Talk:John Forrest

message: An anonymous editor changed "Sir John Forrest" to "Lord Forrest of Bunbury" at the very start of the article.  I have reverted it.  For most of his life John Forrest was known as "John Forrest" or "Sir John", and he is still referred to exclusively by these names in Western Australia where he is a household name.  Very few people know him as "Lord Forrest", and so I believe that it is not appropriate to introduce him as such here.  "Sir John Forrest,  later Lord Forrest of Bunbury" is a reasonable compromise.  This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).
Hesperian 00:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: earliest comment

message: Tonight's episode of Dynasties is about the Forrest family.  It screens at 8pm tonight on ABC TV.  See . User:Hesperian | User talk:Hesperian 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Forrest on the box

message: The creation of a Peerage in the Peerage of the United Kingdom does not occur when an announcement is made to the subject, or when the announcement is made to the press. It only occurs when the Letters Patent are issued. In the case of Sir John Forrest, no letters patent were issued before his death. The Complete Peerage (the standard reference work) does not include Forrest in Volume XIII of Peerage creations 1901-1939. As W.D. Rubinstein remarks in "The Biographical Dictionary of Life Peers" (St Martin's Press, 1991) at page 368:
"Sir John Forrest .. was granted a hereditary peerage by the Lloyd George government, the first Australian to receive a peerage. Forrest died on the trip from Perth to England. Although he is referred to as 'Lord Forrest' in Who Was Who, 1916-1928, his peerage is not mentioned or included in Burke's Peerage, The New Extinct Peerage, the Complete Peerage, or any other standard reference work on the subject."
See also my recent article on John Davies who also died before receiving his peerage. Sir John Forrest was never a peer and his article is incorrect if it says that he is. David | Talk 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important correction

message: I've uprated this to B-Class as it has everything a GA class article has without the extensive in-line citations. —Moondyne 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I found a statue in Kings Park (:Image:John Forrest statue at Kings Park.jpg) that clearly is a statue of John Forrest (name and birth/death dates match) and claims he was "FIRST PRESIDENT OF THIS PARK", yet this is not mentioned in this article. Is it true? Dcoetzee 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I duplicated this question at Talk:Kings Park, Western Australia. cygnis insignis 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kings Park president?

message: It seems that he remained WA Premier until 13 February 1901 (15 Feb according to Premier of Western Australia), although he had been a member of Barton's federal ministry from 1 January (PMG initially, then Defence Minister from 17 January following Sir James Dickson's death).  This was probably not unconstitutional because he wasn't a member of the Federal Parliament until the end of March 1901.  But it still seems to be an odd arrangement, involving potential conflicts of interest between his state responsibilities and his federal responsibilities.  Was this an issue at the time, and has it ever been repeated by anyone else?  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WA Premier and Federal Minister concurrently

message: I question the reliability of the source cited for this:
Self published sources are not generally considered sufficient. Donald McLeod does not appear to be a neutral source, if this biography of him is anything to go by. The book cited is apparently "Don McLeod’s own story". I suggest that we should remove the sentence, unless someone can provide a more reliable source. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What Good Condition? says "The colonists duly passed a second Bill for the repeal of s.70 in late 1897".  Saying that "Forrest repealed S.70" doesn't appear to be very accurate. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reworded the sentence to more accurately reflect what Meyers says. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the Steven Church essay  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.142 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where can I find this Steven Church essay? It's not listed in the article's references. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the sentence accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlawfully repealed Section 70 of the [Constitution] Act? 

message: I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):
* John Forrest's title is listed as extinct (and so as valid) in the authoritative Burke's Peerage (1920), and his widow is clearly listed as a Baroness: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22
* Most reference sources treat the title as having been created: e.g., http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forrest-sir-john-6211, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Forrest
* WA's official monument to him (his statue in King's Park) describes him as a Baron
* Even assuming that the peerage was not formally created, there is precedent in Britain for the use of a peerage title as a courtesy despite the failure of its formal creation: see Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1660–1661), Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.84.66.46 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No we just don't do that. The title doesn't exist until created and can't be used before it is. A 17C royal title announcement is not a useful precedent for how this is done now or indeed for commoners anyway. Most sources don't treat it as having existed and the only sources that matter are official ones.Fwiw I can think of half a dozen similar case of announced titles that also never passed the great seal and they are correctly treated with no fictitious title included see for example George Cave, 1st Viscount Cave Garlicplanting (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Barony

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Forrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221002/http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf to http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220024722/http://www.hamersleyfamily.com/hamersley/f79.htm to http://www.hamersleyfamily.com/hamersley/f79.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605023905/http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=Forrest&placetype=0&state=WA+ to http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=Forrest&placetype=0&state=WA+
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified