Talk:Neville Chamberlain (police officer)

Requested move 28 August 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I did not initiate this move request on this page. Anthony Appleyard copied my Request to revert an undiscussed move at WP:RM/TR to here. I am not requesting that the article be at Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain; I merely asked that Necrothesp's move be reversed pending discussion. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer) → Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain – Chamberlain served as an army officer in South Africa as well as India, and was Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The page was moved to a totally inappropriate title without any prior discussion Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Scolaire and Necrothesp: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Not a "totally inappropriate title", since Chamberlain was an Indian Army officer (like most potential Indian Army officers he spent a couple of years in a British regiment first, but his main career was in the Indian Army) and his common name was Neville Chamberlain. The other alternative would be Neville Chamberlain (police officer). I'm happy to have an RM discussion, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems out of line with the normal style of using the common name with suffix. Perhaps we can do better than "Indian Army Officer". Maybe "British Army Officer". Nigej (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Neville Chamberlain (police officer), as the least objectionable option. There is a clear consensus that the current title is problematic, and multiple suggestions that this would be an acceptable alternative. BD2412 T 17:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer) → ? – The new name is ambiguous. It is intended to mean that he was an officer in the Indian Army, but could equally mean that he was an Indian who was an army officer. Chamberlain was also Chief inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Necrothesp and Nigej: You have already participated in the requested move that I didn't initiate. I would like your thoughts here. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Proposals. Chamberlain was in the Army for 16 years (the fact that it was the Indian Army is stated in the article but doesn't need to be in the title) and was Chief Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary for 16 years. That makes it difficult to decide on a disambiguator. I propose the following options: Neville Chamberlain (army officer), Neville Chamberlain (police officer), Neville Chamberlain (army and police officer), or simply Neville Chamberlain (officer). Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Chamberlain was an officer in the Indian Army. See Category:British Indian Army officers, and particularly Category:British Indian Army generals, to show this is the usual disambiguator. It is intended to mean that he was an officer in the Indian Army, but could equally mean that he was an Indian who was an army officer. That's why it's Indian Army officer (i.e. an officer in the Indian Army) and not Indian army officer (i.e. an Indian who is an army officer) - case is important here. Note that the Indian Army and the British Army were completely separate organisations, although many do not seem to realise this; it is therefore completely inappropriate to describe an Indian Army officer as a British Army officer. I would also accept Neville Chamberlain (police officer) as this was his highest-profile role (and the one for which he was knighted), although he spent longer in the Indian Army than anywhere else (actually, he was in the army for 28 years, not 16, the first couple in the British Army, as was standard practice for potential Indian Army officers, and the rest in the Indian Army). But none of the other options given are appropriate or usual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The average Wikipedia reader does not study the capitalisation of an article title in order to devine its subject. Case may be important in a semantic argument, but the reader is not looking for semantic arguments when he/she looks at an article title. In any case, "Indian Army" is excessive detail. WP:NCDAB states that "The word or phrase in parentheses should be...the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic." Thus Neville Chamberlain (footballer), not Neville Chamberlain (English League footballer). --Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • So what you are actually proposing is a title which goes against the longstanding disambiguation practices of Indian Army (or indeed British Army) officers? Just for this one man? No, sorry, don't get the value of that. Consistency is important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Is this another "longstanding disambiguation practice" which is practiced almost exclusively by yourself, or an established community convention which has widespread consensus? If the latter, can you link me to where the consensus was established? Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • No, because it was established before I came along and consensus does not have to be written to be consensus. Consensus is also established when it is a longstanding practice which is widely followed and not generally challenged. To be clear, we have been disambiguating using "British Army officer" pretty much since the beginning of Wikipedia (before I started doing it). We started using "Indian Army officer" for consistency and because many editors (such as yourself) obviously did not realise that the British Army and Indian Army were entirely separate organisations and (like yourself) classified Indian Army officers as British Army officers. It's possible (I really do not know) that I was the first to use "Indian Army officer" as a disambiguator, but only becuse the consensus was already in existence for British Army officers and for consistency and clarity it made perfect sense. I assume you have heard the old maxim "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."? Because this has worked perfectly well for many years and I really see no value in a couple of editors coming along and suggesting it should be changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Looking through the London Gazette entries none of them come under the Indian Army section. He was commissioned into the 11 foot which was a line regiment of the British Army and up until 1895 the Indian Army did not formally exist. I can see no proof that he transferred from the British Army to the Indian Army he had a staff appointment so from what I can gather would not have had to transfer. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Commissioned as an India Cadet into the 11th Foot. Promoted captain in the Bengal Staff Corps (this means in the Bengal Army - the three presidency armies together were even at this time generally referred to as the Indian Army). Brevet Colonel in the Indian Staff Corps. Appointed CB as a Lt Col (Brevet Colonel) in the Indian Staff Corps. I should point out that Indian Army officers were usually gazetted to the Indian (or Bengal, Madras or Bombay) Staff Corps instead of a particular regiment. This does not mean they held staff appointments. This is explained in our article on the British Indian Army. He was very clearly an officer in the Indian Army. It was usual practice for a potential Indian Army officer to first spend a couple of years in a British regiment before formally transferring to the Indian Army, hence his initial commission in the 11th Foot (but actually specified in the LG as an "India Cadet"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, Necrothesp what do you mean by "to show this is the usual disambiguator"? Arnkellow (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That the standard disambiguator for officers of the Indian Army is very clearly "Indian Army officer", not one of those suggested by Scolaire! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • So you dont just mean that it is the "standard disambiguator" on all the articles you moved to "(Indian Army officer)"?[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and I don't know how many others. Scolaire (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I didn't start the practice. I merely follow it. I should point out that there are hundreds of people disambiguated by "British Army officer", "Royal Navy officer" and "RAF officer", which you presumably also object to on the same basis? It is much better to have a consistent naming system for people in the same organisation, and we currently have one that works very well. I see no value whatsoever in trying to undermine it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Scolaire has made the a point that I too spotted, I have only came across one article that says Wwwww Mmmmm (Indian Army officer) that you didn't move. While as you point out hundreds of article are disambiguated by similar, it is because (a) that's is what they are most noted for, or (b) only noted for. The other problem, at a larger scale, is if I type in Indian Army I get, the Indian Army, or the Indian National Army if you like. Not the British Indian Army. While the disambiguater for the former officers is Wwww Mmmm (Indian National Army officer). The later should be Wwww Mmmm (British Indian Army). Arnkellow (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
          • The problem there is that it wasn't ever called the British Indian Army. It was only ever called the Indian Army! "British Indian Army" is merely a convenience to refer to the pre-1947 army as opposed to the post-1947 army and completely unnecessary for use in a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
            • So it's important to say "British Indian Army" in articles and in category headings because it was the British Indian Army, but it's important not to say "British Indian Army" in the title because it wasn't the British Indian Army? This argument is getting ever more tortuous. Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Not at all. We say "he was a British Indian Army officer" to mean he was a "British officer in the Indian Army" (which would also be fine). But pre-1947 we only ever need to refer to the Indian Army, as there was only one. Obviously in categories we say "British Indian Army" to distinguish it from the post-1947 Indian Army. That's why we have Category:Indian Army generals of World War I and Category:Indian Army generals of World War II, whereas the parent is Category:British Indian Army generals. During the World Wars it's patently obvious that they were generals in the British Indian Army, as that was the only Indian Army (other than the Indian National Army, which was an unofficial Japanese puppet organisation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, From a practical point of view, we ought to distinguish between him and his uncle Neville Bowles Chamberlain. Currently Neville Bowles Chamberlain has redirects from Sir Neville Bowles Chamberlain and N. B. Chamberlain. Currently Neville Chamberlain (disambiguation) has "Sir Neville Bowles Chamberlain (1820–1902), British soldier" and "Sir Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain (1856–1944), British soldier, inventor of snooker". Nigej (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Neville Bowles Chamberlain does not have a disambiguator in the title. I don't know how you would distinguish this Neville Chamberlain in the title, other than "Neville Chamberlain (not his uncle Neville Bowles Chamberlain)". There should of course be a hatnote in the article, but that is a separate question. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • We may need to rename Neville Bowles Chamberlain too. Perhaps the Neville Chamberlain (yyyy, born xxxx) style is a possibility, although in this case you'd think two could be distinguished by their different careers. Nigej (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think full name might be the best disambiguator in this case. I loathe the Name (___, born xxx) style. (t · c) buidhe 17:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Personal loathing is not really the point, given it is the usual way of disambiguating, whereas full name is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. To avoid all of this somewhat pointless debate, may I suggest Neville Chamberlain (police officer). Although his longest career was in the Indian Army, he's best-known as Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for which post he was knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Neville Chamberlain (police officer)" per Necrothesp's rationale above. Scolaire (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neville Chamberlain (police officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will be doing a good article review of this article. I aim to get the review done within the next few days. If you would like to return the favour, I have several good article nominations active right now. Good luck. Steelkamp (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well written

• Maybe spell out the IBSF in full. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No problem. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• (despatch dated 31 March 1900) – Is that meant to be a citation? Doesn't really appear encyclopedic just in the prose like that. I don't know. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed, integrated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Should Sinn Féin be linked? Steelkamp (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• Luckily for me, I have access to reference 1 through the Wikipedia Library and reference 19 through some other means. For the other three print references, I will have to assume good faith. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The archive for reference 3 does not want to load for me. I tried Google Chrome, Firefox and Microsoft Edge. Is that the case for you? Is it possible to use an archive from a different archiving service? Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not required for GA, but reference 3 is dead, so you might want to put the archive link in front of the original link. If would do it myself, but Template:Cite web is not used so I won't. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• All references appear to be from reliable sources. I have yet to check each one to see if they match up with the article. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Reference 3 seems to have been fixed by another user :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Early life section is ok for sourcing. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Chamberlain was commissioned a sub-lieutenant in the 11th Foot on 9 August 1873 – Source doesn't support that. Could just use reference 1 instead. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    Source says second lieutenant instead of sub-lieutenant. Link also leads to second lieutenant. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• and promoted to lieutenant on 9 August 1874. – Source simply says August 1874. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• He served with Roberts at Ootacamund between 1881 and 1884. – Don't think the reference there supports that, at least not the 1884 bit. That's also out of line with reference 1, which says Chamberlain was an aide-de-camp to Sir Frederick Roberts when he served as commander-in-chief in Madras between 1881 and 1885. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• while his actual rank was still that of captain. – Citation needed. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Substantive promotion to major followed on 9 August 1894 – Citation needed. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• He was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath in 1900. – Source doesn't appear to support that. Am I looking at the right thing? Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• He was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) during a royal visit to Ireland in August 1903, – The source doesn't say it was during a royal visit. Steelkamp (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO) in 1911 – Source doesn't appear to support that. Steelkamp (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Lee Vilenski: Chamberlain also has a biography in the Dictionary of Irish Biography (https://www.dib.ie/biography/chamberlain-sir-neville-francis-fitzgerald-a1602). --Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Chamberlain died on 28 May 1944 aged 88. – You could change this to Chamberlain died from myocarditis at his home on 28 May 1944, aged 48. As that information is there in the reference, you'd might as well use it. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure. Pretty sure he was 88, mind ;). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Of course :). Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Birthplace should be mentioned. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• He was educated at Brentwood School, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. – Maybe change this to He was educated abroad, at Brentwood School in Essex, and at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • What do we gain by saying "abroad"? Abroad from where? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Reference 1 says awarded the campaign medal with four clasps and a bronze star. Is that maybe relevant to mention? Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's all that relevant.
• Marriage and daughter should be added to the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Added note. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    His wife died before he did, and his daughter's death date is not mentioned in the source. Steelkamp (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Stable

• No edit wars or content disputes. Article passes this criterion. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible

• Copyright status of the sole image used is acceptable. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• If all the caption is saying is his name (which is already at the top of the infobox), then I think there should be no caption. WP:CAP allows for no caption in this case. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't necessary for GA, but the image should have alt text to aid with accessibility. Steelkamp (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Changed caption to alt Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

General

Alright, I have placed this on hold awaiting improvements from you. Steelkamp (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Pinging you in case you didn't see the two more things I added to this page. Very close to GA right now. Steelkamp (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Another user fixed the wife and daughter death date issue, and the sub lieutenant/second lieutenant thing was easy enough for me to fix, so all of my suggestions have been addressed. I'm going to pass this now. Steelkamp (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)