Talk:John Cook (regicide)

message: Most people would expect the spelling John Cooke and would probably expect to disambiguate as either lawyer or regicide. There is an entry (but no content, bar the web-reference to Robertson's book) for John Cooke (prosecutor). However,...
The article that has developed most is this one, John Cook (regicide), so I have set a redirect here - I suggest we collect material here (the Robertson book has clearly provoked new interest), and finally tidy under John Cooke (lawyer) or (better?) John Cooke (regicide) (Now set as redirect). Linuxlad 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A fascinating man and a fascinating idea
I have read and continue to read Robertson's absorbing and eloquently-written book. The trial of Charles I has always interested me, and I concur with Robertson's amazement that English-speaking historians have not appreciated its significance. Not only has the English-speaking world failed to do this, but, as Robertson brilliantly observes, it has attempted the pass over the event as an embarassing dead-end of history. To this day, it is enshrined in English law that 'the King can do no wrong'. That is, a reigning sovereign cannot be tried for failing to observe the rule of law. If anyone is interested in a discussion on this topic, please join in!
Roberstsonophile, 3-6-06
Well I rather agree with this in sentiment. But I think you may have made the same sort of error I did (see Talk:Oliver Cromwell) - the principle that 'the King can do no wrong' still remains in UK law I understand as providing immunity for the Crown and its agencies... Whereas the Divine Right of KIngs, well tha's slightly more absolute. Bob aka Linuxlad 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: According to Geoffrey Robertson, QC, Cooke was a central figure in the English Republic.  He should also be linked with John Milton, Edmund Ludlow, Thomas Wentworth, Thomas Fairfax, John Lilburne, John Bradshawe, George Monck, Edward Hyde, Orlando Bridgeman,Samuel Pepys, and probably others.  Robertson's book Tyrannicide Brief also details Cooke's marriages and children which should be included in his biography.  He travelled on the Continent: Madrid, Padua, Rome, Paris, and Geneva.
Cooke published a number of pamphlets on legal and social topics; links to them (if available) would be very welcome.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: I have just fixed a cut and past move that was made to this article on 14 December 2006. The reason for the move was (oddly) described as a less POV name. It is true that Robertson uses the spelling Cooke and is cited in this article BUT the Oxford Dictionary of Biography uses John Cook and describe him as a "judge and regicide". On the other hand the Robinson is now the major source used in the article and he calls his book "Tyrannicide". 
Because reliable sources are clearly split on the name. I think that if the page is to be moved from its original name then WP:RM for a controversial move should be filed so that the issue of how to spell his name and what (disambiguation) to use can be discussed. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not John Cook (Solicitor General), accompanied by redirects with added "e"? Using "(judge)" as disambiguator would currently look odd, as the article doesn't mention it.  -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A disambiguate is meant to be something that is widely known about the person. Is he better known as a regicide or as Solicitor General? Personally if I was looking for this man I would immediately recognise "regicide" but I would have to read the article to see if he were "Solicitor General".  The ODNB in their one liner calls him "judge and regicide". As I said above I think if his article is moved then there should be a WP:RM to decide it. I'm not particularly fussed what title is used but I think discussion amongst a wider audience  would help editors come to the best decision. -- PBS (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I checked in Geoffrey Robertsons's book and on page 5 of the preface he writes why he chose Cooke over the DNB alternative "I trust without unfairness to the original speakers Seventeenth century surnames were erratically spelled. I have preferred 'Cooke' because that is how John signed himself, although his name often appears without the 'e'." PBS (talk) -- 05:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I only suggested "(Solicitor General)" as a neutral disambiguator because you mentioned POV. Has anyone recently requested a page move? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No but in fixing the cut an past move, I have brought all the history of more recent edits back to this page (which is the usual way cut and past moves are fixed). As the page had been at John Cooke (prosecutor) for years, someone might want to move it back to the page name they are familiar with. All I am suggesting is before it is moved that an RM is held as whatever name is used "Cook" or "Cooke" there are issues to be weighed and the dab ending has to be considered as well. I personally have a slight preference for the current name and as such I would not express an opinion in a RM as my action moved it back to this name was purely an administrative action (if I had preferred the other name then I would have put in a RM myself). If someone unilaterally moves the page back to John Cooke (prosecutor), I would take no action (such as putting in a WP:RM) to move it back again. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your troubles. Understood. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

text: It is not important how he spelt his name what matters is how it is spelt in most reliable secondary sources (as per WP:COMMONNAME). -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name