Mister Montagu

[EricBarbour]

Bloody hell. Wikipediocracy is becoming a nut magnet, just like Wikipedia and WR.
Evidently no one is allowed to critique Wikipedia without random assholes bringing the (unrelated) crazy.

[Zoloft]

Bloody hell. Wikipediocracy is becoming a nut magnet, just like Wikipedia and WR.
Evidently no one is allowed to critique Wikipedia without random assholes bringing the (unrelated) crazy.

Well, we look under a lot of rocks. Always keep a stick handy.

[Vigilant]

Well, hell.
I go boating and I miss everything.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, hell.
I go boating and I miss everything.

Isn't that the whole purpose of boating?

Anyway, this has been going on for quite a while, so it's not hardly fair to say that the aggrieved web designer in question (and/or the ex-wife who appears to be abetting her) registered here because Mr. Mancunian/Montagu/Whatever began to actively criticize Wikipedia. I'd say they look upon Wikipedia as just another means to their end, which I assume is to drive Mr. Mancunian (and possibly also his wife) to suicide. It's the only motive that makes sense, at least given the facts we know, and of course, Wikipedia has so far been mostly on the side of the people trying to cause that to occur.

And if I may, these obscenely despicable assholes who claim that these articles are only being scrutinized because people are being canvassed on Wikipediocracy are just about the most disgusting slime on Wikipedia. It simply should not be our job to point out these kinds of insanely ridiculous situations to the people who run that website; we only do it because they can't be bothered to pull their self-obsessed minds/asses out of the gutter long enough to know when they're being played, cynically, by revenge-grabbing wack-jobs.

All these years, and nothing has changed. Wikipedia is as corrupt and irresponsible as ever.

[EricBarbour]

And if I may, these obscenely despicable assholes who claim that these articles are only being scrutinized because people are being canvassed on Wikipediocracy are just about the most disgusting slime on Wikipedia. It simply should not be our job to point out these kinds of insanely ridiculous situations to the people who run that website; we only do it because they can't be bothered to pull their self-obsessed minds/asses out of the gutter long enough to know when they're being played, cynically, by revenge-grabbing wack-jobs.

All these years, and nothing has changed. Wikipedia is as corrupt and irresponsible as ever.

Yeah, however one thing has changed: unlike 2005, Google is now giving Wikipedia power. The power of hit-rates and massive attention.
They could change all their articles to complete insane lies, and people would keep trusting them, and believing it all was "reliable".

[Hex]

Bloody hell. Wikipediocracy is becoming a nut magnet, just like Wikipedia and WR.
Evidently no one is allowed to critique Wikipedia without random assholes bringing the (unrelated) crazy.

So long as this forum remains the only(?) place where people can discuss how random assholes are using Wikipedia against them, that's probably going to be the case.

Meanwhile, the article on Wikipedia has been deleted and replaced with a sort-of redirect - see Talk:Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (T-H-L). A good call by Nick. There's a secondary discussion happening here among the peerage enthusiasts.

[Triptych]

Blargh, Themelinda is irked her account here was suspended. Zoloft said she could email Zoloft to discuss it though. I didn't and I don't think anyone accused her of making up emails. I certainly did not mean to question your veracity, Themelinda. What I meant to say is that often a legal case will resolve quite differently than the opening police report.

Mancunium has been a good at times witty contributor to this website that has also used him as something of a case study in the site's ongoing effort to spur biography reform at Wikipedia. It's natural then he'd get some support when someone new comes in with a great, long, incredibly critical post about him. Like Zoloft said that is not the site's mandate. The site's mandate is to "shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with the structural flaws" etc.

Themelinda, if you were willing to dial down the intensity a bit, and had something to say on the biography (BLP) question, I'd suppose unsuspending your account is among the options the moderators have, and that's why Zoloft pointed you to that email address.

[Mancunium]

Bloody hell. Wikipediocracy is becoming a nut magnet, just like Wikipedia and WR.
Evidently no one is allowed to critique Wikipedia without random assholes bringing the (unrelated) crazy.

So long as this forum remains the only(?) place where people can discuss how random assholes are using Wikipedia against them, that's probably going to be the case.

Meanwhile, the article on Wikipedia has been deleted and replaced with a sort-of redirect - see Talk:Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (T-H-L). A good call by Nick. There's a secondary discussion happening here among the peerage enthusiasts.

Thank you, thank you.

From the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage

I would expect this could be the first Duke to not register on the Roll and there could have been an assumption he would register, but I'll attempt to find out. Nick (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's not. Neither Argyll (who certainly uses his title) and Atholl, from the Scottish peerage, are on the Roll. Abercorn is on the roll, but only as a Marquess, having apparently proved succession to the marquessate but not to his Irish dukedom. (This suggests a certain level of red tape involved in the whole thing.)

What an observation, and what a coincidence that at first glance the Roll of the Peerage seems to have neglected four dukes.

Argyll was recognized as Sovereign in 1871, on the ocassion of the 9th Duke's marriage to a daughter of Queen Victoria. Atholl had been recognized as Sovereign by Queen Victoria in 1844. The Atholl Highlanders are an infantry regiment in the private employ of the Duke of Atholl, making it Europe's only legal private army. Manchester is the heir of King William I of Mann, and was recognized as Sovereign by treaty with King Edward III of England in 1333. The Duke of Marlborough also held this status from 1704 until his death in 1722.

Sovereign dukes deal personally with the Sovereign of the UK, not with the House of Lords. In 1722, the 2nd Duke of Montagu actually declared war on France over the islands of St Lucia and St Vincent in the Caribbean (both now Sovereign Realms), which he had purchased from King George I; he paid all the costs of the war, just as he spent much of his wealth on the effort to end slavery. The 7th Duke of Manchester founded the Most Venerable Order of St John on his own authority, and treated directly with the Ottoman Emperor to found the Hospital of St John in Jerusalem (now the St John Eye Hospital).

Obviously, the Dukes of Cumberland and Kings of Hanover were Sovereign, as was the Duke of Edinburgh and Coburg, and as were the Dukes of Albany and Coburg.

Irish Peers have never had the right to sit in the House of Lords, and Abercorn's rights in the UK are based on his British marquessate; he also happens to be Duke of Abercorn in Ireland and Duke of Châtellerault in the late Empire of the French (the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon is Duke of Châtellerault in the late Kingdom of France).

Why does WP Project Peerage and Baronetage know nothing of these things, which are common knowledge to some? I imagine because it is none of their business.

Thank you, thank you.

[Smiley]

Oh dear, he wouldn't let it lie. Dingley's gone crying to AN/I:

Are we now using "Delete on request" as a BLP policy, provided that it's first posted at Wikipediocracy to canvas up a few loyal subjects?

Demiurge is sticking his nose in again, and is this comment for real?:

I was canvassed to comment here by Charmlet, but this had no effect on my comment because I had already decided to comment here. Charmlet, correctly, did not give any indication of how he thought I should comment. He also later commented that he was "kidding".

Nice exchange here:

Wikipediocracy is too often the only place where you hear the truth, so that's the problem you ought to be addressing. Eric Corbett

The WP:TRUTH? I'd pay a lot for that. --Demiurge1000

I doubt you'd recognise it. Eric Corbett

[TungstenCarbide]

... The fact that Wikipediocracy played a role in this is really neither here nor there – personally, I detest some of the low-lifes on that website and their nastiness as much as the next guy ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, come here and see for yourself. You'll get a fair shake and be treated according to your veracity.

[EricBarbour]

... The fact that Wikipediocracy played a role in this is really neither here nor there – personally, I detest some of the low-lifes on that website and their nastiness as much as the next guy ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, come here and see for yourself. You'll get a fair shake and be treated according to your veracity.

Something he does for no one else.

[HRIP7]

... The fact that Wikipediocracy played a role in this is really neither here nor there – personally, I detest some of the low-lifes on that website and their nastiness as much as the next guy ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, come here and see for yourself. You'll get a fair shake and be treated according to your veracity.

Hey, he actually paid some people on this site a compliment in that edit:

The fact that Wikipediocracy played a role in this is really neither here nor there – personally, I detest some of the low-lifes on that website and their nastiness as much as the next guy, but some people over there do often have a correct feel for BLP issues, and this may well be such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[hack]

Irish Peers have never had the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords

Fixed.

There were Irish peers elected to the House of Lords throughout the 19th century and up to the 1920s.

[Mancunium]

I recall that a British PM famously told a gentleman requesting some small favour: "No. But I can make you an Irish peer".

Can't find it online.

[hack]

I recall that a British PM famously told a gentleman requesting some small favour: "No. But I can make you an Irish peer".

Can't find it online.

William Pitt the Younger (T-H-L) to Robert Smith, 1st Baron Carrington (T-H-L) apparently.

Pitt, when his banker Mr. Smith (who lived in Whitehall) desired the privilege of driving through the Horse Guards, said: “No, I can’t give you that; but I will make you an Irish peer;” and the banker became the first Lord Carrington

Source

[Hex]

Welcome to the forum, hack.

[hack]

Welcome to the forum, hack.

Thanks Hex.

[Cedric]

I recall that a British PM famously told a gentleman requesting some small favour: "No. But I can make you an Irish peer".

Can't find it online.

William Pitt the Younger (T-H-L) to Robert Smith, 1st Baron Carrington (T-H-L) apparently.

Pitt, when his banker Mr. Smith (who lived in Whitehall) desired the privilege of driving through the Horse Guards, said: “No, I can’t give you that; but I will make you an Irish peer;” and the banker became the first Lord Carrington

Source

Ah yes, Pitt the Younger.

Wasn't he also Lord Privy Toast Rack?

[Mancunium]

"The Lord Privy Seal is not a lord nor a privy nor a seal."
Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Poetlister]

"The Lord Privy Seal is not a lord nor a privy nor a seal."
Discuss amongst yourselves.

Quite right. Also, the Lord Chancellor is not a lord, nor is he comparable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or even the Chancellor of Oxford University. Tbe Lord President of the Council is not a lord either. All bishops of the Church of England (except archbishops) are addressed as "My Lord" even if they do not sit in the House of Lords.