his head.

I am removing this text as is has no sources and I believe it to be false. The first CDS was in fact an air force officer. Furthermore, in 1977 Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Ashmore was suceeded by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Neil Cameron and in 1985 Field Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall was suceeded by Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Fieldhouse. In 1997 one Army officer was followed by another one. From 1977 to 2001 the supposed order of Navy, Army, Air Force was not followed. While the period 2001 to the present has seen a return to Navy-Army-Air Force order, I do not think that this was a Nu Labour scheme to return to a supposed tradition; rather it was a matter of the Government's selection of whom they saw as the best available officer. The statement "Dannatt could have had little hope to be promoted over his head" is patent nonsense. 87.114.177.210 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince Harry/Prince Henry

As I tried to explain in my edit summary, I note that the article is actually at Prince Harry of Wales so I think the IP had a point and the phrasing currently in this article is unduly fussy. David Underdown (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your meaning however the article title Prince Harry of Wales is incorrect and under contention, having been moved to that without concensus, see the articles talk page. His Birth Certificate and Who's Who has his name down as HRH Prince Prince Henry of Wales[1] and that is the name he is legally known by, His nickname is not what he should be listed by! This is an encyclopaedia after all not a blog website! Richard Harvey (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME I guess, it's a nickname with good provenance, "Cry England, Harry and St George", if it was good enough for Henry V... David Underdown (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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: Move per proposal. Consensus is not strong, but the indications that he already is being called by the title carried a lot of weight, together with WP:NCPEER. Orlady (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Richard Dannatt → Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt.

Oppose - Far more well known as a General in the British army and is not known by the title. Also disambiguation is so obviously not required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:D and WP:PRECISION that apply to all Wikipedia article titles. The subject is most commonly known by the current title; adding peerage information is additional precision that is completely unnecessary, all good reasons to ignore WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

B2C's arguments are bogus, because the policy WP:TITLE explicitly permits topic-specific naming conventions such as WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Service officers who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support WP:NCPEER seems clear to me. Dormskirk (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, known as Richard throughout his career.--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Already being generally referred to as "Lord Dannatt". Proteus (Talk) 13:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.