 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
With Messrs Hamilton, Archer, Powell and Aitken on the list, surely that should be Notorious Conservative MPs? sjc
Shouldn't the correct title be 'Conservative and Unionist' not 'Union', Party? Berek
The party is officially registered with the electoral commision as "The Conservative Party".
You've decided to move this page without any agreement on its move. The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK) link has an unnecessary (UK) disambiguation. You also need to fix all the broken links you've created. I think it would be better to move the page back
I've move the page back, because it created zillions of broken links and as someone stated above The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK) contains the unnecessary (UK) disambiguation. The is officially party of the name, see Talk:The Labour Party (UK) (but then so is 'Conservative and Unionist'), so where this page should reside is up for discussion. However the use of the definite article is not unprecedented. See: The Football Association, The Daily Telegraph, The Hague, The Beatles, The Proms, The Americas, The Panthéon, The Gambia, The wheel, The Juilliard School. Mintguy 21:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This page seems too focused on the present-day for me. By all means have the ins-and-outs of leadership challenges on pages like Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague, but the Conservative Party is, like, centuries old, and this article shouldn't have such focus on these relatively minor players in Tory history... Evercat 15:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Presumably this panel of grandee ex-party leaders that Michael Howard has put together to advise him will be advising him on how to keep the party leadership and win elections (on the basis that none of them could!). Arwel 21:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Okay, random IP address guy, can you show me any source which shows that Law between 1911 and 1916, and Chamberlain from 1921 to 1922, were not considered to be full leaders of the Conservative/Unionist Party? I've never before seen such a contention made. (Also was Lansdowne really the Tory leader in the Lords at that time? I'd have thought Curzon...) john 18:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry about the random IP address - I've had problems logging in.
The distinction about the Conservative leadership is mentioned in a number of books covering the party's history - the best one I can recommend is John Ramsden's "An Appetite for Power: A History of the Conservative Party since 1830" (published 1998). Appendix 2 lists "Officeholders in the Party since 1830" and has several lists. There is no formal list of leader of the overall party, but instead lists of Leaders in the Lords and the Commons, with an asterix denoting those who were recognised as overall leader and the periods. No asterixs cover the periods 1881-1885, 1911-1916 or 1921-1922. Other historians will confirm the distinction - the struggle between Salisbury and Northcote between 1881 and 1885 in particular receives a lot of coverage. In 1922 Austen Chamberlain found that his status as only leader of the Commons reduced his authority - and note that the Carlton Club meeting was a meeting of MPs only, not MPs, peers and candidates (unlike the one which formally elected Bonar Law the following week).
As for Landsdowne, the same book lists him as Leader in the Lords from October 1903 until December 1916, when Curzon succeeded him. There was quite a struggle for the leadership within the Conservatives (or Unionists as they were better known at the time) at this point, though the contemporary struggles within the Liberals receive far more attention.
Random IP address, trying to sort out logging in.
Since we've had a slow edit war on whether or not the party had overall leaders in some periods, perhaps a better solution might be to copy The Liberal Party (UK) and do separate lists of the leaders in the Lords and Commons up to 1922 (with an indication of those accepted as overall party leader), then have a single leader from that point on. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Timrollpickering 17:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm happy to consider Northcote to have been co-leader with Salisbury from 1881-1885. I'm pretty dubious on Lansdowne. Every account of the origins of World War I that I've ever seen, for instance, makes clear that Bonar Law was leader of the Conservative Party. At any rate, I certainly agree that we should have leaders of both houses listed, as we do for the liberals. I don't even know some of it, like who led the Tories in the Lords from 1868-1876. (The Leader of the House of Lords article could use some help, too...There's some big gaps in the early 19th century, notably for 1846-1852. john 19:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article have "The" at the beginning of its title? This hasn't been used for any other political party articles that I am aware of and seems quite redundant to me. I see that this has been discussed above, but I am unpersuaded. Most of analogies given (such as The Hague) are not in fact analogous. Adam 00:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's The Liberal Party (UK) and The Labour Party (UK). But, yeah, I don't really get it, either. john 01:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
It's absurd - many names are preceded by the definite article in speech - the United Nations, the Catholic Church, the President of France - but we don't have articles called The United Nations, The Catholic Church etc. When I am in the mood for a fight I will come along and change this article accordingly. Adam 02:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and its not The Conservative Party in any case, its Mintguy (T) 22:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
It is not a question of what the party's official or unofficial name is. It is a question of the correct way of titling encyclopaedia articles. If we put a definite article in one article, logically we have to put it in hundreds and hundreds of other articles (The Republican Party, The Australian Labor Party, The Church of England), which serves no good purpose and makes it harder for readers to find articles with the search device (try it and see). It should be a rule that article titles do not include the definite article, unless it is part of the title of a cultural product such as a newspaper (The Scotsman) or a book (The Grapes of Wrath). Adam 00:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
That various organisations use the definite article for commercial or other reasons doesn't mean we are bound to follow them. It would call those articles Kennel Club and Football Association, and so would any other encyclopaedia or directory in the world. I might allow The Body Shop since it is a well-known brand name but I think most people would search for Body Shop. Adam 02:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Well I think you would be wrong about that. I think you will find that those two particular organisations are usually listed as "Kennel Club, The" and "Football Association, The". And you might be interested to know that just picking up the nearest encyclopaedia to hand which happends to be a 1941 edition of Pears Cyclopaedia (I collect them), it lists the Labour Party under "Labour Party, The". Mintguy (T) 02:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Since when does BambooWeb use "official names". What does having "the" in the article title add to it? Why does this increasing understanding? john 03:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Does your encyclopaedia have articles on House of Lords, The, Statue of Liberty, The or Wars of the Roses, The? Adam 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I am making the point that attaching definite articles to the titles of encyclopaedia articles is stupid and pointless. But since we are just going round in circles here, I won't pursue this argument unless someone decides to move this article back to the earlier title. On the other hand if this article is going to retain its current title then the Labour Party and the Liberal Party articles ought to be moved to conform to this one. Adam 03:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
No, they should be at the name under which most people may be expected to look for them, which is Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK). Encyclopaedias exist for the benefit of readers, not to satisfy the pedantic fetishes of writers. Adam 04:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there is absolutely no reason for the definite article to be used. The idea that people would confuse the Labour party with the Social Democratic and Labour Party if the article is not used is completely ludicrous. john 05:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
The use of the definite article was originally supported by User:Rbrwr and [User:Jtdirl]] (who left BambooWeb some time ago). When the Labour Party page was moved and then moved back, he said "May I be the first to welcome back The Labour Party to its rightful place and name. JTD 22:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)" Mintguy (T)
I certainly respect JTD, who was a fine user, and I was saddened by his unheralded departure from BambooWeb, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he said. I doubt that arguments from authority (even if it is the respected, and sadly departed, authority of Jtdirl) is going to have much weight. john 09:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
It seems that the Liberal and Labour Party articles have now been moved to the same form as this one, so unless and until someone tries to move them back again, this debate can be closed. Adam 09:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, I moved them. I'd like to try to command some kind of acquiescence on Mintguy's part, rather than simply ignoring the issue because we've "won". john 09:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I've not attempted to move this page back, because we are having a debate, and I don't think we have canvassed enough opinions on the subject yet to make any decision, so for the sake of civility, I would like to make a request of John, that you move those pages back until the debate is properly concluded, and not arbitrarily ended by a unilateral page move, and the declaration of a "fait accompli". Mintguy (T) 09:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I agreed with (and helped research) the original change (which was desperately needed for the sake of consistency) to The Labour Party (UK) and The Conservative Party (UK) but in practice I have found the "The"s tend to produce awkward links. (I speak as someone who has made a habit of doing disambiguation runs on Labour, Labour Party, etc.) For what it's worth, the Electoral Commission uses a format like Labour Party [The], suggesting that the "The"s are optional or detachable. I won't fight to keep them. I will however agree with Mintguy that it is bad form not to fix the redirects when you move something. --rbrwrˆ 10:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Just for the record, I didn't move the article. I threatened to, but someone else did so. Go look. Adam 11:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Have just seen photos of the ballot paper for the current European elections. "Conservatives - Putting Britain First" is the party description used on this occasion. Now please can we have absolutely no moving of the page to anything remotely like that! Timrollpickering 00:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Not sure how to "annotate" a change. I removed the bit about the Conservatives moving to the centre (not NPOV) and the reference to Mike Smith. I count myself as being well informed on UK politics but I've never heard of him. He doesn't rate a sentence in the introduction.
This article has no information at all about the relationship between constituency parties, Conservative Central Office, the 1922 committee etc. Morwen - Talk 19:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
