Talk:Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th baronet

Achilli trial

"During the short administration of Lord Derby, Cockburn was engaged against Sir Frederic Thesiger Attorney General at the time, and for John Henry Newman, in the case of a friar named Giacinto Achilli who had accused Newman of libel. The jury who heard the case under Lord Campbell found that Newman's plea of justification was not proved except in one particular, a verdict which, together with the methods of the judge and the conduct of the audience, attracted considerable comment. The verdict was set aside, and a new trial ordered, but none ever took place."

The remark as to the verdict being set asside does not seem plausible in all the circumstances. It contradicts the very detailed account given in this reputable source:

Ward, W. (1912). Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (2 vols. ed.). London: Longmans, Green and Co. pp. Chapter 10: The Achilli Trial.

- so I have removed it. Cutler 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

EB and ODNB (even current editions) are silent on place of birth. Somebody has put Altana but that is a software company. There is a place called Alţâna in Romania which is tempting as his father served in Württemberg before Columbia. However, central europe is bigger than you think and that doesn't really work. I am going to leave this in a little while flagged as missing citation but I will eventualy remove it is it is not confirmed. Cutler 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now this is interesting - perhaps we haven't settled this yet [1].Cutler (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

10th or 12th?

Why does my 2001 EB say "10th Baronet"? Cutler 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

George Cockburn

Was George Cockburn Sir Alexander Cockburn's uncle? Cutler 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

This has several times been moved to Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet . That is not a correct title, please leave the article at the title without the Sir, per MOS. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 7 October 2009 (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 no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th baronet → Alexander Cockburn (lawyer) — - The man appears to be hugely more notable for his activities in law than for his activities as a baronet. (Indeed, the position of baronet seems virtually meaningless, and the article says nothing whatever about his being a baronet.) There is no article on any putative competitor for the title "Alexander Cockburn (lawyer)"; if there later were such an article, then of course "lawyer" could be refined, just as "painter" can be refined in Christopher Wood (English painter) and "photographer" can in Sakae Tamura (nature photographer). In the meantime, whereas ("sir" aside) "12th baronet" has four syllables, "lawyer" merely has two. (Request follows a discussion here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS "Alexander Cockburn (judge)", as later suggested by Mackensen, strikes me as even better. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The only reason for disambiguating is to distinguish this subject from the living journalist Alexander Cockburn. This has been done; that it has been done with his full name and style, including a honorific title, is secondary. The present form has the advantage of being something the subject is actually called, and which will fit in running text; the proposed form is probably ambiguous.

If we are going to use a parenthetical dab, Alexander Cockburn (Lord Chief Justice) would be much better, unless there is some reason to believe he is the only Sandy Co'burn who has gone into the law. But I don't see why we should use parentheses at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The title does not appear anywhere in the running text. Yes, "Alexander Cockburn (lawyer)" might later turn out to fit somebody else as well, but I had not been aware that disambiguating titles had to be so precise as to avoid such possibilities. The dislike of parentheses seems odd: they're merely one way of adding a description, a comma is another. -- Hoary (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, titles will appear in the running text of other articles - that's what being hypertext means. I also oppose Alexander Cockburn (judge) on this ground - although it should be a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. But I wonder when referring to him in this way would be an improvement. Can you give an example?

In the meantime: Of the various links to this article, the one that happened to be at the top of the list when I tried a few seconds ago was that from the oddly titled "Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton". Here it is:

Also present that evening were Charles Pelham Villiers and Alexander Cockburn. Although young at the time, Villiers went on to an exceptionally long parliamentary career, while Cockburn became Lord Chief Justice of England in 1859.

Perhaps you would prefer that to be

Also present that evening were Charles Pelham Villiers and Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet. Although young at the time, Villiers went on to an exceptionally long parliamentary career, while Cockburn became Lord Chief Justice of England in 1859.

I'd make it

Also present that evening were Charles Pelham Villiers and Alexander Cockburn. Although young at the time, Villiers went on to an exceptionally long parliamentary career, while Cockburn became Lord Chief Justice of England in 1859.

I move from mere society-column stuff to a matter for which Cockburn is genuinely notable. Daniel M'Naghten tells us:

M'Naghten's defence team was led by one of London's best-known barristers, Alexander Cockburn.

Would that be improved by conversion to

M'Naghten's defence team was led by one of London's best-known barristers, Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet.

or are you making some other point? -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Baronets have an established titular usage available to serve and customarily used as a natural disambiguator when one is needed, as here. DABs aren't intended to affirm notability or convey information about the subject -- that's what the article's for -- but to facilitate searches, and this parenthetical suffix is less likely to be stumbled upon by searchers than the dab most commonly associated with his name -- his baronetcy. FactStraight (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Searches are facilitated by redirects and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, create a redirect from Alexander Cockburn (lawyer) if you think it necessary, besides when I think lawyer, I think solicitor and not barrister, and certainly not Lord Chief Justice, so I would use [Alexander Cockburn lawyer] to search out this man. -- PBS (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: for now, based on consistency with other baronets according to the current rule--changing one instance is confusing. I would like to see the revisit the entire general question though. There are:

1. the traditional library method of fully distinguishing in advance: using all middle names, adding date, and adding title of nobility to the name
2. The modern library method of using the name most used on the authors published works, in the form last, first. , and disambiguating only if necessary -- but adding some titles at the end.
3. using whatever the person preferred in his lifetime--which would then have Dr. for almost all MDs.,
4. The formal practice of using the full official title of the name in all cases,
5. using the most common name by which he is known in English-speaking countries in works of reference, and it it varies among them, choosing his own country.
6. using first last identification unless more is needed. (or last, first) -- with a variety of possibilities to disambiguate but not adding titles unless actually necessary
7. our current practice, rationalised: using first last identification unless more is needed -- with a variety of possibilities to disambiguate -- varied by using titles at the end for nobility if it helps characterise them,
8. our current practice: using first last identification unless more is needed -- with a variety of possibilities to disambiguate -- and usually adding titles at the end for nobility, except for the one single distinctive case of baronets, where the official title "Sir" is added at the beginning as well .

Every one of them has disadvantages. I am quite read to argue for or against any of them, except the last, would only be logical and consistent if we changed to official title in all cases. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is custom to use in this case a more extended naming, their middle names or titles of nobility, which are part of their personal identification/naming. Demophon (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- We have only just got the article back to its proper title, following an ill-advised move by an American Admin (who ought to know better). IN that connection the existence of an existing redirect Alexander Cockburn (jurist) was suggested as the best title, but it was returned to the standard format for Baronets, and should stay there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent discussion to which I referred is here. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Comment -- I think while Lord Chief Justice, he would have been called "Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. May I suggest instead Alexander Cockburn (judge)? Where parenthetical disambiguation is used for Lords Chief Justice, that usage is by far the most common (12) as opposed to justice or Lord Chief Justice (4) and lawyer (0) (see Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales). Cockburn is perhaps unusual for being a hereditary baronet who went on to a noteworthy career, but the baronetcy itself isn't all that important. If we're going to disambiguate on those grounds, then it should be where it is now, but otherwise (judge) would be fine. As an aside, we should consider standardizing the other parenthetical disambiguations for Lords Chief Justice. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  "Alexander Cockburn (judge)" strikes me as excellent. "Judge" is more restrictive than "lawyer" (and slightly shorter too). -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Redirects are very cheap. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2009 (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.

Ordinals of Lord Chief Justice

I have removed the description in the infobox as 91st Lord Chief Justice, Queen's Bench. However, I also have doubts as to whether itis correct to describe him as 1st Lord Chief Justice of England, since I think that weas also his title when only responsible for Queen's Bench, prior to the abolition of the Exchequer and Common Pleas Divisions. The description 91st assumes that the man appointed in 1234 was indeed the first holder of a new office, rather than of the continuation of an old one in a new form. The obsession with the enumeration of office holders is more an American phenomenon than a British one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)