Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

message: This section is confusing:
In April Austria's navy was on its way to attack Copenhagen, and Palmerston saw the Austrian ambassador and informed him that Britain could not allow their navy to sail through the English Channel if their intent was to attack Denmark, and if it entered the Baltic the result would be war with Britain. The ambassador replied that the Austrian navy would not enter the Baltic and it did not do so.[83]
What exactly was Palmerston's threat? War if the Austrians entered the Channel? Or war if they entered the Baltic? I ask because it seems odd that the UK would state that they would not let the Austrians into the Channel, but that war wouldn't take place until the Austrians cleared the Channel, sailed up the North Sea, and made it all the way to the Baltic. On a basic level, why wouldn't the Royal Navy want to strike first when the Austrians were in the Channel to begin with?
The citation is to Ridley - could someone with access to that book please check the citation?  Tks.  Jkp1187 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus belli for Austrian Fleet in English Channel...or was it the Baltic?

message: The sentence pair: "As a nobleman he was entitled to take his MA without examinations, but Palmerston wished to obtain his degree through examinations. This was declined, although he was allowed to take the examinations, where he obtained first-class honours."  doesn't make sense.  Needs to be rewritten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.218.7 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did he actually use both forenames, or is this just one of the many peer articles at the full name for no real reason? Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Many years ago in a work of geopolitical/diplomatic history - I think it was in AJP Taylor's 1848-1918: The Struggle for Mastery in Europe - the author says that the Treaty of Washington (the Oregon Treaty) as just ratified by the US Congress was in the mail packet and the vessel being late, still somewhere on the Atlantic when governments changed in England.  Had it arrived on time, apparently Aberdeen's plan had been to reject the treaty offered and declare war, but Palmerston wanted to avoid war so signed the treaty (the author, Taylor I'm guessing, said because of his experience on Napoleonic battlefields, and I remember Austerlitz as being mentioned, or one battle in particular).  Rejection of the treaty would have signalled British determination to hold to the line of the Columbia River from the 49th Parallel southwards, which had been the last British offer, and would have implied a continental war as well as, implicitly, a struggle for naval superiority in the Pacific, and in one tangential scenario implying British support, or even a protectorate, over then-still-Mexican California.  Further implications are irrelevant here, but I'm hoping someone here might have expertise in foreign policy of the day and might be willing/able to comment on particulars of Aberdeen's and Palmerston's particular policies on "Oregon" (the American name for the region, which was variously the Columbia District, New Caledonia or Vancouver Island depending on where you were).  The current Oregon boundary dispute and Oregon Treaty articles are very APOV (American point-of-view) although I've done some fixes; but since Canadian history does not address the diplomatic stituation here it's British imperial history that's needed to balance the American context of the current articles (q.v.); and for my own sake I'm interested in the treaty and negotiations and the manoeuvrings in relation to it; apparently Aberdeen had studied the issue through his years in office and knew what was at stake (the best land in the area, among other things, and more extensive ports and coal) while Palmerston didn't have as much of a grasp of it; there were much bigger things going on in the world but apparently for a brief few weeks now and then this became pivotal, as with the Nootka Crisis long before.  Anyone got any refs/comments?Skookum1 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor has a tendency to go far out on a limb. If it is his theory, I would not include it here unless it were consensus, which I doubt. (Oregon question is another matter; and even there I would put "A.J.P. Taylor asserts..." as a warning.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Palmerston and Aberdeen re the [[Oregon boundary dispute|Oregon Question]]

message: This is an article about one of the UK's greatest prime ministers, who shaped world events. Do we really need a section on a two minute discussion in some Simpson's episode. I'm sure he's been referred to in thousands of works of literature and film. --Sandy Scott 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article says it's about Talleyrand. Presumably a scene late in his life. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: :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 Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: On the naming conventions page you linked it cites Palmerston as an example where peerage titles are appropriate as the article name, however the new name would make sense given he was known overwhelmingly as "Lord Palmerston".--Johnbull (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these enough to keep the article where it is? Maybe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've removed a paragraph from the introduction. I started to explain why in the edit box, but ran out of space. I suspect it was EB 1911 text, and it was a dense web of concepts and phrases couched in old fashioned terms and likely to be misinterpreted by modern readers. And some of the information given seemed to trivial to be covered in the introduction in any case. Choalbaton (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of paragraph from the introduction

message: I've moved this back to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston from Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. User:Proteus asked on 4 September 2005 further up the page whether he actually used both forenames, but there has been no answer. He succeeded to the viscountcy before the age of eighteen, and was presumably always addressed as "Lord Palmerston" or "Palmerston" (or, familiarly, "Pam") thereafter. Any source for what he used as his first name would either have to be from before 1802 (e.g. the Harrow school lists) or private letters from someone like Lady Palmerston. Arbitrarily placing the article at the first name, without evidence that this was the name used, results in errors like John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell and Frank Merriman, 1st Baron Merriman. In default of such evidence, the full name should be used, as would be the case in any other encyclopaedia.  Opera hat (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move 

message: Under the heading of Foreign Secretary, I've just read "Palmerston was a great orator". This is widely discredited by historians - he had a way with written communication, and his speech over the Don Pacifico crisis was his peak, but he was renowned for being a poor speaker in his early career. He would start sentences, and forget what it was he was saying, umming and arring. He was very effective in his use of the press to capture popular opinion, but this is very different from expressing it verbally. Palmerston was _not_ a great orator, he was a great communicator in the written form.
R
---
Its a very curious passage to include, and, like much of the rest of this article, its lifted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica but with the meaning changed.
Here is the phrase in the Wikipedia article:
"Palmerston was a great orator. His language was relatively unstudied and his delivery somewhat embarrassed, but he generally found words to say the right thing at the right time and to address the House of Commons in the language best adapted to the capacity and the temper of his audience."
And here is what both the 11th and the 13th editions of Britannica says, 
"Lord Palmerston was no orator; his language was unstudied, and his delivery somewhat embarrassed; but generally he found the words to say the right thing at the right time, and to address the House of Commons in the language best adapted to the capacity and the temper of his audience."
Clearly the Wikipedia author has lifted this passage and many others from Britannica, but chosen to significantly change the meaning in the process. I've seen quite a few examples of this on Wikipedia relating the the 13th Britannica, where the articles are essentially lifted, but modified in this manner. I haven't checked it recently but the article on Sparta was a stand-out example. 
Is this normal and acceptable? Edit: By the way, I ask that in all humility as I really don't know how things go on Wikipedia, so I'm interested in the rules around copying a text but changing the meaning.
Ed R.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.105.109 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way forward is to provide proper quotes with proper citations. It is even possible to quote and cite Britannica, as I see it. It is not valid to misquote Britannica without providing a justifications of some sort. AWhiteC (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, he made a famous speech in his constituency (Broadlands in Hampshire or some such place) some time during the 1840s or 1850s, which was one of the first occasions of a leading politician addressing the newspaper-reading public directly rather than airing his views solely in the House of Commons. Gladstone of course really started the ball rolling on that one with his speeches in places like Newcastle and Lancashire in the early 1860s. Would need to refresh my memory about the details though.Paulturtle (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Orator? 

message: I don't believe Karl Marx should be a source for this article. There are plenty of scholarly biographies of Palmerston that have extensive access to his papers. Marx is not one of them. Indeed the whole tone of the recent contributions is not neutral. I will rectifying this and removing the POV and the bizarre inclusion of German names (Greaerick Enget Britain for example).--Britannicus (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Marx as a source

message: I've just being reading this article following on questions asked about Lord Palmerston in University Challenge and I'm struck by the frequency by which he is referred to as "Lord Palmerston" in the body of the article. I had an idea that it was common practice to refer to Lords as "Lord So-and-So" initially and then use their surname in further references. University Challenge (S38 E29) simply referred to him as Palmerston. I've checked the pages for a few other Lords, including Lord North and Lord Byron, on WP and these confirm my suspicions. At the present, there are 132 references to "Lord Palmerston" in the article, often in contiguous sentences, and I find this leads to a loss of readability. Anyone agree? Scartboy (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord North's surname actually was North, and Lord Byron's was Byron at least until 1822. Lord Palmerston's surname was Temple, and to use this rather than his title would lead to a much greater "loss of readability". Opera hat (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, but Scartboy's point is really that it is more "readable" to call people by the name by which they are commonly known. For example the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington refers to its subject as "the Duke" or "Wellington" rather than continually repeating "the Duke of Wellington". Surely Wikipedia is aiming to be comprehensible by general readers, who are not interested in the niceties of nomenclature, but just want to know about Palmerston? So can we delete most of the "Lord"s? Kinnerton (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Scartboy is right. David Steele, ‘Temple, Henry John, third Viscount Palmerston (1784–1865)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online uses just "Palmerston". Indeed it has only one use of Lord Palmerston. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated use of "Lord Palmerston" in text 

message: A. N. Wilson's (2002) 'The Victorians' claims that Palmerston had once raped a woman at Windsor Castle, p.190.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.58.239 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Molto ben trovato.  Errantius (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapist? 

message: I see the sentence "In fact Irishmen did not control any major newspapers in the North" has been reinstated and the reference given as Kenneth Bourne, "British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862," The English Historical Review Vol 76 No 301 (Oct 1961) pp 600–632. Could the direct quote relevant to this be provided from the reference?--Britannicus (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Godkin, E. L. "American Opinion on the Irish Question" The Nineteenth Century vol 22 (1887): 285–92. says "Most New York newspapers did not have Irish editors or leader-writers". Where Palmerston got his misinformation is a mystery--perhaps he was thinking of the leading Confederate editor (in Richmond) the Irish agitator John Mitchel, who was very anti-British. Rjensen (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspapers of the northern Union

message: I think I'll remove the quotations section. It was put in recently, it is far too long and the contributor couldn't be bothered to format it properly, or even spell "Quotations" properly at first. Suggestion: someone might care to re-introduce a subset of carefully chosen and formatted quotations. AWhiteC (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of quotations 

message: Why is there no (or little) mention of Palmerston's role in the First Opium War? There is only a word or two at the end of the Balkans and Near East: defending Turkey section, whereas if you look in First Opium War, it becomes apparent that Palmerston was heavily involved. What's going on? I have looked back through some of the last 500 edits, going back to 2007, and it looks as if there never was a proper mention. AWhiteC (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: good point...the reason is the article was originally copied from a 1911 encyclopedia. i fixed it Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! Thanks! (It looks as if the 1911 encyclopaedia was ever-so-slightly biassed.) The only query in my mind now is whether there is the right balance between the coverage of the First Opium War and the Second Opium War (Arrow War). I genuinely don't know; what do you think? AWhiteC (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is the RS vary in their coverage. Ridley gives a whole chapter to the first opium war and Brown gives it a paragraph. both are very brief on arrow war..but there are several books on the arrow war, esp Deadly Dreams Opium, Imperialism, and the Arrow War (1856-1860) in China by J.Y. Wong (1980) Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Better balance now, I think. We're getting there. There still some criticisms in the talk page above that need to be resolved. (You seem to be the one doing all the work, and I seem to do nothing more than make comments. Seems a good arrangement to me!) AWhiteC (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Opium War 

message: Hello there! I've just tagged the article as having too short a lede. For an article that's almost 10 thousand words long, I find it incomprehensible its lede is a mere 147 words! Basically it swiftly mentions the offices he held, and the fact he died. Not even a bare bones biography, a simple summary of his achievements or legacy. Nothing. I'm hoping someone familiar with the subject's history can offer something better than that, considering most readers statistically never get past ledes. I'm willing to help with whatever's needed. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just expand the lede from the information in the rest of the article? AWhiteC (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: Have appended a short entry on Shaftesbury's lobbying of P to influence the appointment of a Consul at Jerusalem.Cpsoper (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaftesbury and the British Consul in Jerusalem

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. 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/20120421002715/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/parksgreenspaces/citycentreparks/PalmerstonPark.aspx to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/parksgreenspaces/citycentreparks/palmerstonpark.aspx
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) 02:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where did it go? I couldn't find it in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: There are many paragraphs and entire subsections that do not have any citations. Specifically, the following:
* Secretary at War (3 paras)
* Opposition (1 para)
* Crises of 1830 (1 para)
* Belgium (entire section)
* France, Spain and Portugal 1830s (entire section)
* Residences (entire section)
* France and Spain, 1845 (1 para)
* Support for revolutions abroad (entire section)
* Italian independence (entire section)
* Hungarian independence (entire section)
* Royal and parliamentary reaction to 1848 (entire section)
* Don Pacifico Affair (1 para)
* Electoral reform (entire section)
* Ending the Crimean War (entire section)
* Resignation (entire section)
* Opposition: 1858–1859 (entire section)
* American Civil War (1 para)
* Cultural references (entire section)
* Lord Palmerston's First Cabinet (entire section)
* Lord Palmerston's Second Cabinet (entire section)
Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these items have been addressed. Thank you. —howcheng  {chat} 16:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs more references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. 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  tag to http://stilltitled.com/post/217158914/mistakes-metaphor-and-nation-building
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106110037/http://stilltitled.com/post/217154522/half-the-wrong-conclusions-at-which-mankind-arrive to http://stilltitled.com/post/217154522/half-the-wrong-conclusions-at-which-mankind-arrive
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) 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. 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/20100808092206/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=13&item=biography to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=13&item=biography
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420212652/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page149.asp to http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page149.asp
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) 10:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. 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/20141129013836/http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42314/1.hasCoversheetVersion/0000327.pdf to http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42314/1.hasCoversheetVersion/0000327.pdf
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) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll preserve these gems in case anyone ever does a "Lord P in popular culture":
*The Simpsons – In the episode "Homer at the Bat", Barney Gumble and Wade Boggs come to blows over who the UK's greatest Prime Minister was; Barney supports Lord Palmerston, while Boggs favours Pitt the Elder. Barney ends the argument by knocking Boggs out cold.
*Skyfall – A close-up shot of a statue of Lord Palmerston features in an early scene from the 23rd James Bond film. The scene is one of many in which imperial imagery features prominently.
*Harry Potter – On Pottermore, J. K. Rowling wrote that Lord Palmerston was the subject of an irrational loathing by Priscilla Dupont, who was Minister for Magic from 1855–1858. Dupont was obliged to step down from her office after causing numerous incidents, including turning the coins in Palmerston's coat pockets into frogspawn. Ironically, Palmerston was forced to resign for unrelated reasons just two days after Dupont.
Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In pop culture 

message: For his part, David Urquhart considered Palmerston a "mercenary of Russia" and founded the "Free Press" magazine in London, where he constantly promoted these views. The permanent author of this magazine was Karl Marx, who stated "from the time of Peter the Great until the Crimean war, there was a secret agreement between the London and St. Petersburg offices, and that Palmerston was a corrupt tool the Tsar policy" Franz Mering. "Karl Marx. His life story". Moscow. Gospolitizdat. 1957. p.264 Some people may see this as a historic precedent for the modern accusations against the President of the United States Donald Trump.
'''
---------------
Palmerston was accused of being bribed by tsarist Russia. Trump was also accused of bribery by the current presidential Russia. Isn't this a historical precedent? Of course, it is clear that the accusations against Palmerston almost 200 years ago are monstrous nonsense. But this is a reason for historical Parallels in the accusations against the current US President. Isn't that right? 178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmerston-Trump historical precedent 

message: :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 section. 
----
:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston →  – Per WP:CONCISE, this is the most concise title to fully identify the subject.  and  results both indicate that he is commonly identified without his middle name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Explain to me how the nominator's evidence is stronger than my evidence and how the nominator's evidence demonstrates that Palmerston "is commonly identified without his middle name" and why you think my evidence does not demonstrate the opposite. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: *You're both deluded. There's no way the ngram can possibly show anything other than the middle name being used more than 67% of the time. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whoa, don't forget Wikiquette. I'm not deluded, just being practical. Deb (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Explain to me how the evidence "does seem to support his middle name not being commonly used". DrKay (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some sources, such as books about the peerage, will always use the full name, but there are enough examples of "Henry" being used on its own to support Necrothesp's argument. Deb (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *As shown in the ngram, two-thirds of the books published in the last 60 years use the middle name. You're now arguing that two-thirds of the books published on Palmerston in the last 60 years are about the peerage, and you wonder why I think you're deluded? If you're not deluded, you're either a liar or an idiot. Of the three, delusion is the least uncivil thing that I can say about you. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *That kind of insult is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. It also signals to other users in this discussion that you don't have a strong argument. Deb (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Same goes for making illogical statements that are not factual. DrKay (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: *Oppose: Thanks for the notification. To respond to the last comment in the last discussion,  (discussion closed before I could respond), I don't deny that official sources may sometimes use the name Henry Temple. But in the official list of PMs drawn up 10 Downing Street, they use Henry John Temple. As someone more likely to be known as Palmerston, there's bound to be a measure of inconsistency. Our role is the balance the article title guidelines, and I'd edge towards common name over precision. The consistency argument seems weak, as there are often cases where people with the same first name as a parent specifically use the middle name to distinguish. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: With the central argument refuted, and no valid counter-refutation presented, there is no common name basis for the move. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 February 2021 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :. LORD PALMERSTON. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#. LORD PALMERSTON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ". LORD PALMERSTON" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :Any additional comments:
:: , I've added  and  as alternatives, but I still cannot fathom why it should be so necessary to include his full personal name in the title followed by "3rd Viscount Palmerston", when he was the only Viscount Palmerston named Henry John Temple. WP:FULLNAME recommends that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There is no evidence that the subject is most commonly known as Henry John Temple. He is referred to as Palmerston by nearly all the sources in the article, not as Henry John Temple. You seem to be arguing against the notion of deleting his middle name from the article entirely, rather than removing it solely from the title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is obviously most commonly known as Lord Palmerston. I never said anything otherwise, so that straw man of yours can be ignored. It is equally obvious that he is more commonly known as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple. I have proved that with the ngram. Consequently, of the two alternatives (Henry John Temple and Henry Temple), the article should be at the commoner name, which is with the middle name. Please do not reply. Please do not ping me. Deb and Celia complained about me being rude before but it is difficult to resist the temptation when faced with ill-judged replies. DrKay (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd like to reply to your, frankly ill-judged, reply. Firstly, it wasn't a straw man, it was a perfectly valid point. The undisputed fact that he is most commonly known as Palmerston renders any contest between "Henry Temple" and "Henry John Temple" effectively moot, for neither are used anywhere near as often in reliable sources as his title. It may be so that he is more commonly known as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple, but this is nonetheless trumped by the fact that he is not commonly known by his personal name. WP:NCPEER recommends the title format "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". Per WP:CONCISE, "Henry Temple" is sufficient to meet the criteria. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I also oppose the new alternative options per WP:CONCISE: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness". Palmerston is more recognizable as Henry John Temple than Henry Temple or H. J. Temple or Henry J. Temple and articles should be at the more recognizable name. DrKay (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Still a moot point. He is not recognisable as Henry John Temple, but as Lord/Viscount Palmerston. Nobody is proposing removing "Viscount Palmerston" from the article's title. There is nothing in the WP:NCPEER guideline that necessitates including a middle name, only the personal name is required. Personal name#Western name order gives the format for a personal name in the West as given name, family name. Palmerston's given name was Henry, not "Henry John"; his family name was Temple, not "John Temple". Thus "Henry Temple" fulfils NCPEER requirements for the personal name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I happen to support Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. However, I'm also conscious that we had an RM about that only a few months ago and it was opposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The RM last month was closed as "no consensus", as opposed to "not moved". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion