Talk:Bonar Law

Old talk page posts

Was "Bonar" his first name? I always thought it was part of his surname. Deb 20:15 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It's one of those weird British things. Like Lloyd George, but less so. His surname was "Law". His Christian name was "Andrew". He was called "Bonar Law". I've never been completely clear on exactly how it works, but I think the Bonar is more like a first name than a surname. john 23:27 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

That being so, I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to move the article from "Andrew Bonar Law" to "Bonar Law". There are some links that now need to be tidied up. Deb 17:50 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... well, there's a redirect from "Andrew Bonar Law". If you want to switch it back, that's fine, though. john 18:26 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it back on the basis that there were already lots of links to "Andrew Bonar Law". Deb 19:29 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't there just be one page called "Andrew Bonar Law"? Snow93 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He had a grandson named "Bonar", although that doesn't prove that Bonar was one of his Christian names. Greenshed 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to his biographers: he was named after a preacher called "Andrew Bonar" (so it is technically a Christian name), but from about the age of 30 began to sign himself "A. Bonar Law". He was indeed sometimes addresed as "Bonar" - and yet was also addressed as both "Law" and "Bonar Law" as surnames. Nobody ever called him "Andrew". There was a taste for grand-sounding double-barrelled names at that time.

Law and Baldwin

Why was the reference to Bonar Law's antipathy towards Balwdin removed?

No idea. I'll put it back in, in a more NPOV type way, perhaps. john 04:10, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andrew Bonar Law - also a strong chess-player

Andrew Bonar Law was probably the only UK leader who could, if time travel allowed, have given Che Guevara or Marshal Tito a hard game of chess. In the game below, he beats the then top player from Oxford University:

Andrew Bonar Law - R Lob House of Commons v Oxford/Cambridge 1909 Ruy Lopez Schliemann Defence

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d4 fxe4 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 7.Bg5 Be6 8.0–0 c5 9.c3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Be7 11.Nc3 Bf5 12.Qb3 Bg6 13.Qxb7 0–0 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Rae1 Nd6 18.Qxa8 Qf6 19.Qxa7 Nb5 20.Qc5 Nxd4 21.Qxc7 Kh8 22.Re3 Nf5 23.Rh3+ Kg8 24.Qc4+ Rf7 25.Rc3 Kh7 26.Rf3 Re7 27.g4 Qg5 28.Kh1 Nh4 29.Rf8 Qe5 30.Qg8+ Kh6 31.Qh8+ Kg5 32.f4+ 1–0

At his best, he may have been one of the best amateur players in Britain.

dull? unimaginative? who are u to judge

you sir, are a winner.

And all this time I thought he was a grim-faced Caledonian dullard. Fucking hell, he won a chess match. He kicks ass!--OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm working on a rewrite of the article, same sort of scale as those I did for Patrick Hastings and Lord Mansfield. The draft I've got going is at User:Ironholds/bonar, feel free to comment. I've got about 3/5ths of the article still to do and a dozen more sources to use, so it should be rather substantial. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

The result of the move request was move page to Bonar Law, per the consensus here. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Move discussion

A dispute over the name of the article - should it be Andrew Bonar Law, or Bonar Law? Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Law has arbitrarily and against general practice moved the page back to Andrew Bonar Law, I'll set out my views on this matter. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says "Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, except where other specific conventions provide otherwise. Determine the most common name by verifying what reliable sources in English call the subject." All reliable sources refer to Andrew Bonar Law as "Bonar Law", except when being exceedingly formal (article or entry titles, for example, in which the full name is used). As evidence, I rely on:

• Adams, R.J.Q. (1999). Bonar Law. John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. ISBN 0719554225., a relatively recent biography of Law that is titled (and refers to him internally as) Bonar Law
• Taylor, Andrew (2006). Bonar Law. Haus Publishing. ISBN 1904950590. ditto
• Pugh, Martin (1974). "Asquith, Bonar Law and the First Coalition". The Historical Journal. 17 (4). Cambridge University Press. ISSN 0018-246X., which in the title refers to him as "Bonar Law"
• The government of the United Kingdom refers to him (except in the most formal way, i.e. the header) as "Andrew Bonar Law".
• The same thing is repeated elsewhere - for example, at Schoolnet. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• As supporting evidence, Bonar Law pulls up 118,000, Andrew Bonar Law pulls up 24,400. Ironholds (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to Bonar Law Looking at it myself I have to agree that the most common name definitely seems to be Bonar Law, every source I've found so far has referenced him mostly as such with most of them titling as such (example) Jamesofur (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep at Andrew Bonar Law. By Ironholds' logic, most biographical articles on political figures should be titled by the surname alone: Thatcher, Reagan, Asquith, Lloyd George, Blair, Mitterand, Chirac, Kohl. I can't see any that are actually named this way, and you offer no reason for making Andrew Bonar Law an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because they are commonly known as (for example) Margaret Thatcher. It isn't just the titles - R.J.Q. Adams' book, for example, discusses in detail the fact that in his personal, business and political life he was referred to as "Bonar Law", never "Andrew Bonar Law". Common Names says that we should determine "common names" from reliable sources - almost all reliable sources, in this situation, point to "Bonar Law" as his "real" name, if not his birth one. If there's an in-depth section of a Thatcher biography explaining how she was exclusively known by her last name I'd dearly love to know where I can find a copy. Ironholds (talk)

How does this differ from Lloyd George? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If most sources report that David Lloyd George was commonly known as Lloyd George, then we should move him too. Bonar Law was almost always referred to as Bonar Law, both in scholarship and during his lifetime - even things like private diary entries give him as B.L., not A.B.L. The common names policy advises a look at reliable sources when determining the most common name, and those sources give Bonar Law. This page should be at Bonar Law for the same reason that Bertrand Russell isn't at Bertrand Russell,3rd Earl Russell - scholarly consensus and consensus during his own lifetime is overwhelmingly that he is commonly known as X, not Y. Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with redirecting "Bonar Law" to "Andrew Bonar Law", as per Napoleon. If that's good enough for a man who (briefly) conquered most of Europe, why isn't it good enough for ABL? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The relevant guideline here is not Wikipedia:Naming conventions, but the more specific one of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  The opening paragraph of that lines up with my point directly. "the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming: 1. The name that is most generally recognisable, 2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles". Bonar Law is far more commonly recognised than Andrew Bonar Law. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  And similarly, "Napoleon" is more recognisable than "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Napoleon 1 of France", but the article is not named "Napoleon". So I'll ask again, what other biographical articles on a single individual are named solely by surname? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  "Bonar" is a middle name, not a surname. Naming him simply by surname is not what I'm requesting here. Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  Are you sure about that? I knew some of his descendants, who used it as a surname. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  Very sure. He was the son of James Law and Eliza Kidston Law; Bonar is a last name, in that it was the last name of the person he was named after (Andrew Bonar) but for Law himself it was a middle name. It was indeed treated as a patronymic rather than a last name. What his descendants choose to do is up to them, really. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I did nothing against general practice. I reverted. BOLD was done by the original mover. I simply undid it. Moving back to the original version is not arbitrary. If you want a page move, do so with consensus. We work with consensus. Find a different forum if you are unhappy. I did not use any admin tools. Law _{type! snype?} 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your keep argument does not give reasons for keeping it here. The initial move was in line with policy - as such, it is you who has the onus of forming consensus. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Worth pointing out that the comment above (Law's that is, not Ironholds) is that of a blocked sock. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move - His middle name is far more often used, certainly in the history texts that I have used. As far as I am aware the name is not ambiguous (as in, I can't think of any other famous Bonar Laws that we need to worry about) --Narson ~ Talk • 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Bonar Law - Ironholds is right, in Bonar Law's lifetime the name Bonar was used by Law and his friends not just as a Christian name, which it undoubtedly was, but also as his main Christian name. If he had ever been knighted, it seems very likely he would have chosen to be called 'Sir Bonar' and not 'Sir Andrew', whereas in the case of Lloyd George, he would surely have become 'Sir David' and not 'Sir Lloyd'. To give another comparison, Arthur Conan Doyle (in which Conan is also the middle name Doyle was usually known by), Doyle was indeed knighted and was known as 'Sir Arthur' and not as 'Sir Conan'. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Hansard called him "Mr Bonar Law", while it called Churchill "Mr Winston Churchill". Compare Hansard's online pages Mr Bonar Law and Mr Winston Churchill. Who's Who lists him as "LAW, Rt. Hon. Andrew Bonar", while the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has him as "Law, Andrew Bonar". The ODNB article begins "Bonar Law, as he was generally known..." and never refers to 'Andrew' again. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Move back I'm not sure I've every previously encountered a reference to the "Andrew" name and it certian isn't in common useage.©Geni 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move back to "Bonar Law." The sourcing for typical usage and reference given by Moonraker and Ironholds is decently persuasive. This does strike me as a tempest in a teapot, however - both names are unambiguous and decently neutral. Ray^Talk 20:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Bonar Law This is the name he is most commonly known by. When I saw the RfC I wondered if it was the same person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (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.

Children

..." the first son was stillborn"... "His eldest son, a pilot with the Royal Flying Corps, was shot down and killed"...Something wrong here.--Grahame (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Eldest surviving son, perhaps? Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GA?

Should this be a GA? Its quite extensive. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't cover his entire life, though (I haven't had time to do much post-WW1). I did initially write it with the intention of GA, and will probably finish and nominate it at some point. Ironholds (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not Canadian

What are all the Canadian categories doing? The article points out that though he was a New Brunswicker, he was not a Canadian. Rothorpe (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point; forgot to change them when I updated the article. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

update from Rexton

Hello, I see this should not be edited without consultation and I have a few suggestions, I have been recently updating Weldford Parish, New Brunswick, near Rexton where Mr. Law was born and note this sentence seems to be out of sequence, perhaps it would be okay if I were to adjust it and add some info from the Rexton area where his name is found at local attractions Bonar Law Commons and also Bonar Law Memorial High School. Here is the current text

James Law was the minister for several isolated townships, and had to travel between them by horse, boat and on foot. To supplement the family income he bought a small farm on the Richibucto River, which Bonar helped tend along with his brothers Robert, William and John, and his sister Mary.[2]

and it continues with

Studying at the local village school, Gilbertfield School,[3] Law excelled at his studies, and it is here that he was first noted for his excellent memory.[4]

which seems out of place as the Gilbertfield School is not on the Richibucto River, so I would start my next paragraph re: above points and link it back to Rexton area if that is okay with others interested in this project? Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What sort of thing are you thinking of including? Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the reply, I made the updates, see what you think so far, I am thinking now the next paragraph needs to be re-worked a bit, the chronology is a bit off there too, maybe because it needed the section just expanded to make it flow a bit better, see what you think so far, I won't change anything else til you check it out.Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally it goes you open a discussion section, then other people comment, and then you make the changes. 1) the name changes are a popular culture thing, and should go there; not slap-bang in the middle of early life. 2) your splitting up of the article has now left a paragraph completely unreferenced, and 3) your additions are similarly unreferenced. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

lol, the reference is here http://www.bonarlawcommon.com/ and the link is found on the Rexton, New Brunswick page here on wiki, sorry about breaking up the article, didn't know I was supposed to put it here first, thought it would be okay to try it as it can be undone or re-worked from this point once the suggestion has been made Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then include that link (properly formatted). The fact that it appears in another article doesn't mean it doesn't need an inline citation here. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to format the references properly and do citations, point here is that Bonar Law is a major attraction and highly honoured in our community, his early life is discussed in detail on those websites, I am a local historian and feel like I know him fairly well, as stated above the section does not make sense, I would prefer it to be fixed, this is a Grade C article. Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because I haven't finished writing it yet :P. See WP:CITE. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, well, why don't you try this as the introduction, you can fix it up with citations if you want, I am just suggesting a correct paragraph structure and the links are provided so you can add the citations or whatever,

Andrew Bonar Law PC (16 September 1858 – 30 October 1923), commonly known as Bonar Law, was a British Conservative Party Statesman and Prime Minister born in the Crown Colony of New Brunswick. He was the only British Prime Minister born outside of the British Isles and the shortest-serving Prime Minister of the 20th century, spending just 211 days in office. A common misunderstanding is that this Prime Minister was born in Canada however this is not quite accurate as New Brunswick in the year of Bonar Law’s birth was a British Crown Colony separate from Nova Scotia, Upper Canada and Lower Canada who joined in Canadian Confederation in the year 1867.

Bonar Law was born in Kingston, now Rexton, New Brunswick, Canada to Reverend James Law, a Minister of the Free Church of Scotland with Scottish and Irish ancestry, and his wife Eliza Kidston. His mother originally wanted to name him after Robert Murray M'Cheyne, a preacher she greatly admired, but his older brother was already called Robert therefore, he was named after the Reverend Andrew Bonar, a biographer of M'Cheyne, throughout his life he was always called Bonar (rhyming with honour) by his family and close friends.

http://www.bonarlawcommon.com/BonarLaw.html

Rev. James Law (1822 - 1882), his father, was a Minister of the Free Church of Scotland, a pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for 32 years ministering to several isolated communities and travelling between them by horse, boat and on foot from his home in Rexton to St. Mark’s Presbyterian Church in Bass River and Zion Church in West Branch, among others where he performed many marriages and baptisms as noted in Daniel F. Johnson’s transcript of New Brunswick Newspapers available at Provincial Archives New Brunswick. Rev. Law owned a small farm on the Richibucto River, which Bonar helped tend along with his siblings Robert, William, John, and Mary. The Bonar Law ancestral home was eventually converted into a tourist attraction and is honoured with the name Bonar Law Common.

http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/rdc/2007e1590rd.htm

states: “The nine-hectare property includes a complex of historic buildings consisting of a simple 19th-century wood farmhouse facing the Richibucto River, a barn, and a wagon shed connected with board fencing to form a unique enclosed courtyard. The Richibucto River Museum is also located on the property.”

Photo Caption: Bonar Law home in New Brunswick.

http://bonarlaw.nbed.nb.ca/

Bonar lived in Rexton, until the age of 12, and attended school there where a new school was constructed in 1979 and named Bonar Law Memorial High School in his honour. A few years after his mother's death in 1860, his father remarried, and in 1870 young Bonar moved to Helensburgh, Scotland, to live with his mother's sister Janet and her family, who ran a successful merchant bank, Kidston & Sons. Immediately upon arriving from Rexton, Law began attending Gilbertfield School, a preparatory school in Hamilton where he excelled at his studies, and it is here that he was first noted for his excellent memory.

In 1873 when he was fourteen he transferred to the High School of Glasgow and with his sharp memory showed a talent for languages, excelling in Greek, German and French. During this period he first began to play chess – he would carry a board on the train between Helensburgh and Glasgow, challenging other commuters to matches. He eventually became an excellent amateur player, and competed with internationally renowned chess masters. Despite his excellent academic record it became obvious at Glasgow that he was better suited to business than to university, and when he was sixteen Law left school to become a clerk at Kidston & Sons and gain a "commercial education" at the family firm. A few years later the firm was sold to the Clydesdale Bank, putting Law's career in jeopardy until his uncles loaned him the money to buy a partnership in an iron merchants firm. Through hard work and his business acumen the firm flourished under Law, and by the time he was thirty he was a comparatively rich man. The Prime Minister originally signed his name as A.B. Law, changing to A. Bonar Law in his thirties, and as a result people treated it as a double patronymic and he was also referred to as Bonar Law by the general public in the later part of his life instead of just the family and friends of earlier days and he went on to become Prime Minister.

Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're advocating this as the introduction? That is, the lead paragraphs prior to "early life"? Ironholds (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

NO, not the introduction, sorry, I misunderstood, happy with the changes to the early life and education section, thank you very much!Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough I couldn't give a flying fuck what the queen thinks. You appreciate that the article is in no way improved by your suggested additions, and the current rating is nothing to do with flaws with current content? Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, so based on your consistent refusal to discuss the paragraphs in question and provide some meaningful feedback, I can only assume by your inappropriate language that you have no real interest in consultation on this article, fine I will create a new page to honour this person from a Canadian viewpoint and remove the links to your articles from Canada at some point in the future as this article is not up to Canadian standard, cheers!Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, good luck with that. I have given you feedback - on citation styles, on what is appropriate for what sections. You've just refused to follow it so far. Ironholds (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing this person has now come on my personal talk page to try and carry on this dispute, i am not interested, the article is not up to standard and this person is refusing to allow changes, even reverting a small change to the article that suggests that Mr. Law attended the Gilbert school in Rexton instead of Scotland. Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the right template to use for reporting harassment. Please see Wikipedia:Harassment for more information. Thanks! -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is this school???

Here is the sentence you insist on keeping and it is wrong!!!!!!!! "James Law was the minister for several isolated townships, and had to travel between them by horse, boat and on foot. To supplement the family income he bought a small farm on the Richibucto River, which Bonar helped tend along with his brothers Robert, William and John, and his sister Mary.[2] Studying at the local village school, Gilbertfield School,[3] Law excelled at his studies, and it is here that he was first noted for his excellent memory"

Gilbertfield School is not in Rexton, it is in Scotland but your sentence structure is so messed up it you are making it look like this school is in Rexton, which I repeat, it is not in Rexton!!!! I put a paragraph break between Mary. and Studying and added the words in Scotland to Gilbertfield and ironhold changed it back to the wrong way again, at least twice reverting my edits to reflect that error!! Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• You two need to take a break, take a breath, and talk about your dispute here on the talk page instead of edit warring on the article. Please remember WP:AGF and work it out like the civil editors I know you are. Good luck. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wild Heart of Kent, get your facts right. Gilbertfield was in Hamilton - the local school at the time as far as Rexton was concerned. If you don't believe me, believe his official page on 10 Downing Street's website. Ironholds (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton is not located near the Richibucto River, I believe it is in Scotland or near Scotland and it is most certainly not in the local village of Rexton, sorry if you thought that to be the case, but, it is not a correct assumption and if you are going to challenge on these simple edits, how will this page ever improve?Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems you may be right; my apologies. My challenges are simple: Our standard is verifiability, not truth. If you cannot provide sourcing for information, how are we meant to validate it? Particularly when your contribution is a massive copyright violation. Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, well, I can apologize for blanking and yes, the info about his early life as you have it written in the article is a copyright violation because you are not giving the sources and I have been around long enough to remember what the old Bonar Law Historic Site said as well as the stories from the old Rexton websites so you are not fooling me and my version of the article is including the links to where you found that information even though the websites have now been updated. As to your other comments on my page,

Re: The article is unbiased. A neutral point of view is not about taking absolutely no opinion on a matter. If commentators have generally agreed that something is true, or accurate, whether it is a personal assertion or not, it should be included in historical articles. But here's a deal; find me one personal comment or political comment in the article that is 1) "disrespectful" and 2) not backed up by a reliable source, and I will remove it.

My reply is perhaps there is a cultural difference because it sure sounds to me like you are being deragatory towards women in the family section, there is an underlying tone of negativity throughout the article, perhaps an attempt to disguise hate against the English rulership, consistent use of the last name Law instead of using a full name or title of Prime Minister I believe is also a sign of disrespect.

No, it is a standard part of the Manual of Style to use the last name, not the full name every time, and not the title. Where am I being derogatory towards women? Where is this negativity? And please don't infer things when you know nothing about me. I'm descended from most of the English and British rulers, I'm British myself, and I have the highest respect for a lot of the "rulership". Indeed, I like Bonar law. I'm a Liberal Democrat, but if this was the 1910s I'd be voting for him, not Asquith. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments: You appreciate that unless you own that website, copying the text is a violation of both US and Canadian copyright law, yes?

My reply - yes, see above re info on past New Brunswick websites and my proposed solution to include appropriate links to the source.

Re: There's no such place as England, Ireland and Scotland.

No reply here?

What's wrong with insulting the Queen?

My reply - the insults are meant to intimidate and drive others from what you consider to be your personal property which is in violation of wiki policy

So insulting the queen drives people away? I do not consider this to be my personal property at all; I simply like people following content policies when editing. Little things, like referencing, having readable prose and not violating copyright law. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As you say and I quote It is a C class because I haven't written it all - you'll note it tails off midway through the First World War.

No reply here?

Re, Where is the chronological error, exactly? The errors are in the introduction, his earlier life and education sections as indicated.

Indicated where? Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re, If you really think a Wikipedia article should censor its comments because saying bad stuff can drive away tourism, this site is not for you

Reply - if you think wiki wants to or is allowed to slander tourist attractions or people, you better check out some Canadian laws. Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, CANADIAN laws! Well, they certainly apply, since Wikipedia is within the Canadian juris- wait, hangon, it's not! And again, find me one piece of slander in the article, one thing that validates your criticism and means it isn't simply an insulting personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)