Talk:Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland

Infobox & noble titles

@Atchom and Laggan Boy: I thought this was one rogue editor, but I see Atchom has been around for awhile, so sure, what the hell, let's discuss. First off, who said anything about "Google web search"? This was a Google Books search. Secondly, Laggan Boy didn't provide any evidence, just made a bare assertion. As noted in my edit summary, I did see some "Lord Llewellin" in one of the books, but this person was so poorly covered and so obscure as for this not to matter. And the other examples clearly favored using the person's actual name. I'm sure you can find noble-manuals that really do change the terminology, but we don't care about them, this is a history section. (Also, Laggan Boy has repeatedly ignored comments on his talk page to stop including "Sir" and other titles everywhere and including them as part of the wikilinks. It's just Humphrey Gibbs, not Sir Humphrey Gibbs .)

As far as assuming good faith, Laggan Boy was the one who tried playing the "normally I'm on side X, so that's why my take for side Y is totally trustworthy" card. In general, this kind of comment should be ignored at best, and the speaker assumed a troll at worst, as it's a very common troll tactic to pull - "As an Xian, let me state that I must admit that side Y is completely right about everything." Laggan Boy, on the off chance you're not a troll, don't use your alleged Irish nationality & wave it around as "proof" of your reliableness.

I recommend you revert back to the old version. If you really want to have it out, we can discuss it over at WT:AFRICA and/or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. I just ran the search in Google (and Google Books), and you know what, if you search for "Simon Murray" "Rhodesia", there are literally zero relevant results. That's because the UK, like it or not, whether you think it's silly or not, has a hereditary aristocracy, and these people are referred to by their titles. I have just run the same searches in newspaper databases (Times, Telegraph, and so on) and Dalhousie, Llewellin, etc are all referred to by their titles for the relevant periods, without exception. Welensky got his knighthood mid-way through his career so we can debate that especially as it does not change his last name. But you assumed bad faith, you made snarky comments about the 13th century which were uncalled for, which you will admit were not calculated to calm things down. Atchom (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit of a nasty response, SnowFire!! And you are wrong, mate: these people were usually known during their lifetimes by their titles. This is especially the case for The 16th Earl of Dalhousie. Laggan Boy (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a serious comment about the 13th century. I've written about medieval topics where the sources really do constantly talk about "The Admiral of XYZ did this, the Duke of ABC did that" and never mention personal names. This starts to change in the early modern period. By the 20th century, calling people by titles becomes rarer, ergo the usage should match. I'm not questioning that you can find usages of the title for 20th century figures, but "title alone" is obsolete barring certain rare exceptions. This topic isn't covered particularly well (especially the Governor-Generals who did not matter very much), so we should have a default of assuming standard style for the era, i.e. real names, and only switch to titles if there's a strong COMMONNAME argument for it, which as already stated I don't believe is the case.

[1] Here's the 2008 Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World article on the topic, which is short and unhelpful. It does cite the 1963 book "The Politics of Partnership". Now, to be sure, we should use 2023 styles not 1963 styles, but what the hell, let's take a look inside: [2] . Google Book previews shows that "Huggins" shows up 38 times, while "Malvern" shows up 21 times. Neither "Ramsay" nor "Dalhousie" show up at all, which is rather damning for a book whose entire subject is the Federation. Same with Llewellin, the only hit is unrelated. So if we take this 1963 book as a guide, we shouldn't even bother mentioning the Governor-Generals who don't appear to matter, and should call Godfrey Huggins Godfrey Huggins, not Viscount Malvern (which especially makes sense given that he wasn't even Viscount his entire tenure; he got the position in the middle). As a note, part of why titles can be relevant in medieval times is that they're describing domains: i.e. John I, Duke of Brittany ruled in... Brittany. Useful information. But Huggins didn't rule Malvern, and for this article specifically, Malvern wasn't even in the Federation of R&N. So it's just a ceremonial title in a way that isn't true of medieval titles.

I don't have access to the Times of London archives; it looks like free searches only go back a year. As I've said before, the GGs are scarcely covered, but for Huggins, it's quite clear. A 1964 book on him is called "Huggins of Rhodesia", not "The Viscount Malvern of Rhodesia." In the interests of completeness, this source, Year of Decision: Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1960, a 1960 source, seems to have equal hits - 14 hits for Huggins, 15 hits for Malvern. But one source being half & half is hardly a home run here. The sources seem clear enough to me that "Huggins" is preferred in all the other sources I found. SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't just ignore the sources which are out there and say there are no sources out there contradicting your view. Atchom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, "By the 20th century, calling people by titles becomes rarer" is just not true. No one calls the Duke of Wellington Wellsley, just as no one calls Saint-Exupéry Roger. I am not a medievalist, but you are clearly not a modern European historian. Atchom (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

??? You seem to be the one ignoring the sources. I'm providing them to you that show that, at least in the case of Godfrey Huggins, he clearly is referred to as Huggins more often than Viscount Malvern. Re-read the links. These are to sources specifically on the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, aka this article's topic, and... they mostly use Huggins. (I'll AGF and believe you that some 1950s article in The Times might have used the noble titles alone, although I can't check this, but I'd consider this a much weaker source than the published books, and I'd have said that even if the title prominences were reversed.)

The Duke of Wellington is absolutely a case where he's better known by the title! But that's easy to show in the sources for a COMMONNAME check, as are similar PMs of the era. I said it started to change in the early modern period, not that it had finished changing then. But by the post-WW2 era, the change really had gone over for what the standard was.

In the case of the Governor Generals, I'm saying that there is no COMMONNAME, because they're too obscure. Per above, they're not covered at all. Anyway, tell me, is the current heir known as "Prince William" or "The Prince of Wales?" I think you'll find the former name wins by a mile in a quick COMMONNAME check, so the claim that the default mode of address changed holds up quite well IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course the Earl of Dahlousie has a common name. It's the Earl of Dalhousie or Lord Dalhousie. Look up the footnotes in his article before saying stuff like this.

It's a shame that Wikipedia has a suite of policies which mean, for instance, that the article for Prince William refers him as William, Prince of Wales. Take it up with the community if you don't like it. Atchom (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are other sources than Google. Wikipedia requires reliable sources; it does not require all the sources to be ones you can find from the convenience of your armchair. You have made no effort to look up or even ask to see the other relevant sources; but have instead started with a bout of name-calling before engaging. Good day. Atchom (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fine. What are these other sources that you say support your case on this topic specifically? You said before that "I have just run the same searches in newspaper databases", so just to be clear, you're saying that The Times, The Telegraph, etc. referred specifically to Godfrey Huggins as solely "the Viscount Malvern?" And that these newspaper articles are the most relevant thing for a COMMONNAME analysis? Or are there other sources you're invoking? SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Who said anything about "only"? But if you want to play this game:

New York Times obituary (those are not the weird Brits whose rules you dislike so much): "Lord Malvern, Prime Minister Of Rhodesia for 20 Years, Dies" https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/09/archives/lord-malvern-prime-minister-of-rhodesia-for-20-years-dies.html

Times obituary: "Viscount Malvern", 10 May 1971, p 14

Telegraph obituary: "Viscount Malvern", 13 July 1956, p 1

Sunday Times: "Lord Malvern Dies", 9 May 1971, p 3

Times, "Lord Malvern Voted "No"", 7 November 1964, p 7

"Lord Malvern Resigns After 23 Years As Prime Minister", The Times, 1 November 1956, p 8

"Lord Malvern To Visit London", Financial Times, 6 October 1955, p 7

Those are just a few random clippings from the hundreds of sources referring to him as Malvern. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about if you think that people in the 20th century were not known by their titles. I will not even bother doing this with Dalhousie until you show me a single source which refers to him during his GGship as "Ramsay". Atchom (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, you might want to apologise to do the honourable thing and apologise to User:Laggan Boy for accusing him of lying unprovoked. Atchom (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)