Talk:Duff Cooper

message: Duff Cooper, 1st Viscount Norwich → Duff Cooper – most commonly used name -- Deb 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support. I see no problem with moving the current article to Duff Cooper (which is where anyone, I think, would expect to find it). Not sure about his son yet. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
I think it is a bit silly to include the whole of Duff Cooper's title in the title of this article.  As the article correctly states, he is universally known as Duff Cooper.  Even sillier, however, is having his son listed as John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich, when he is even more universally known as John Julius Norwich.  I'm therefore requesting a move for both articles. Deb 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but Deb and I are the sorts who pushed through those rules in the first place ;). There's an exception for most common name. Duff Cooper is never known as Lord Norwich, whereas Tennyson is often known by his title (ditto Nelson). The issue with Tennyson and Nelson was the correct and unambiguous rendering of their title. In this situation, the issue is whether to note it in the article title at all. Mackensen (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my copy of wikipedia, Nelson is under Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson in any case! Deb 15:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. But then I don't understand your reasoning, since clearly (to me, at least :) nobody knows Lord Nelson as "Viscount Nelson"! What's the point of allowing this single exemption from the general rule? (Well, two exemptions.) --Quuxplusone 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the matter is somewhat complicated, but I'll put it as simply as I can. Lord so-and-so is accepted shorthand for all British peers below the rank of duke (baron, viscount, earl, and marquess). While Nelson was properly titled Viscount Nelson, he could be referred to as Lord Nelson. However, that was not his actual title. The only peers who are titled thusly are lords of parliament, and there aren't many of those about. Of course, further confusing matters, many barons are often simply called lords, because barons aren't a big deal. However, the proper title is still baron, not lord. Now, moving on towards your main point, Duff Cooper was made a peer late in his life, becoming Viscount Norwich. That's his proper title. He could also be called "Lord Norwich," as I did above. However, he was rarely known as such, especially as the "important" part of his life occurred when he was still a commoner. The naming guidelines recognize that there are situations when someone is best known by a name other than their final/eventual legal one (see also Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh). Duff Cooper represents one of these exceptions. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose Frederick Leighton is called Lord Leighton, retrospectively. Septentrionalis 19:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: ::Add any additional comments
I think it is a bit silly to include the whole of Duff Cooper's title in the title of this article.  As the article correctly states, he is universally known as Duff Cooper.  Even sillier, however, is having his son listed as John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich, when he is even more universally known as John Julius Norwich.  I'm therefore requesting a move for both articles. Deb 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Deb and I are the sorts who pushed through those rules in the first place ;). There's an exception for most common name. Duff Cooper is never known as Lord Norwich, whereas Tennyson is often known by his title (ditto Nelson). The issue with Tennyson and Nelson was the correct and unambiguous rendering of their title. In this situation, the issue is whether to note it in the article title at all. Mackensen (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my copy of wikipedia, Nelson is under Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson in any case! Deb 15:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. But then I don't understand your reasoning, since clearly (to me, at least :) nobody knows Lord Nelson as "Viscount Nelson"! What's the point of allowing this single exemption from the general rule? (Well, two exemptions.) --Quuxplusone 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the matter is somewhat complicated, but I'll put it as simply as I can. Lord so-and-so is accepted shorthand for all British peers below the rank of duke (baron, viscount, earl, and marquess). While Nelson was properly titled Viscount Nelson, he could be referred to as Lord Nelson. However, that was not his actual title. The only peers who are titled thusly are lords of parliament, and there aren't many of those about. Of course, further confusing matters, many barons are often simply called lords, because barons aren't a big deal. However, the proper title is still baron, not lord. Now, moving on towards your main point, Duff Cooper was made a peer late in his life, becoming Viscount Norwich. That's his proper title. He could also be called "Lord Norwich," as I did above. However, he was rarely known as such, especially as the "important" part of his life occurred when he was still a commoner. The naming guidelines recognize that there are situations when someone is best known by a name other than their final/eventual legal one (see also Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh). Duff Cooper represents one of these exceptions. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose Frederick Leighton is called Lord Leighton, retrospectively. Septentrionalis 19:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In the info box Duff Cooper's spells as First Lord of the Admiralty and as Minister of Information have been omitted! Norvo (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Omissions 

message: Cooper played a significant role in the Egyptian and Turkish crises in the early 1920s.
:If his role was significant, we ought to know something about it. Valetude (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. See also the point below. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by "significant". That is perhaps the wrong word as he was a civil servant doing what he had been ordered to do - but Egypt took up most of his time and he was involved in a lot of the twists and turns. It is covered in his own memoirs and in the 1980s John Charmley biog.Paulturtle (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flesh on the bones, please 

message: While Cooper contributed to the debate and voted against Chamberlain, it is absolutely wrong to assert that he played a significant part. Compared with Keyes, Amery and Lloyd George, Cooper was just jumping on the bandwagon. The UNSOURCED OPINION has been removed. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway Debate