Talk:Foreign Secretary

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

Scope[edit]

This page should only list the Secretaries for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The previous offices (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State for the Colonies, etc.) should have separate articles. john 23:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Why? They are vastly equivalent roles! Anyway, this has a precedent elsewhere, see Secretary of State for International Development TreveXtalk 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what the deal was - it was almost three years ago, and there were a lot less articles to take precedents from. As long as it's made clear that the two offices are different, and that the current office includes the gobbled up Commonwealth Affairs Office (which was itself the amalgamation of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office), I don't really care if it's decided to merge. john k 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted the big list(section 1), but it's badly spaced out, I would fix this but I only did this to show how notepad + copy & paste can do, appologies if this messed anyone elses hard work, please revert if you don't like it, and feel free to fix the spacing --86.133.59.208 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the little-used status column the list could be shorter because we could spread out the dates onto one line, though I don't want to (and am not sure how to) make that change on my own. Ddye 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the status column, I think it looks much better now, as it is shorter and easier to understand.--86.133.59.208 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've lost Jack Straw! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.119.84 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs → Foreign Secretary — The United Kingdom is the only country to have a minister commonly called a "Foreign Secretary"; the vast majority of foreign ministers hold titles which are all pretty much based on the formulations "Minister of/for Foreign Affairs", "Foreign Minister", and "Minister of External Relations". The US, the UK and Vatican City are pretty much the only exceptions with, respectively, "Secretary of State", "Foreign Secretary" and "Secretary for Relations with States". Foreign Secretary and Foreign secretary already redirect here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

To respond to Skinsmoke: you are right in that "Foreign Secretary" is a common name name and not the full title, but WP:UCN stipulates we use the most comnon name where possible an appropriate. It's for that reason we use United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and FA Cup, not The Football Association Challenge Cup. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose: The official title is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Foreign Secretary is an informal shorthand version. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would prefer to use the official title with the existing redirect from Foreign Secretary--Harkey (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

I appreciate the discussion is now closed, but I'd suggest that this decision is not comsistent with established naning conventions. Wikipedia articles are not based on official names - they are based on commonly used names. See WP:COMMONNAME:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline) (emphasis added)

AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 11:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is that Foreign Secretary continues to redirect here, i dont have a problem with the full title being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

I've noticed someone has edited the style for all cabinet ministers and added "Mr/Madam Secretary" - this sounds terribly American so I will change this within the week unless a source is provided to support this style of address.

Loobeloo (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which name to use?[edit]

Which name should be used for Foreign Secretaries who inherited or were granted a title/higher title during their time in office? This would apply to Carmarthen/Leeds, Castlereagh/Londonderry, Dudley, Russell, Grey, Curzon, and Eden (who was made a knight during his last tenure at the foreign office). Currently, I believe all except Grey are listed by their highest title, but I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. It means, for instance, that the word "Castlereagh" does not appear in our article about British foreign secretaries. I'd suggest some mechanism to include both, with possible preference for the form at time of appointment as the main one displayed. john k (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs → Foreign Secretary – (or Alternatively Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom)). As "Foreign Secretary" is overwhelming the common name for the position with almost all reliable sources refererring to the position as simply "Foreign Secretary" [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Google Ngram Viewer also shows the much more for the term "Foreign Secretary" than "Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs" [12]. The term would already be precise/unambigous as it "Foreign Secretary" already redirects here but if not just use "Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom)". Either way is more concise than the current title.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation issues[edit]

There seems to be an issue of contention with the capitalisation of the titles of certain positions in the British government on this page. As of right now, I'm currently in an edit war with Wallnot over how both 'Foreign Secretary' and ' ' should be capitalised, with an example of Wallnot's revision with their capitalisation as follows:

The secretary of state for foreign, Commonwealth and development affairs, also referred to as the foreign secretary, is a secretary of state in the Government of the United Kingdom, with overall responsibility for the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.[1] Seen as one of the most senior ministers in the government and a Great Office of State, the incumbent is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, fourth in the ministerial ranking.[2]

I disagree with the capitalisation in the following manner, because it isn't consistent (why is 'Commonwealth' capitalised, but 'Development Affairs' not if they're both proper nouns within a title?); it misunderstands MOS:JOBTITLES since 'Foreign Secretary' isn't being used as a common noun or denoting an office, but a title (e.g 'Madam Foreign Secretary' would be capitalised because it refers to a title held directly by a person--in this case, the Foreign Secretary); and finally, it isn't how the British government itself capitalises the title, as can be seen in this or this official government gazette release.

This was my revision:

The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, also referred to as the Foreign Secretary, is a secretary of state in the Government of the United Kingdom, with overall responsibility for the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.[1] Seen as one of the most senior ministers in the government and a Great Office of State, the incumbent is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, fourth in the ministerial ranking.[2]

I can't see any issue with my revision, since it's consistent with articles over the rest of wikipedia (e.g, The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Pakistan, or the Foreign Secretary of India. When I asked Wallnot why proper nouns that referred to job titles were capitalised, I was referred to MOS:JOBTITLES but not given any additional clarification. Seeing as my edits didn't disagree with the MOS, I then re-inserted the capitals into the source, which prompted Wallnot to threaten me on my page with WP:ANI, while again linking MOS:JOBTITLES while once again failing to highlight what it is that would make it suitable to place proper nouns and job titles in lower capitals on the article.

With that said, I request intervention for comment to see what other users think, since I can tell this is a particularily contentious issue for this user. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion, @PeaceThruPramana26:. A few initial points: First, we aren't in an edit war—edit-warring users ignore WP:BRD. Second, it is hard to see how your edits are consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. One of the examples on the MOS page is as follows: "Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom." When a title is preceded by a modifier, including a determiner such as "the", it is lowercase under the MOS. In this instance, "foreign secretary . . ." is preceded by such a modifier, so it ought to be lowercase. Additionally, re your question why "Commonwealth" is uppercase: the Commonwealth is a separate entity, so its name is capitalized as a proper name, just like, e.g., United Kingdom. Under the MOS, job titles are typically not treated as proper nouns, so "foreign" and "development affairs" are rendered in lowercase. Thanks again. Wallnot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in all the aforementioned instances, 'Foreign Secretary' refers to a job title. If it was referring generically to 'the foreign secretary', but it's not being referred to as the office, but the job title: Hence, it would be 'Foreign Secretary' even with a modifier, which is why in my linked references above, you can see that it is consistenly capitalised:

This afternoon the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab joined a meeting with counterparts from the US, Canada, the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, NATO, Qatar and Turkey about the situation in Afghanistan.

The Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of working with like-minded partners on safe passage and exit arrangements for eligible Afghans remaining in the country.

He affirmed Taliban assurances that foreign nationals and Afghan citizens with travel authorisation will be allowed to depart the country, but underlined we must judge them on their actions, and whether people are allowed safe passage to leave.
The Foreign Secretary also welcomed the participants’ unity of purpose and close collaboration on a wider new strategy for Afghanistan.
He explained the strategic priorities to prevent Afghanistan becoming a haven for terrorism, ensure humanitarian access, protect human rights and the gains of the last 20 years, preserve regional stability, and working with a range of international partners in order to exercise the maximum moderating influence on the Taliban.[1]''
My question is: Does a certain interpretation of Wikipedia style guidelines take precedence over the United Kingdom's own spelling and capitalisation of the title? I don't think it should.PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Under the MOS, job titles are typically not treated as proper nouns,"

I don't see this anywhere in the MOS; if anything, it says that about positions of office, not job titles. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the distinction you're drawing between the example I quoted and your uses of "Foreign Secretary". And yes, Wikipedia's MOS does take precedence over the United Kingdom's own spelling and capitalization. I just recalled that there was an RFC on this exact issue less than a year ago. You can find it here. While it's acceptable to challenge an existing consensus at any time, the burden is on you to justify the change. Note that this means there is currently consensus for my interpretation of the guideline. Wallnot (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not a proper RFC
  • Malformed RFC – I suggest we remove the RFC tag and just keep this as a normal discussion. An RFC is supposed to open with a concise question, neutrally presented, not a long-winded defense of a position in a dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    concur —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also concur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. @PeaceThruPramana26: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,100 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out the RFC tag for now; and changed the section heading to not say RFC. If someone wants to convert back to a neutral RFC statement and try again, they can. Or we can just discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the title being capped (like others at the disambig page), I'd think that we'd want to write the lead to use caps, in line with the MOS:JOBTITLE clause "Unmodified, denoting a title". But I'm unclear on what that means, exactly. We should either figure that out, or use lowercase in the lead, and maybe lowercase in the title(s). Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt at a lead rewrite. Please comment (and optionally revert if you disagree or have a better idea). Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt at a compromise but I have two issues with the changes you suggest. The first is that it’s odd compared to every other article about a political office. The second is that I believe it contradicts MOS:FIRST, specifically, “Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.” (Apologies for the curlies, I’m on mobile.) Wallnot (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for a compromise, but for a lead consistent with the title. The alternative would be to use a lowercase title here and on a bunch of other foreign minister articles. Which way are you thinking is more consistent with other articles? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cinderella re comparison to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I don't think the lede need be consistent with the page title—the page title is uppercase because the job title it contains is unmodified; the lede is lowercase because the most natural way to phrase it (and the way most consistent with other articles about political offices) is with a modifier preceding the title, denoting it as an office. Wallnot (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the lead at prime minister of the United Kingdom where I believe these things have been worked out already. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


For the record, I agree with Dicklyon. Across Wikipedia, virtually all the articles of heads of office have the titles capitalised, and only the articles edited by Wallnot and a few others in concurment seemingly would make an exception to that rule, as you go across the wide breadth of wikipedia articles and see that all foreign secretaries and other such offices are always capitalised, e.g the Foreign Minister of Thailand has his title capitalised. I don't think it makes sense to have a handful of articles uncapitalised, while the vast majority already follow an interpretation of MOS that would render this one as unorthodox in my humble opinion. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon you mention—that most articles about political offices fail to observe JOBTITLES—is due to a simple fact: the vast majority of academic and journalistic secondary sources lowercase job titles in most instances (see, e.g., Britannica), but job titles are generally uppercase in daily/vernacular usage. But failure to observe the rule doesn't make the rule any less worth following. Wallnot (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, PeaceThruPramana26, I don't think you are agreeing with me. I support MOS:JOBTITLE generally. I'm just thinking that maybe we can write the lead to agree with the capitalization in the title, or we can downcase the title. Or we can not bother to make them agree, as is the case in many articles, including those you're referring to that Wallnot fixed. These are all viable options. Chucking MOS:JOBTITLE is not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wallnot has successfully convinced me. No further complaints on my part to his/her editing. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selwyn Lloyd[edit]

The first part of Lloyd's stint as Foreign Secretary, from December 1955 to January 1957, was under Eden's premiership rather than Macmillan's. The table needs to be updated to reflect this (by someone who is better at editing tables than I am). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage[edit]

Are we really doing this again? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try to change the community consensus at MOS:LINKCLARITY and MOS:LORD to add a further exception, you are free to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LORD doesn't say anything on this, neither does MOS:LINKCLARITY. There is no policy or guideline for "John Smith" vs "The Lord Smith of Somewhere". But I accept that you're just going to keep reverting, no matter how many editors make the change. Happy new year. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no value in simply denying reality. MOS:linkclarity addresses precisely this issue and it's the only thing it discusses: The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link. Happy new year to you too. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you leave out the last three words, the piece relevant here: given the context. In the context of infoboxes, his formal title, and what is used throughout Wikipedia as demonstrated on Talk:James Cleverly and at the top of his own IB, is "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". You are correct that in prose it would be inappropriate, which is where MOSLC would be cited. Not here though. The style, for peers, is "The Lord Blank of Blank". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context. What makes you think a phrase not appearing in the article title and not the common name for the article subject would correspond more closely to the article linked to - David Cameron - than the words "David Cameron" i.e. the exact article title. I'll wait. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't, and I've never claimed that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no other peer that has not been referred to on their job article by their peerage. Even on the David Cameron article, he is referred to as "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton", particularly in the infobox. The fact is that he is Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and that was on this page until it was wrongly changed. Even on the Sunak Ministry article it refers to him by his peerage and not by his name. There should have been a consensus on this talk page whether to create another exception to MOS:CLARITY. The repeated assertion by @Cambial Yellowing as summarised in the comment of 4 January 2024 timed 17:39 undermines the request for Cameron not to be referred to by his peerage, as "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link" which follows that the closest possible term showing as the link is "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" as is his title. I see therefore I am not the only person that my edits have been reverted by one person persistent in having their own way and against the consensus of the community. I consequently propose that the article be reverted to how it was so that it shows Lord Cameron's title as it should. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that as "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link" which follows that the closest possible term showing as the link is "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"
That doesn’t follow at all. The article title is David Cameron, so the closest possible term is an exact match - David Cameron. It’s not rocket science.
Formatting used at a completely different article is not relevant (particularly where that article gives ministers’ full MP titles: e.g. The Rt Hon etc). The standard is the manual of style, not looking for another article that ignores the style manual in the same way that you would like to. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WP:LINKCLARITY means the reference should be to David Cameron. He's virtually never referred to as "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". We have a choice between a globally known name used while he was PM (and used for his article title) and a 3-month old name no one uses and few recognise. That's not a choice that normally exists for peers -reference to other peers is irrelevant. Stick to the article name. DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is referred to as such because he is a peer. No matter how much you vehemently deny this it cannot change the fact that he is Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, which is reflected by the fact that his peerage is placed on his article. If what you are saying was correct then it would follow that his peerage should simply be stripped off the other article, which is quite clearly wholly wrong. Many other articles use his proper title, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Again, I use the example of Earl of Home. He was the Prime Minister and subsequently became Foreign Secretary. He is referred to by his peerage and not by his name. It is only common sense that a person must be referred to as they are known, i.e. as they are now known by their peerage, and not how they were formerly known. Indeed, in every exchange he is known as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and not David Cameron. The other inconsequential points have been overtaken by the fact that he has been elevated to the peerage. It follows that the article should be reverted to his title. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny what his title is. I don't know where you got that from. "It is only common sense that a person must be referred to as they are known" Absolutely. "David Cameron" is what he is known as as Google will tell. Even UKG refers to him as David cameron as evidenced by this Foreign Office press release from Friday: Foreign Secretary David Cameron gave a statement on the deaths of people in Gaza waiting for an aid convoy on 29 February 2024.[14] DeCausa (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Government website refers to him as "The Rt Hon Lord Cameron" on his personal profile (which is in both the text and the heading:[15] TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? You're claiming that he's not known as, and shouldn't be called, David Cameron any more. that's just wrong. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of name[edit]

@Tim O'Doherty: In this particular case, the name is being used as a title. There is one, and only one, foreign secretary at any given time, and that person is referred to officially as "the Foreign Secretary", because it's their title, which is capitalised as a proper noun, per the MoS regarding titles. Note that if we were to say, in other contexts, "The name of the foreign secretary at the time was...", or "the foreign secretary can..." lowercase would be appropriate, as it's being used as a common noun. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. Please see here for the full entry on this in the Manual of Style. — The Anome (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is only one FS at a given time. When referring to Cameron, Cleverly, Truss, Raab etc you would say eg "the Foreign Secretary visited Moscow" or similar. However, here we're describing an office, so per MOS:JOBTITLES it is lowercase, ie we're describing the office of a foreign secretary (that is, a secretary of state in charge of foreign affairs) and is a common noun. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read the sentence, which is of the form "The X is a secretary of state". A job title cannot hold a job; it is clearly the person who is being referred to here, not the post. Now, if you were to say "An X is a secretary of state who...", lowercase would be different, as it would be the job title. But doing this just to make things lowercase would be tortuous. — The Anome (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's referring to the position of the foreign secretary, not an individual. Yes, if we were talking about Cameron then "the Foreign Secretary today met with the president of the United States" etc would be completely appropriate. But we're not referring to any one person. It's analogous to the phrase "the prime minister has the responsibility of forming a government" (referring to the responsibilities of a person holding the office of prime minister) versus "the Prime Minister has the responsibility of forming a government" (referring to (for example) Sunak after becoming PM). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: later in the paragraph we have "the incumbent is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom and National Security Council, and reports directly to the prime minister" - rather than the "Prime Minister". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim, MOS:JOBTITLES is the applicable standard. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RFC on Peerage[edit]

Merciful close of this non-RfC discussion, per WP:DCL, on procedural grounds. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016, was elevated to the House of Lords as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and simultaneously appointed Foreign Secretary. Several pages refer to him as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. The Foreign Secretary article appears to be the only outlier in time. The title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was originally placed on the Foreign Secretary article but was later reverted. Should the article Foreign Secretary be reverted to display Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's title as he is now a peer? TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the statement above includes the demonstrably false claim that "Several pages refer to him as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. The Foreign Secretary article appears to be the only outlier in time." The number of pages that link to "David Cameron" runs to several thousand. The number that link to "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" is zero. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not false at all. As you noted it includes "in time". This is because of his elevation to the peerage which took place past the point. Indeed, your commentary is misleading because if you click on the first page David Cameron it quite clearly says "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard to list a person's longer name in the lead of their own article (see e.g. Hassanal Bolkiah). Elsewhere, the article title is used. Your claim that "The Foreign Secretary article appears to be the only outlier in time" remains entirely false. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only outlier because every other article includes his title. It does not take a genius to figure it out. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"every other article includes his title". They do not. As shown above, the vast majority of articles use David Cameron, including the article title of the David Cameron article.
"It does not take a genius to figure it out." But it does take basic competence. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not propose to entertain your antics any further as they are not constructive in achieving consensus when you continue to persist with invalid and factually incorrect points. If you do not like something then you are entitled to your view, but that does not mean the fact of Lord Cameron being a peer changes. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no factually incorrect points. I've merely pointed out the demonstrably false claim about usage in other articles you make in your campaigning RfC statement.
Cameron being a peer is not at issue here. It's about how we link to his page and how to follow the site-wide consensus at the manual of style. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not an issue then you would have no issue with the article referring to his correct name title. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is not an inference that relates in any logical way to your premise. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC is malformed and does not meet WP:RFCNEUTRAL, so it cannot establish anything as currently written. The question should be a brief, simple, neutral question: should it be this or this? You can put your arguments and claims in the poll or discussion section beneath the question. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not malformed. It lays foundation as would be required given the complex history. It is further neutral as it does not take one side or the other, it asks a simple question, should it or should it not include the title. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is malformed. You need to read WP:RFC, specifically para 4 of WP:RFCTP: Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag (see § Example). You're arguing your point in the opening statement by referring to other pages that use your preferred name and saying that by not using your preferred name this article is an outlier. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what result the OP is requesting, so it is badly formulated.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about this edit. So the appropriate RfC question should be along the lines of:
  • Question 1: Should the incumbent parameter in the Infobox state (A) "David Cameron" or (B) "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"
  • Question 2: Should the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead state "The current foreign secretary is..." (A) David Cameron or (B) Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
DeCausa (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have heard of David Cameron, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton? not before today. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to see what arguments are led regarding the position of the MoS on this before forming an opinion, as that is what we should be basing this decision on. I assume this is not a call to change the MoS. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have set out the position amply. The fact of the matter is that David Cameron is now Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. There is no changing that unless his peerage is disclaimed. The entire David Cameron article includes the fact that he is a Lord. That fact is missing, and it should not be missing, from the Foreign Secretary article. @Cambial Yellowing persists in trying to create a new exception which has not previously been set for any peer, including a former Prime Minister who was a peer when he was subsequently appointed Foreign Secretary (Earl of Home). Just because the heading of the David Cameron article remains "David Cameron", it does not follow that every single article remains "David Cameron". Every other article, since his appointment to the Lords, i.e. in real time order has been amended to include that he is now a peer. This does not apply for instance to someone he appointed when he was not a peer at the time he appointed them. There is a distinction and combining the two when he has subsequently been appointed a peer not only has no precedent but it also is bad precedent to set. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already demonstrated above, the number of pages that link to "David Cameron" runs to several thousand. The number that link to "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" is zero. There is no point simply repeatedly claiming, on no evidence, that "Every other article" says he is a peer. If you want to seek an exception to the site-wide consensus, the manual of style talk page is the place to go. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style indicates that, for the ease of the reader, links should correspond closely to the linked article. There is an overwhelming consensus to retain the article title as David Cameron because that is how reliable sources (and government press releases) continue to refer to him. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, your point is very misleading. In fact it is specious. It is not what it seems on the face of it. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others evidently disagree with your perception. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perception, it is literally fact. If you click on the page David Cameron does it come up "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". Short answer: yes. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The perception I refer to is your groundless personal opinion that my point is very misleading. Yep, that's the article subject's full name given in the lead. The article title remains David Cameron, per WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading because the way you have decided to frame your statement is that no article has the words of his title "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" when they clearly do. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no such claim. Others disagree with your perception that my reference to the relevant section of the manual of style is "misleading". Whether another article has those words in it is not relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly stated that there is no article with the words "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" included in a way to portray that I was producing "false" claims. Unless you have suddenly become blind, swipe up and you will see what you said. It is however remarkable how pressed someone can be because of somebody's else's title, which I have seen others have voiced similar views. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I observed that The number [of pages] that link to "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" is zero. That remains a fact as demonstrated by the link. As to "how pressed someone can be" over a title – I agree that it is remarkable. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the formation: I explained it above, that it would be necessary to lay foundation in the form of some history and whether that history should dictate further references to his title. The only omission that should probably be added is that he was simultaneously appointed Foreign Secretary when being appointed to the Lords. If Cameron had not previously been Prime Minister I doubt this history would be required when asking the question to people. I hope this explains better. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Procedural Close, as the text introducing the RfC violates the main norms for said text set down by WP:RFC, as others have already pointed out: The text should be clear, neutral, and brief. The initiator is allowed, in the subsequent offer of suggestions, to express their own personal opinion the way they see fit and with as many supporting sources as they choose, if at all, like every other contributor. My collegial suggestion to the initiator is to close this down and try again. -The Gnome (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is as brief it could be. The only alternative is to fully remove the history and ask the plain question in a yes/no format. There are a number of reasons why this would be inappropriate to include such significant omissions, the main is the personal history of his political career. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as per The Gnome and others. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are the others? There is only one person that has asked for procedural close which I have responded. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DeCausa agrees that the RfC is malformed. Peter Southwood, after reading your RfC, had "no idea what result the OP is requesting". Cambial — foliar❧ 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained the position at 14:54 and 15:43. These are subsequent to both publications by both @DeCausa and @Pbsouthwood. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheBishopAndHolyPrince: "I explained the position at 14:54 and 15:43" is such a Dunning–Kruger response. You misunderstood and/or ignored the point at 14:54 and 15:43. It seems to require multiple experienced editors to tell you the same thing before it makes any progress with you. Anyway, your malformed RfC has been rightly removed. I suggest you pay a little more attention to what other editors that have somewhat more than your c.500 edits are saying to you before ploughing on with your opinion in future. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you accept the close and start again with a clear opening statement, It would eliminate a lot of time-wasting argument and get to the actual point. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per others. Agree with the motive, but unfortunately not a well-formed RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers, @The Wordsmith further opinions would be appreciated. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure why I've been summoned here. As far as I'm aware, I've never edited this article or related ones so it looks like canvassing. I'll refrain from participating until that is answered. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for others views as there has not been a proper consensus or agreement on the substance and "with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I hope there can be proper consensus henceforth. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for more views can be good sometimes, but usually you want to notify relevant WikiProjects or editors who have participated in previous discussions about this issue. When you include random editors, it can look like you specifically bringing in people that you think will support your position. How did you come across our names? I don't fall within those two categories, and I don't think we've ever interacted before. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted for future reference, but it would be appreciated to finally reach a consensus to have a few more people take part in the discussion. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, TheBishopAndHolyPrince also WP:CANVASed User:Ravenpuffhere. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: I removed the RFC tag, as there is not a brief and neutral statement at the top. The other alternative was to just insert one, but there has been so much procedural discussion that a fresh start would be better. TheBishopAndHolyPrince, please use this space to workshop a neutral question. If the other editors here aren't willing to help you craft such a statement, you can ping me and I'll give it a shot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers, thank you for your guidance. I would propose to commute the question to the following: "Should the article Foreign Secretary be reverted to display Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's title as he is now a peer?". Would this be a sufficient substitute instead? This would inevitably lead to the wider discussion of the history as set out above, and rather than deleting the entire history, given there has been some limited discussion on the substance, the discussion above could be considered rather than repeating the entire arguments again. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Far from being unwilling, DeCausa has already written for the OP a perfectly neutral and specific RfC question here. It gives both the status quo and proposed versions and does not make claims about which would be a reversion. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a reversion as the name was posted as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and then subsequently amended to David Cameron. It would therefore be reverting it to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. That is not able to be contentious. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite your belief that “That is not able to be contentious”, reality differs from your version of events.
    Name put in article (first time) - name used: David Cameron
    Name put in article (final time) - name used: David Cameron. Attempts to ignore the manual of style came later. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheBishopAndHolyPrince, trying to shoehorn the word "reversion" into the RfC question is another example of your naive attempt to set it up to supposedly favour the outcome you want. You can make whatever points you would like to make in a subsequent statement. I've already given you the format of how RfC questions are neutrally structured. Stop wasting everyone's time. DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would propose then "Should the article Foreign Secretary display Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's title as he is now a peer or should it simply refer to him as David Cameron?", or similar. There can be no allegation of the question being biased, but it omits a significant history, which would be required in the discussion. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose the excessively wordy question immediately above that still somehow fails to be sufficiently specific. I support DeCausa’s proposed wording that doesn’t try to insert the OP’s views into the question. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incredible. TheBishopAndHolyPrince, how on earth can you not understand that including "as he is now a peer" is non-neutral and unacceptable? You're including a rationale for your preferred outcome in your RfC wording. And "display" what is that supposed to mean. And where is this "displayed". I've given you the wording how to do it. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he is a peer? I ask the reverse question to you, given that he is a peer. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just not getting it. Do not include any rationale in an RfC question. You can add that in subsequent posts. I don't know how I can say that any more simply or clearly so you can get it. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheBishopAndHolyPrince, your unfortunate persistence verges on acting in bad faith here, i.e. following a personal objective irrespective of norms, customs, and practices and, moreover, the generous advice of practically everyone else in this discussion. This must be snow closed, then, since it has degenerated to a waste of space. You still can do the merciful thing yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for an RfC question[edit]

Does anyone object to or have changes to these:

  • Question 1: Should the incumbent parameter in the Infobox state (A) "David Cameron" or (B) "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"
  • Question 2: Should the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead state "The current foreign secretary is..." (A) David Cameron or (B) Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton

Are there any other options that should be considered? DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose: "Should the incumbent Foreign Secretary be referred to as (a) David Cameron; or (b) Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton?". This would apply generally to the article rather than being line specific in case there are future additions or amendments to the article. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there are future additions are we really to have "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" in full every time? Also you presume participants would want the same in running text as in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of consistency. I would assume that whatever the outcome of the discussion is what would be adopted in future reference? Unless, what is the point of having the discussion for an outcome that would not be of no effect and pointless? TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, what you want is that every time Cameron is mentioned in the article (if there are additional references in the future) he must be referred to as the full "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" and not, for instance, just "Lord Cameron"? That's pointless. Future consensus will determine how that's to be handled given the context of any addition. We have two specific mentions in the article currently. My proposal deals with what needs to be dealt with. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. He could be referred to as Lord Cameron too but what my point was to achieve consistency part should not refer as "David Cameron" and the other parts as "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" or "Lord Cameron" etc. I hope this clarifies what I meant. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn’t. That’s not what your proposed question says. Also, what does “etc” mean? Are there other names that you favour but also haven’t mentioned in your question? DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "et cetera" is, here, an invitation for more vagueness. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DeCausa's basic questions, would add a third option in which both names are used, as some people would be more familiar with one and not recognise the other at all. Something like "David Cameron, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton", or however the correct terminology would go. Most of the world is unfamiliar with the British peerage terminology, and probably don't care. For the most part, in the article, he could be referred to as "Cameron", which is the usual way of referring to a person in Wikipedia if there is no ambiguity. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DeCausa's suggestion, above. Let's please move on. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC on peerage[edit]

Question 1: Should the incumbent parameter in the Infobox state (A) "David Cameron" or (B) "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"?
Question 2: Should the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead section state "The current foreign secretary is..." (A) "David Cameron" or (B) "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton"?
-The Gnome (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 - B.
2 - neutral.
See my rationale in the above sections: the vast, vast majority of other peer officeholders are referred to as "The Lord ____". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the reasons I have cited above.
The Talk: David Cameron page applies to that article and, contrary to what others have said, does not automatically carry-over to this article. The two are separate. This article is in the context of his professional incumbent job, and it is even more compelling to favour his title to be displayed than his former name given he was only given the peerage to become Foreign Secretary (as a principle to be accountable to Parliament). In addition, contrary to what is cited below, no exception has been provided other than for David Cameron for an incumbent peer on their job article. The heading of the David Cameron has been retained by his name but the peerage is displayed on his article.
All other peers, including the former Prime Minister, Earl of Home, was referred to as his new created title Lord Home of the Hirsel and was appointed Foreign Secretary. Even when Peter Mandelson (cited below) appointed Business Secretary after being appointed to the Lords it was (and continues to be) displayed "The Lord Mandelson" and not by his former name.
Keeping it as David Cameron with absolutely no mention of his peerage on this article misleads or misinforms anyone who does not explore further (that is to say keeping it as it currently is would require someone to click further links read further articles to then become aware that he was a peer as the fact is wholly redundant on the Foreign Secretary article. That is wholly unacceptable.
Even the infobox on the David Cameron article says "The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". The argument that this article should not follow in suit and apply to this infobox is consequently without foundation.
The fact that David Cameron served as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016 should be retained on the post, as should his history of appointment as it is currently displayed.
I await to see what others have to say.
TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: A David Cameron
Question 2: A David Cameron
There is an overwhelming consensus to retain the article title as David Cameron, per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of reliable sources continue to refer to David Cameron, including official press releases by the Foreign Office itself.[1] It's also the name readers will recognise. Contrary to earlier claims about other officeholders, many with entitled names are referred to on Wikipedia with their common name e.g. Alec Douglas-Home, Peter Mandelson, Jack McConnell and Chris Patten.
The manual of style indicates that, for clarity and ease of use, the article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link. The exact article title is plainly the closest correspondence. Adding a piped link with a name that few readers will recognise serves no purpose. It is likely to confuse readers: the opposite of the purpose of this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both. The link is to David Cameron (the article title correctly remains unchanged per WP:COMMONNAME.) So, per MOS:LINKCLARITY that should be the name used here. ("The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context.") Reference to other links to peers not complying with MOS:LINKCLARITY are not relevant. Apart from WP:OTHERCONTENT, few (any?) political peers reached such global prominence and recognition with their pre-peerage name. It does not serve any rational purpose to change the name which will be globally recognised to a name which is rarely used (as any google search will show). Readers will not recognise who is linked to (WP:EGG). Even the UK government's biography web page begins "David Cameron was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs on 13 November 2023".[16] DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to what I have said at 22:13, I do note that the reporting by the press and the Government is mixed: it sometimes says "Lord Cameron" and it sometimes says "David Cameron". Taking it both ways casts doubt on both sides of the argument one way or another. But it is notable that on the Government website it does display his profile as "The Rt Hon Lord Cameron".[17] TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: A (David Cameron) and Question 2: A (David Cameron). He's basically known as David Cameron and it's not our job to surprise the reader of this article by giving them information they might not be interested in and find trivial. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 - B.
2 - B.
In accordance with what I have said above, for the avoidance of doubt, I answer each question as "B" in favour of "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" with appropriate variations "Lord Cameron" and "Cameron".
TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both. This appears to be a pretty clear case of WP:COMMONNAME. Nemov (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both. "David Cameron" is the name widely used by sources. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both, as that is what he us generally known by. Both would be better but it is not currently an option. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both per the above. David Cameron is the common name, at least for non-UK, non-British readers. Some1 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both, obviously, per WP:COMMONNAME. Gawaon (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) summoned by bot[reply]
  • A for both, the majority of our readers, who are not British, are unfamiliar with all of the different levels and importance of peerage titles. Just mention it in the article on David Cameron. My question now is how do I get back the 30 minutes I spend reading both RFC discussions? Life is too short for this. Thanks for the collective help to get this RFC correct and on track. RFCs are not for inexperienced editors to set up. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for both. He's known as David Cameron, plain and simple. He even refers to himself in Foreign Secretary press releases as David Cameron. signed, SpringProof talk 05:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A on both as per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:LINKCLARITY, the name on B is unreasonably obscure for a world-famous person such as Cameron. CVDX (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Deaths of people in Gaza waiting for an aid convoy: Foreign Secretary's statement" (Press release). London: Crown Copyright. 1 March 2024. Foreign Secretary David Cameron gave a statement on the deaths of people in Gaza waiting for an aid convoy on 29 February 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_Secretary&oldid=1217263874"