Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:16, 4 March 2024

This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Scope

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 TreveX 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Requested Move

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)

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)

Discussion

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)

Survey

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 Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose: I would prefer to use the official title with the existing redirect from Foreign Secretary--Harkey (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages articles are not based on official names - they are based on commonly used names. See WP:COMMONNAME:

Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Style

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)

Which name to use?

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)

Requested move 25 January 2021

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)

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" . Google Ngram Viewer also shows the much more for the term "Foreign Secretary" than "Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs" . 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💥  00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support seems to be the primary topic for "foreign secretary" (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. BD2412 T 05:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to that secretary needs to use official name over WP:COMMONNAME. I also cite the same argument about this in 2009. If this article need to move, i would prefer it as Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) because there are multiple agencies and ministeries that have named itself as Foreign secretary which the page itself is a DAB page. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  What policy/guideline suggest using the official name instead of the common name? To my knowledge common name is far more important in deciding the article name. Also Foriegn Secretary already redirects here.  Spy-cicle💥  13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) and have Foreign Secretary redirect to the Foreign secretary disambig page. WP:SMALLDETAILS should NOT apply because all those other offices also have the upper case "S" in Secretary. And on the issue of primary topic in terms of usage, of course the UK article's page views are going to be heavily skewed and bias on the English Misplaced Pages compared to those foreign secretaries in countries where English speakers are either in the minority or few and far between. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The point is that this is English Misplaced Pages! It may not be the primary topic in other languages; it is in the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) and move the DAB to Foreign Secretary. Every single entry at Foreign secretary is capitalised. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: Appears to be a consensus to move above, but no clear consensus on whether the move should be to Foreign Secretary, or to Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) with Foreign Secretary redirecting to the dab page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per policy, common sense and official government use. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Primary topic, common name, and more appropriate title given the scope of the article, which includes the earlier offices known as 'Foreign Secretary'. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) and move the DAB to Foreign Secretary per Andrewa above. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: There's consensus to move this page from its current name, but still, there is no clear consensus on whether the move should be to Foreign Secretary, or to Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) with Foreign Secretary redirecting to the dab page. So, relisting again. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "Foreign Secretary" has redirected here as the primary redirect for years and I think this topic is the primary topic for that term. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (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.

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

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

• Boris Johnson MP.jpg

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

Capitalisation issues

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. 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.

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. 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.

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)

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)

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.''

My question is: Does a certain interpretation of Misplaced Pages 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)

"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)

I don't see the distinction you're drawing between the example I quoted and your uses of "Foreign Secretary". And yes, Misplaced Pages'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)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 " 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)

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)

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)

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)

For the record, I agree with Dicklyon. Across Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

• Anthony Eden (retouched).jpg

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

Selwyn Lloyd

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)

Peerage

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

No, it wouldn't, and I've never claimed that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Capitalisation of name

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with Tim, MOS:JOBTITLES is the applicable standard. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Peerage

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages style and naming Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

David Cameron was elevated to the House of Lords as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• List-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• List-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment