Talk:John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ian Crosby

The Ian Crosby information is unencyclopedic.

I have removed it again as unreferenced and containing Material that should be here. If the contributor would like to read WP:REF and cite a source before re-adding the information and keep discussion about it here on the talk page that would be helpful.--Wintonian (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Her final interview...' in 2004. Does this mean that Susan Maxwell-Scott is dead? Yes, she is dead. She died in September 2004. Also rather odd wording: "Crosby's book reveals more details of their relationship" Does he mean with Lucan or Maxwell-Scott? And does he mean professional or private relationship? Crosby when referring to relationship means an exchange of emails lasting several years. In his book he untruthfully states that he visited Lady Lucan at her home in Eaton Row. He has never visited her home.86.144.117.25 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses reveal Lord Lucan's 'secret life in Africa'

BBC News Online reports an assistant to John Aspinall had, on at least two occasions, between 1979 and 1981 arranged for Lord Lucan's two eldest children to go on vacation in Africa with the intention that they could be secretly viewed at a distance by their father, Lord Lucan. I don't know enough about this story to edit the story ... but I am sure others are. Anyone want to take a hand to incorporating this report into the article?
Enquire (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has done this now. Victor Yus (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing information

Ironman's efforts to expunge sourced information from this article are becoming tiresome. At least, that's my opinion. What do others think? Of course this information is all unconfirmed, but we say it's unconfirmed, so what's the problem? Victor Yus (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PS Lucan (presumably), Goldsmith and Aspinall are all dead, so there's no libel issue.--Victor Yus (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All right, his most recent efforts are more constructive, but it still leaves the introductory paragraphs looking very impoverished. There must be some mention there of the vast amounts of speculation (not all fantastic) that has appeared in sources concerning what may have happened to Lucan after his disappearance. Leaving this out is like introducting an article on Jesus without mentioning that many believe him to be God's son, because "that's just speculation".--Victor Yus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I added sourced info twice to find it all removed without further explanation. Fine, but it has reconfirmed my earlier thoughts about Wikipedia. Will be a long time before I add anything again and i amhappy I didnt financially support them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.139.10 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

New article

I'm working on a new version of this article here. While I'm not nearly done, if nobody has any objections I'll replace this article in a week or so. I have more sources to work through, but I intend to take this to FAC in a few weeks. Comments welcome. Parrot of Doom 11:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The new version seems to have the same problem the previous one did, but in even more pronounced fashion - it goes into great detail about Lucan's life pre-disappearance, and about the murder and the investigation of the murder, and then glosses over in one short section everything that has been written about his possible life or fate since his disappearance. In fact it is this mystery and speculation that has given this man his fame/notoriety, and which has generated most of what has been written about him (no-one would be interested in the details of this murder if it weren't for the involvement of the "disappearing peer"). Clearly Wikipedia is about reporting fact rather than speculation, but in this case the speculation is itself a very significant part of the fact. And why did you remove the reference to the recent claims by Aspinall's secretary? Also I think the introduction is too long and contains too much detail - and again, fails to emphasize the main reason for his notability, which has little to do with the established facts of his biography. Victor Yus (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, a hair-trigger admin decided on a demonstration of authority. I agree with the above, it's just that I'm not yet finished writing the article. His legacy/aftermath will certainly be expanded to be in line with the source material used. I don't intend to expand significantly on individual false sightings and the like, as those stories detract from the man. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds cool, thanks. Victor Yus (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a third book, The Gamblers. Once I've gone though that I think I'll look towards WP:FAC for this article. I have to say though, I'm not finding a great deal of commentary on this cases' notoriety. That may be because everyone takes it for granted that it's a famous murder, but I can't really expand on that section of the article if the source material doesn't do the same. Parrot of Doom 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Retitle

I think this article should be called simply "Lord Lucan". That's the name everyone refers to him by. I know Wikipedia has conventions for naming peers' articles, but we can make exceptions in special cases (and this one is not just a run-of-the-mill title holder). The same is done with Lord Byron. Victor Yus (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree but this needs more input. I'll ask around. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't, the 3rd Earl is also well known as 'Lord Lucan' due to the events of the charge of the Light Brigade. The status quo causes no harm and is certainly fits the pattern of other peers much more consistently.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing but everyone knows Lucan as "Lord Lucan" - the official title is rarely used. Even Lord Lucan redirects here. A simple Google search reveals almost four times as many results for "Lord Lucan" as for "Richard John Bingham". As per WP:COMMONNAME I think it should be changed. Parrot of Doom 13:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You really ought to know the problems with goggle searches and accuracy. The search you did will pull up all the lord lucans, bands, pubs and much other ephemera. Lord + almost anything produces a high score - eg Lord banana 24 million hits. Lord Wellington (accurate only 1809-14) produces far more hits than Duke of Wellington by which he was known for 35 years, at Waterloo (the focal point of his fame) and as Prime Minister.Garlicplanting (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You should probably put quote marks round your search terms. Once you search for "Lord Wellington" you get far fewer hits than "Duke of Wellington". Anyway, this is all rather beside the point, as we all know that Lord Lucan is the common name for this fellow. Victor Yus (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As a random wanderer, I tend to agree with POD :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had actually heard of the Crimean War Lucan, but I'm sure very few people will have done, compared with those who have heard of this one. In any case, we can just put a hatnote directing people to the other Lord Lucan (I note noone has ever felt the need to make a hatnote mentioning him or any other holder of the title specifically, even though "Lord Lucan" redirects people to this page, so it seems no confusion has ever resulted from this). The present title may fit the pattern of other peers, but doesn't fit the pattern of other articles about well-known persons, which get short, easily recognized titles, not mouthfuls like this one. Victor Yus (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well as soon as the FA bot updates this article, I'm going to move it to Lord Lucan. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Knight

Kenneth Charles Knight was arrested in Goondiwindi in Australia and mistaken for Lucan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.203.240 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This was in the October of 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.203.240 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of Lady Lucan about the inaccuracy of this article since June 2012

Lady Lucan has expressed concerns that this article (especially the featured revision) is full of inaccuracies since revisions made since June 2012, being largely based on the book by Roy Ranson, which itself is inaccurate. Her talk page can be accessed at User talk:Countess of Lucan.--Darrelljon (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says the book is inaccurate? Parrot of Doom 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lucan says the book is inaccurate even down to the title.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote "I just edited my father's name Major Charles Moorhouse Duncan MC (the MC was removed) and his second wife Thelma (and his second wife was removed). I edited that I was twenty months when he died and they removed it and put two years! Obviously I know more about the Lucan affair than anyone else living and certainly more than a ghost writer for an ex-police officer "--Darrelljon (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from where? If she has a problem with this article then why doesn't she post it here, where we can work through any issues? Parrot of Doom 09:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is indeed Lady Lucan (do we know for sure?) then what can be said is that she will obviously know a great deal about certain aspects of the case, but less than an investigating police officer about other aspects. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we cannot know for sure that the account is operated by her, so I have blocked it using {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, which exists for such purposes. This is to prevent the Countess being impersonated if it isn't her, not to shut her out from discussions if it is her. Bencherlite^Talk 06:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lucan has been asked to contribute here, but believes herself to be blocked from doing so. Some of her concerns are as follows;

• "Much of this is defamatory and untrue. It even talks about my weakening mental state being why he moved to the mews house.
  • The article doesn't blame her weakening mental state for Lucan's departure, it just mentions it as a factor in the marriage's failure. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• How can Roy Ranson know when I employed Sandra Rivett?. I employed her on 9th September (not in August as Roy Ranson says)
  • One would presume that the chief investigating officer of a murder would be able to establish exactly when the murder victim entered her employer's service, so I'd appreciate something a bit more substantial here.
• Someone has written that he courted Zinnia Denison. It is grotesque rubbish.
  • Moore, p57, disagrees. She quotes Denison herself - "I knew he was very fond of me", and Charles Sweeny, who describes how upset Lucan was that Denison wouldn't marry him, that he asked her to marry him in St Moritz. Although I have found Moore to be a rather biassed source (heavily against the Countess, as it happens) and have therefore tried to include only facts and not opinions when using it.
• For example "When the marriage collapsed in 1972" I authorised a solicitors letter dated 13th December 1972 and quoted from it.
• I was born on 3rd May 1937 and my father died on 21st January 1939 so I was not two years old but twenty months.
  • I have already generalised on this point so it's no longer an issue.
• Mrs Murphy was not an alcoholic and she left on 24th April 1974 to go into hospital for serious surgery. She was replaced by the temporary Christobel Martin and followed by a French girl called Pierrette who stayed for May, June, July and Mid-August when she was sacked. She was replaced from mid-August by a student Nadia Broome who left when Sandra came with her cat on 9th September 1974. I have cheques to confirm their employment.
  • Ranson explicitly says she was an alcoholic, that she had been fired from a previous job in Spain for "drunkenness, for walking naked around the house and for encouraging children to drink". He also describes letters from private investigators which mention that the nanny had taken the children to an "Irish club" at lunchtime. Ranson also states that she died from cancer but I didn't include this as I didn't think it particularly relevant. I would, however, appreciate learning more on exactly how she left the Countess's employ, and I will check to see if any source I have mentions the nannies employed after her time and before Rivett's time. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've removed references to Murphy's purported alcoholism and added her hospitalisation. This makes it easier for the reader to understand that she left the Countess's employ and not ask why. I've also changed the structure to make it clear that a series of temporary nannies were employed, and I've also generalised on the date of Rivett's employment. Hopefully these changes will be satisfactory, the text is still sourced and reliable but the offending passages are no longer there. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• I was born in Uckfield but after my father died we moved to Bournemouth and in 1947 moved to South Africa. We returned in late 1949.

The Wiki is not verifiable and is certainly not neutral. They could have asked me as I have invited anyone to do from my website.

• • A self-published website is not considered a reliable source here. I don't make the rules.
• On the 1st January 1973 We both saw Dr Flood at The Priory and he recommended a six week trial separation.
  • Ranson mentions (on p34) "lucan had tried to persuade the doctor that his wife should be certified as mentally ill. When the doctor dismissed his attempt as a nonsense, the Earl flew into a rage and stormed out of the house", but little else. Again, unless the above line appears in a reliable source, it can't be included.
• On the 14th February my husband went to stay in Acapulco for two weeks with James Goldsmith and returned on the 28th February. On 23rd March 1973 armed with a Court Order he took Camilla and George from the Park while they were with their nanny Miss Sawicka.
  • Ranson mentions Acapulco but it doesn't seem to have much relevance to the story. The article already mentions the taking of the children. I couldn't be certain exactly when Sawika's employ ended so I removed the date the children were taken (which was indeed the 23rd).
• I did not sell any jewellery as my husband had the keys to the safe and I did not have access to it.
  • I'm happy to remove the jewellery sale as it isn't all that important.
• I did a two week stint of voluntary work at St George's Hospital.
  • The article mentions that Lady Lucan worked in a local hospital.
• I paid Miss Sawicka her cheque for £18.00 on the day the children were taken on 23rd March 1973. I was quite composed enough to do this.
  • I've removed any claims of hysteria or lack of composure, I think that's perfectly fair (any mother would understandably be extremely upset at losing her children in this manner).
• As I say on my website I wore a hat at the inquest on Mrs Sandra Rivett because of my rank as a peeress of the realm and not to hide any scars. The scars were completely visible on my forehead due to the style of hat I wore."
  • That sounds fair to me, I can't include the reason for wearing the hat but I can certainly rewrite that part just to mention that she wore a hat.

--Darrelljon (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The Countess is no longer blocked (a temporary thing to ensure the account wasn't an imposter), she's perfectly free to post here. If she's reading this, I have some experience working on sensitive articles like this (see Moors Murders) and am quite happy to work with her on whatever I can. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Some friendly e-mail correspondence with Lady Lucan might help any technical hurdles to participation too in the event of any possible lesser familiarity with use of Wikipedia.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect that Lady Lucan is still unable to edit because of the autoblocker - this always happens when the indeffed are released and that's why the poor woman is thinks she can't edit here. Someone should check it. Secondly, experienced as Parrot of Doom is, I don't think mentioning Lady Lucan's husband in the same breath as the Moors Murders is unlikely to endear him to her and create a harmonious working relationship; the crimes are not comparable. The Hon Mrs Humphrey Starborgling (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone could check the auto-block that would be great.--Darrelljon (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone checked the autoblock?--Darrelljon (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that the crimes were comparable, except in the sensitivity they have to be dealt with, especially in respect of the surviving relatives such as Lady Lucan. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes that argued that this Lord Lucan was "not as famous" were largely discounted, considering that Lord Lucan already redirects to this article. Even so, there is no consensus to move from the consistent name to the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan → Lord Lucan – Most common name for the subject of this article. Lord Lucan already redirects here. Parrot of Doom 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Lord Lucan refers to any of the earls who have held the title not just the seventh. In particular the third earl is high profile.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this, just above this section. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Parrot of Doom 09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Standard naming convention for British peers is to use the existing format. Even the Duke of Wellington, far more famous than Lord Lucan and also invariably known by his title, is under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. And to military historians, George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan is also pretty famous as a field marshal and a leading player in the Charge of the Light Brigade. Many other peers are commonly known by their titles rather than their names (indeed, most hereditary peers are). There is no need whatsoever to make an exception to the convention for this one individual. An exception has been made for Lord Byron, but it is very rare, for an extremely famous person (Lucan is not - my partner had never even heard of him!), and in this case there are no other significant holders of the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucan not famous? Don't talk out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't famous. Try actually reading a comment before you let your mouth/hand run away with you. It'll help you to avoid making an idiot of yourself and making insulting comments! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. Parrot of Doom 16:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't believe I was the one who accused a fellow editor of talking out of his arse! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you just implied I was an idiot and then criticised me for "making insulting comments". Just another hypocritical admin. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have a chip on your shoulder about admins. Let's leave it at that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the argument, but I don't think it is the best solution in this case. Deb (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Standard naming convention for British peers no need for further discussion. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - Lord Lucan is by far the most common name for this individual. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia's overall convention on naming articles is that we use the common name for the subject, and that should take precedence for someone who is a well-known personage in the outside world, not just a rank-and-file peerage holder. As we can see, it is not just Lord Byron's article, but many articles on peers (such as well-known politicians), that are not titled according to the convention. This is how it should be - the convention was no doubt written by editors with an interest in the peerage, and should thus apply to articles that are likely to be of interest principally to people concerned with the peerage, but there is no rational reason to try to apply it to articles that will be of interest to a more general audience. Victor Yus (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious. Which articles, other than Byron's, are not titled according to the convention? Some are certainly titled using only the peer's name, not his title, but that's a different issue and usually only applies to peers who became famous before they acquired the peerage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, those are the ones I meant (there's also Alfred, Lord Tennyson, incidentally). It's not entirely a different issue, in that it shows that Wikipedia in general is perfectly happy with the idea of titling a peer's article in a form other than "Name, Numeral Title", and thus there's no reason to stick stubbornly to the latter form when there's a much better alternative available. Victor Yus (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Tennyson is still at "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", not just "Lord Tennyson". Use of a peer's name without his title if he became famous before acquiring the title is explicitly provided for in the naming conventions. This proposal, however, is only provided for if this individual is "overwhelmingly the best known". If this Lord Lucan was the only notable Lord Lucan then I might therefore (possibly) agree with you, but he isn't. I knew of the Charge of the Light Brigade Lord Lucan long before I knew of the disappeared Lord Lucan, and I'm sure I'm not alone (evidently not, given other comments here). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shouldn't be an exception to the naming conventions. Should be at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, though. Proteus (Talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title follows the naming conventions, and besides, among people who don't follow British society scandals, the third Earl is better-known than the seventh. --Carnildo (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this Lucan is more notorious than famous, and not sufficiently so to be an exception monopolising the style "Lord Lucan" in WP: I, too, knew of his Light Brigade predecessor before I did him. FactStraight (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is already very much an exception to the naming conventions, since the subject's common name is not used (the whole naming convention for peers ought to be treated as subordinate to the Wikipedia's general common name naming convention, but clearly that argument isn't going to be won here). Let's try to get the current name right, then - I suspected it should be just John (it used to be called just Richard Bingham..., until I added the John). Do we have sources to show that he was known as "John" rather than "Richard John"? (By the way, the fact that we have to consider such matters shows how wrong-headed the peer naming convention is - we know exactly what this person is virtually always called, and yet to get just the title of the article we are forced to dig around in obscure sources to try to get our own artificial name for him "right". It shouldn't be like that.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not "wrong-headed" at all, since it is designed to address the fact that peers with the same title are almost always known by the that title and disambiguation would otherwise be a nightmare. The 7th Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 3rd Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 1st Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 2nd Earl of Lucan was...well, you get my drift. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is exactly the same problem that is faced with people (and other types of subject) in all walks of life - their common names might not be unique. But disambiguation is no nightmare - in fact we have a system for doing it (look at Tony Scott (disambiguation), to take an example entirely at random). In this case (I don't know how appropriately) one Tony Scott has been identified as the most prominent and has his article titled Tony Scott, and the others have parentheses after them to indicate in what field they are notable. So the present article could be titled Lord Lucan or, if it really is genuinely disputed that in the real world this is by far the best known Lord Lucan, then it could be something like Lord Lucan (disappeared peer). Not systematic, but at least readers would know immediately who the article is about (and in a sense it is systematic, since it corresponds to the overall Wikipedia system for naming articles). If someone isn't much known for a great deal apart from being a peer (which is going to be so in the majority of cases), then I agree, use the article titles we use now. Anyway, it's accepted that I'm outnumbered on this, so what's your view on the Richard/John question? Victor Yus (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that if we have a natural disambiguation system, then it makes sense to use it rather than inventing something else. Disambiguation is a pain in the proverbial anyway, so making work for ourselves makes no sense. If he was known as John then we obviously should move it to John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
          • For me, the system you want to use is much less natural than the system Wikipedia uses elsewhere, and the additional "work" of thinking up sensible article titles is no real burden at all, but never mind. Does anyone have evidence as to usage of his Christian names? Victor Yus (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, when "Lord Lucan" already redirects here (and thereby helps people searching under that name), what is the specific need to change the article name in contravention of the norm? Moreover, there is another famous "Lord Lucan": Patrick Sarsfield, 1st Earl of Lucan. Hrishikes (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The change would not contravene the norm, the present title contravenes the norm (or at least, each of the two titles might contravene a different norm, and the present one contravenes a far more general and sensible norm). Surely it's preferable to have article titles that let readers know in ordinary terms what the article is about and what the subject of the article is normally called? Why do we have an article called Bill Clinton and not "William Jefferson Clinton" or something? Comparing these two cases, can't you see how famous peer articles are out of step with general practice? Victor Yus (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - no comment on the actual proposal, but noting here that more attention should probably be paid at this time to the section preceding this one (though the matter needs to be handled with care). Also, while looking at some of the past edits made by User:Countess of Lucan, I noticed this misplaced edit that is partially related to this naming issue. Someone might want to tidy that edit up (even though it was four years ago), both to restore the section it was inserted into (it is still visible at the top of this talk page), and to acknowledge the edit made back then. I'm going to do that small bit of tidying up now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BBC report removed

The following text was removed in December on the grounds that this article is not the place for "rumours". As the article is already full of "rumours" this is a little odd, as is the fact that a BBC report is not exactly a rumour. I am copying it here in the hope some editor finds it a helpful basis for some more work:-Testbed (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Recently evidence was uncovered suggesting an unknown man was staying in the house at the time of the murder. The new evidence came to light after BBC Inside Out South East was handed three boxes of notebooks, diaries, tapes and address books found by the daughter of the late Detective Chief Inspector David Gerring, a key detective in the Lucan case. Camilla claimed this man lived in the house and sometimes slept in Sandra's room. The documents also reveal that police believed Lucan may have visited a Scottish estate in the late 1970s and could have been in Mozambique up to 2002. Lucan's brother Hugh Bingham wanted the evidence looked at and says he was annoyed this evidence was not used in the trial. Neil Berriman, who discovered in 2004 that Mrs Rivett was his birth mother, also wanted these claims investigated.

References

Possible copyvio

The comment on the skeletal remains of the judge being discovered is a close paraphrase of the text in John Pearson's book The Gamblers (which should probably be included as a reference). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense. Here's what the book says - "In the end they found a body, but it was not Lucan's. In dense undergrowth towards Ditchling Beacon they stumbled on the skeleton of a judge who had disappeared some years before." That is a completely different sentence to what's in the article, which, if you care to look, does include the book as a reference. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I said paraphrase - and I see no reference to the book. Which judge? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At a guess I would say ref 84 Pearson (2007) which points to Pearson, John (2007), The Gamblers, Arrow Books, ISBN 9780099461180 Richerman (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainly 'just checking'. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, perhaps I over-reacted slightly so I apologise for the strong wording. It's been a difficult week. Parrot of Doom 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive#23 July 2013 has some bearing on the discussion. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

---

John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan → Lord Lucan – Almost every one of this article's many references calls the subject "Lord Lucan." The others call him just "Lucan". Not one source calls him "John Bingham", nor does any source feel the need to clarify that this isn't the Lucan who ordered the charge of the light brigade. This headline from the BBC is typical: "Lord Lucan 'mystery man' witness statement uncovered." There's nothing about the light brigade Lucan on the first page of Google results, and Lord Lucan already directs here. If it's done this way for disambiguation, it doesn't strike me as being very helpful. How many readers will know which Lucan is third earl, and which one is seventh? See Lord Byron for a similar case. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Warrior of Zen (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree but considering this was proposed and comprehensively opposed only recently, I think this will go nowhere. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The last RM was almost a year ago. At least with Wellington, "Duke of Wellington" is part of the article title. But if a reader knows this subject only as "Lord Lucan", the current title might not be recognizable. Warrior of Zen (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As there are two Lord Lucans of note (and five others who may appear in other contexts) the full name is required.

Perhaps a comp;arison can be made with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI who were 'regularly' referred to without their numbers - whatever the colloquial use the full form is required in a reference work. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per much of the RM above. Although many peers are often referred to colloquially as "Lord So and So", the full title is the standard way to list them as it's much clearer all round and avoids a return to the convoluted mess of the early days when articles on peers were titled all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinion hasn't changed from the last RM discussion. Agree entirely with User:Timrollpickering. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who was the missing judge?

I was intrigued to learn that the hunt for Lord Lucan on Newhaven Downs ironically turned up the remains of a judge who had gone missing years earlier. What was his name? Is he subject of a Wikipedia article? If so it would be interesting to mention the name, linked.Cloptonson (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Christabel Martin

I seem to recall that she was also murdered, although I believe the guy who killed her - her lover or husband - copped for manslaughter. I can find nothing on-line but someone might like to check this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.179.16 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

IIRC she was, but it isn't relevant to this article. Parrot of Doom 18:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dramatisations section?

Should there be a section on film and TV dramatisations? There seem to have been quite a few, plus a recent two-part drama "Lucan" on ITV. --A bit iffy (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd just be a list though, I'm not sure what it might add. The reason I added a list of fictional publications was so people interested in the case wouldn't accidentally buy fiction. Parrot of Doom 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be a list, can just be a few prose sentences. I had actually been thinking of appending something to an existing section, but there didn't seem to be a logical place (plus I noticed it was featured-standard article, so thought I'd hang back). Anyway, how about something along these lines:

'There have been several film and television dramatisations of Lucan and the circumstances of his disappearance. [An example]. [Another example]. A 2013 two-part ITV drama with Rory Kinnear as Lucan portrayed him escaping by a fishing trawler, and hiding out in a run-down house in rural Switzerland, helped in this regard by Aspinall (played by Christopher Eccleston).

--A bit iffy (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this adds. Apart from the most recent drama, these programmes appear not to have had much of an effect. Lucan's notoriety seems to have been kept in the public eye by the press, if anything. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming throughout article

I was perusing this article but mainly reading the section on Sandra Rivett's murder and Lord Lucan's disappearance, as no doubt several readers do. I was somewhat confused by the varied names apparently used to refer to the same people, i.e.:

• "Lucan", "Lord Lucan" or "the earl";
• "Lady Lucan" or "Veronica".

I assume these terms refer to the same people, although I am not entirely familiar with the terminology of British peerage. This being the case, wouldn't it be preferable to consistently refer to them by the same name throughout? It is a pain to continually remind myself that "Lady Lucan" and "Veronica" are the same person. "Lucan" is fine in some contexts but "Lord Lucan" should be used where necessary to distinguish from "Lady Lucan". —sroc 💬 15:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's done to avoid repetition. Parrot of Doom 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers do that; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It increases confusion and slows readers keeping up with the various names and aliases. —sroc 💬 18:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That link has no relevance to the point you are trying to make. Repeating "Lord Lucan... Lord Lucan... Lord Lucan... Lord Lucan" would be poor and uninteresting writing, which would mean that the article failed the featured article criteria of being "well written" and "engaging". Bencherlite^Talk 19:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using "Lucan" where it is clear that it refers to Lord Lucan. I have a problem with switching unexpectedly to "the earl" (e.g., "While there, the earl had written two letters to his brother-in-law..."; "...contradicting the earl's version of events...") and interchanging between "Lady Lucan" and "Veronica" (e.g., "Terrified, Lady Lucan told him she could help him escape if only he would remain at the house for a few days, to allow her injuries to heal. Lucan walked upstairs and sent his daughter to bed, then went into one of the bedrooms. When Veronica entered, to lie on the bed, he told her to put towels down first to avoid staining the bedding. Lucan asked her if she had any barbiturates and went to the bathroom to get a wet towel, supposedly to clean Veronica's face. Lady Lucan realised her husband would be unable to hear her..."). For a reader who is interested in the mystery and skips to that section (skipped Lord Lucan's early life and marriage), this is particularly confusing. —sroc 💬 14:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To "for" or not to "for"

I've removed the word "for" from "He drove Hicks-Beach home for about 8:00 pm,..." in the last paragraph of the 'Gambling' section.[1] While a phrase like 'So-n-so drove for about twenty minutes' makes grammatical sense, 'Such-n-such drove for about 9:30 am' does not seem to sensibly parse in common English.

I suspect the "for" may have been an inadvertent leftover from previous additions/removals. I consider this edit to be a fairly trivial bit of 'wikignome' grammar maintenance and am surprised that it has been called into question. While I stand by this grammar edit as an improvement to the page as it stands, I'm open to rephrasing the whole sentence (or paragraph for that matter) providing the replacement parses in English and makes sense in context in form and in substance.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Driving someone home "for" a particular time is perfectly acceptable English. "Get me home for 5 o'clock", for instance. And by the way, the cycle is WP:BRD - be bold and make an edit, if reverted, discuss. It isn't "be bold and make an edit, then continually restore that edit while demanding the person reverting it explain why your edit is incorrect". I have once again reverted your change, which made it seem as though the driving was underway at 8pm, rather than finished at about that time. Parrot of Doom 08:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree with PoD's explanation of the correct usage of "for about 8pm" in British English. It may be unfamiliar usage in American English but this article is written in British English, and "for about 8pm" is entirely acceptable. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, I think Bencherlite has probably 'nailed it' ... as to a British/American usage issue being at hand. 'Two cultures separated by a common language' as it were.

• As to WP:BRD, I did actually go to PoD's talk page after receiving notice of the initial reversion, but the tone of the reply to the last commenter when combined with the page header's emphasis on telling people "where to shove it" left me disinclined to engage further. And frankly, the disparaging tone towards WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL didn't do much to inspire confidence and trust either.[2] Furthermore, going WP:4RR,[3] in disregard of a bright-line rule, rather than awaiting further exchange here fails to inspire me with a sense of sincerity regarding procedural concerns. Anyway, instead of leaving an inquiry, I opted to restore my edit along with a more explicit summary explanation. Rather than engage directly with a potentially hostile personality over what at the time I was viewing—apparently incorrectly—as a straightforward grammatical issue. For-what-it's-worth, a more welcoming first impression may well have made for a smoother exchange. Sorry that my unfamiliarity with British usage led to misunderstanding. I've indeed been born and raised USAmerican. So there appears to have been an issue of 'un-common English' after all.

• I'm curious to hear more elaboration on the British English use of "for" in the time related context at hand. I can see it both/either in terms of "aiming to arrive [be]for[e] eight o'clock" and "aiming to arrive for [the] eight o'clock [bell]". Basically now that it's been explained I'm able to rationally parse it, but it still sounds discordant to my American ear and exploring it further may better familiarize me. I guess I'm used to time terms along with "for" being modifiers/adjectives to a subject/noun. "He drove home for 5:00 pm dinner" rather than "He drove home for 5:00 pm/five o'clock". "For my 3 pm break I went home" rather than "For my 3 pm I went home". The exception (in USA) I suppose being when used as a contraction for professional appointments. "I'm meeting Sylvia at my 3 pm" as a contraction of "I'm meeting Sylvia at my 3 pm class" or a doctor/receptionist/etc. saying "Mr. Smith is here for his three o'clock" [appointment, exam, etc. is implied] where there's a—often standardized—system of appointments/time-slots in place. So anyway, I'm left wondering if the British usage has formed from contraction and about other sense and nuance. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd investigated my previous interactions with PBS you'd have understood why I'm not interested in his tedious dramas. But it's ok, feel free to slag me off if you like. I'm sure that in your mind, you never make mistakes. Parrot of Doom 09:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, I could swear I just apologized for one ... ah, yes, two paragraphs up ...

"Sorry that my unfamiliarity with British usage led to misunderstanding."

And to quote myself further ...

"... the tone of the reply to the last commenter when combined with the page header's emphasis on telling people "where to shove it" ..." [italics added for emphasis]

As your talk page leads off with bold categorical statements regarding bringing up the topics of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL it seems fair to me to surmise that in fact others have brought up such concerns in the past. Likely more than once.

A personal note comes to mind at this point ... I once was recounting to a friend about how over the years I'd had a number of romantic relationships 'go sour'. They listened patiently and then astutely pointed out that the most common denominator in all those relationships had in fact been me. A bit of an epiphany really.

expositional musing and forensic reflections

When you obliquely advised me—was more of a dictatorial command really—in an edit summary[4]to discuss things on the talk page I noticed that you had not in fact availed yourself of the opportunity to lead by example whilst doing so. After starting this talk page thread I confess I hesitated before making my own 3rd reversion. It crossed my mind that it might be 'more circumspect' and 'show a bit more class' to let things rest a bit ... but pique, testosterone, and curiosity colluded instead. Yes, curiosity. You see I'd formed a hunch[5][6] that I was dealing with an experienced editor whose own head was so far up the place they'd suggested others 'shove it' that they'd happily go 3RR/4RR (or make some other blatant faux paux) while at the same time bringing up other's adherence to protocol. In the end I couldn't resist offering an opportunity for confirmation. Flirting with WP:POINT perhaps, but of course it'd be hypocritical to dwell on that without also addressing an experienced editor making a clear WP:4RR violation, wouldn't it? And recall that throughout most of this I was operating with the (American tunnel-vision?) view that the edit was a trivial grammar correction. As I saw it I'd given a nonsensical phrase parse-able meaning so your first edit summary "that would completely change the meaning of this sentence"[7] inspired me to think, "why yes, that was the point—to give it meaning". Since a face value interpretation wasn't making sense to me, I came to suspect your point of contention was that I'd phrased my initial summary as "minor copy edit" rather than something more specific like "grammar correction". And once again, if I hadn't gotten the impression from 'choices in phrasing' on your talk page and contribution history that I was likely dealing with some sort of crank, I'd probably have left a message/inquiry offering explanation and requesting detail ... perhaps—as at the time I thought the grammar question was cut-n-dry trivial—I might still have concurrently made my first reversion, but that's speculative. Regardless, I likely would have started some sort of dialogue if only I'd felt welcome to do so. The first contentious user I ran into when I'd just started editing was User:ColonelHenry whose user-page had a section self-righteously declaring himself above the restraints of WP:CIVIL and extolling his zeal for red-in-tooth-n-claw argument. I ended up having to learn a shit-load of wiki policy and protocol in a very short time all over an attempt to bring some date formats into consistency with usage in a wikilinked page title. Judging from the article's edit history I suspect there were strong issues of WP:OWN wafting about as well. I dare say the experience was ultimately quite unpleasant and unsatisfying and has probably left me a bit sensitive about such matters. I confess to having indulged in some schadenfreude when he got himself indefinitely blocked about a year (to the day!) later. Frankly PoD for the most part so far you've responded more calmly and sensibly here than I'd anticipated. I'm guessing you're not really 'a bad sort' but like myself (and most others) simply suffer from a few blind spots. I imagine the 'hyperbole/grand gesture' tone of your talk page header relates to the frustration many of us feel with the many vagaries and eccentricities in En:Wikipedia culture. While perhaps understandable—check out the .GIFs displayed as part of my talk page header—I still suggest it's ill-advised to lead off with "shove it" etc. as it risks making unsavory impressions which may facilitate misunderstanding. In present form at the very least it insures that issues of "WP:OWN" and "WP:CIVIL" are immediately brought to a reader's mind when they visit. i.e. "Don't think of the white polar bear!"[8]

Anyway, as to our bit of kerfuffle, perhaps best to declare a mutual 'oops' at this point, maybe write it all off to 'acute testosterone poisoning' or some such, and we'll both try to do better in the future, eh? I hope that beyond all this you have a nice day. Toodle-oo, --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• p.s.— Oh, and by-the-way, to all Brits en toto, I really am curious to learn more about word usage in British English as I expressed in detail above, earlier. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography vs Further Reading?

It's rather muddly having a "Bibliogrpahy" section listing some relevant books, and then a later "Further Reading" section with some more. Particularly as imho some of the texts in "Further Reading" are rather more central / important than some of those in Bibliography.

I'd be keen to merge the lists? Perhaps an editor with wide experience of Wikipedia formats might like to comment. Testbed (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Items in the Further Reading section are not cited within the article. Items within the Bibliography section are. That is the difference. Parrot of Doom 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But that is more an explanation of what a Bibliography is (which as it happens I know already) rather than an explanation as to why this Not-Very-Wikipedia idea, which some might see as confusing, has been chosen for this article. Please refer to this for further guidance before replying:- Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Testbed (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been chosen because that's the layout I use when writing articles. You're the first to complain about it, which probably indicates that you're the only one who's confused by it. I suggest you find further guidance before replying. Parrot of Doom 06:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

There's an edit war on how much to include in the LEDE. Rather than letting that continue to go back and forth, let's discuss it here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the action Wikimandia should have, as per BRD. Ledes don't require citations, but more importantly, they shouldn't contain information not in the article - and the information in that source isn't used in the article. That's it. Parrot of Doom 07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Do you have a response? If not, I'm going to revert to Parrot's version. Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I've updated the article to reflect what's happening, unless Wikimandia disputes that Lucan is presumed dead then there's no need. Parrot of Doom 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Lucan is not "presumed dead" as far as the court is concerned. This misleading info should not be in intro. BRD does not apply as this is factual non-controversial cited information from a RS. POD can presume him dead all his likes, but as there has been a 16+ year attempt to have him declared presumed dead by the courts it is clearly misleading to simply end the intro to his article with "he's presumed dead." There's no explanation why this lengthy fight over his living status should be excluded in the intro. Refusing to include this is in the intro is part of Parrot of Doom's personal WP:OWNERSHIP issues. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL so Parrot of Doom refuses to use my contribution from The Independent in the body but instead added a citation from the West End Extra. Who? And even the headline from this much weaker RS states: "Lord Lucan’s son launches new High Court bid to get missing earl declared 'presumed dead.'" More confirmation he is not legally presumed dead. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Qualifying your comments with a "but but but....a court doesn't think he's dead" doesn't contradict the fact that he is presumed dead by his family, dead by his friends and dead for probate purposes. He is presumed dead and the article makes that quite clear. It also makes it quite clear that no death certificate has been issued. Oh and the West End Extra is the source the Independent used to write their article, but you're the expert here so I guess you already knew that - right? You do realise, do you not, that the online version of the Independent is nothing more than a posh Buzzfeed?

It's funny how you claim that BRD doesn't apply when you couldn't wait to rush over to 3RR to have your little moment of drama. And for your comment about ownership, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. Parrot of Doom 08:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The facts are the facts - he is not legally presumed dead, and the status of his being alive/dead is the subject of an ongoing court case, so this needs to be qualified. Funny how you claim you "don't care what administrators think" when your own behavior is in question[9] but you suddenly care what administrators think when you "rush over to 3RR" to report other people for your little moments of drama, huh. Judging by the hilarious disclaimer on your talk page the drama is nonstop. [10] —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"The facts are the facts - he is not legally presumed dead" - you simply don't know what you're talking about. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tabloid

I saw this was up at TFA and I thought I would take a look at it. It is a decent article, but it was overlinked and had a couple of quite trashy tabloid sources in it. I suppose BLP is not a major concern, but I do not think we can support having sources like this on a FA. How did they get there? --John (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a quote from an exclusive interview held with The Mirror, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Parrot of Doom 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there other, better sources which discuss it? --John (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It was an exclusive interview with the Mirror. Any other source would be using that paper as a source. But even so, unless the newspaper has a history of modifying direct quotes, I don't see how a tabloid in this instance can be considered unreliable. Parrot of Doom 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RT Article

This RT Article should be linked to

• Lord Lucan shot himself, then fed to tiger, reveals gambling mate

Eyreland (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? It's obvious rubbish. Parrot of Doom 09:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, Putin's propaganda site - reliable to the core! 50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Date of presumed death

I've edited the article to omit mention of his date of death. The reason is

• 3 February 2016 (and in another place vaguely 1999) is only the date the declaration was made, not necessarily the date he is presumed to have died;
• a declaration of presumed death under the Presumption of Death Act 2013 includes the date of death;
• Section 2(4) of that Act states that the date of presumed death, if the person is not known to be dead (which is the case here), should be 7 years after the date he was last known to be alive, in this case I would guess 8 November 1981; but
• I haven't been able to find a source stating what the date is.

Until the case is published by a reliable source, we can't include this information. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is further confused because according to media reports he was declared dead in 1999 (1999 BBC article) but no death certificate was issued. When the law was changed his family applied again and now he has been declared dead-dead. Hopefully further reports will enlighten us on the date given on the certificate. Eckerslike (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Lucan's son the year on his death certificate is 1981... Firebrace (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Moncrief: Regarding this edit, Lord Lucan was declared dead in 1999. He is now presumed to have died in 1981 (although what it actually means is that he died sometime between 1974 and 1981) and a death certificate has been issued; these two facts are referenced in the Bankruptcy and estate section. Generally, facts referenced in the article body do not have to be referenced in the lead section as well. Everyone here in the UK knows the background to this case; it has been ongoing for a long time. I cannot revert your edit because of the 3RR... Firebrace (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Everyone here in the UK knows the background to this case; it has been ongoing for a long time. Sorry, what? First of all, everyone in any certain country does not know one singular thing. More importantly, Wikipedia (obvs.) has a global audience. I don't understand what this comment you've made has to do with anything in the realm of rational decisions to include or not include any information in an article. Also, this is the very first time I made this particular edit. You can certainly revert it. Note that Wikipedia:Ownership of content may be of interest to you, whether you heed it on a personal or national level. Moncrief (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My point was that his being declared dead in 1999 is not a contentious subject. WP:3RR may be of interest to you: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period"... Firebrace (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He was declared dead for probate purposes but not legally dead as no death certificate was issued. His actual date of death (if he is deceased) is unknown. As this article's main editor, I'm waiting for all the fuss to die down before I look at all the bodges that no doubt will have been made today. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of being the main editor is of no value whatsoever - remember WP:OWN and your recent block for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.131 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be ok to accept this edit for the time being? I do not see why such an edit is "ridiculous" and would request an explanation as to why it is "ridiculous". My belief is that the person was legally declared missing and legally declared dead. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the Ray Gricar example has existed since July 2011, so I do not believe that it would be ridiculous to add in the dates of a person being declared missing and being declared dead in absentia. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As for "everyone knows", I'd never heard of this Lord Lucan; I associate the name with the Crimean War Lord Lucan, famous for leading the Charge of the Light Brigade in the wrong direction. Tennyson: “Forward, the Light Brigade! / Was there a man dismayed? / Not though the soldier knew / Someone had blundered. / Theirs not to make reply / Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die." This Lord Lucan, though something of a loser, did not achieve comparable heights of incompetence. Lord Lucan should redirect to #3, not #7. John Nagle (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's ridiculous because it's the usual attempt to cram information into an infobox, when the best way of presenting such information is in prose. In other words, to gain a correct understanding of the subject, read the article. Parrot of Doom 09:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Then why was the prose deleted as well? Right now, the lede paragraph only contains the date of birth with nothing about a date of presumed death or a date when legally missing. If the issue with that is the format, then we can discuss the MoS for a proper format. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the ongoing argument above, I thought I'd dive in myself and add my own 2p's worth ;-) First, about the date of death, I agree with other(s) that it is best handled in prose because of the complexity: a death certificate's now been issued, but that's just a legal device by my understanding. Also, was there not a presumption of death in 1981 in the article before? I think the 1981 'death' was perhaps also a legal device (being the 7 years after the last sighting, traditional in English law?). In fact, he could have chucked himself off a cross-Channel ferry in 1974, or drunk himself to death somewhere in Africa later, or re-emerged Reggie Perrin-like later - nobody really knows, so really his alive/dead status should be something like 'unknown; presumed dead for legal purposes'. Secondly, he is by a very long way the best-known 'Lord Lucan'. There was one involved in the Charge of the Light Brigade, was there? That rings a bell slightly, but I think that's a bit of a niche association.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just ‘Presumed to have died on or after 7 November 1974’? It makes it clear that he's presumed dead, and it does so without giving precedence to any one of his numerous legal deaths. Esszet (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw what's in the infobox, and if it's fine there, it should also be fine in the lede. Esszet (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (born 18 December 1934; presumed dead), commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer suspected of murder who disappeared in 1974" makes it clear that he died in or after 1974... Firebrace (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Lucan has not been found and is presumed dead; a death certificate was issued in 2016." says much the same. I really don't understand why people are so insistent on condensing every detail of the man's death into the first line of the first paragraph. If viewers can't be bothered to read four paragraphs of text to gain the most basic understanding of the man then I don't see why they'd even bother reading the first line. We shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator. His life is adequately summarised in the lede, it doesn't require pages of arguments over nonsense like this. Parrot of Doom 16:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. See Law of triviality... Firebrace (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH - Right now, the only thing listed is the date of birth, implying that he is legally alive and not legally missing. I do not see why this article breaks the format listed in MoS. --Super Goku V (talk)

Then it should say "(born 18 December 1934; presumed dead)". No dates... Firebrace (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not fully convinced that it would agree with WP:APPROXDATE, but it is likely the best for this issue at this time. Would you be willing to add it to the article once the protection has ended? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

He isn't just presumed dead for legal purposes. His wife, son, family, friends and most level-headed people think he died shortly after the murder of Sandra Rivett. It should be noted here that Lucan has been declared dead three times: 1992, 1999 and 2016. Each time, he was presumed to have died on or after 8 November 1974 because he had been missing for more than seven years. A pronouncement of death is always for legal purposes. As of 2013 you can be dead without a body so his fate is not unknown. The Presumption of Death Act 2013 states (paraphrasing): "A declation under this Act is conclusive of the missing person's presumed death and the date and time of the death". [11] There is no room for doubt: he's dead. "Unknown", "he might be alive" and "this is how old he would be if he were still alive" are not only tacky but constitute WP:ORIGINAL research given that no reliable source has said anything to that effect since the final ruling... Firebrace (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, ‘presumed to have died on or after 8 November 1974’ or even just ‘presumed dead’ does not describe every detail of Lord Lucan's legal (and quite possibly biological) death, they're both quite vague. And yes, you can glean that information simply by reading the lede, but, by the same token, couldn't you also simply glean his date of birth from the infobox, and wouldn't that render any mention of his date of birth in the lede unnecessary? If you're going to include his date of birth in the lede as it is now, you might as well also say something about his legal death right after it; it would be simply irrational to include one without the other. Esszet (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add the "presumed death" text and as the matter is covered in the lede's final paragraph I'd rather there be no mention of it at all. The article originally sidestepped the matter of his mortality by giving a birth date and saying that he disappeared and that's still my preference. But it isn't something I feel strongly about, other than to object strongly to any "presumed dead in 19xx for x reason but no death certificate for y reason until 2016" type nonsense because, well frankly, it's plain silly. People are focusing on something so unimportant at the expense of other Wikipedia articles, but this has been going on for years and nothing will ever change. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Esszet: to all intents and purposes, his "legal death" and biological death are one and the same. If a court finds someone guilty of murder, we don't write "X was found legally guilty of murder in 2016 but he might still be innocent". X can appeal against the verdict and have it overturned, in which case he would no longer be guilty of murder, but until that happens we have to respect the law and accept that he is guilty. The same applies in the case of a presumed death: a court has ruled that he is dead, which means that he is. Not just for legal purposes, but actually dead, with a certificate to prove it. The Presumption of Death Act 2013 makes it very clear that the ruling is conclusive and would only be overturned if he turns up alive. Until then, he is dead... Firebrace (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, he's been declared completely legally dead. That is a major event in his life and should undoubtedly be included in the article. And even if you do still feel that the article should simply say he disappeared, ‘Presumed to have died on or after 8 November 1974’ isn't that type of nonsense, is it? It's not overly detailed, and it still makes clear that he has been legally presumed dead. Firebrace, are you saying we should simply say he died on 8 November 1974 or some other date associated with his various legal deaths? Any of those dates may or may not be the date he actually died (if he is dead), and if he is still alive (as he may well be; he'd be 81, not 157), he's still alive, and thus not actually dead; legal presumption of death does not magically kill people. Esszet (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying leave the article as it is, though I would not be against "(born 18 December 1934; presumed dead)". Lucan's death certificate is the most reliable source there is for his dead-or-alive status and date of death. It makes no difference that your brain thinks he might be alive; your brain is not WP:RELIABLE... Firebrace (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"That is a major event in his life and should undoubtedly be included in the article." - it is. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Firebrace, now you're not making sense; you wouldn't be against ‘presumed dead’ and you're in favor of leaving the article as it is, but you're saying we should regard him as, for all intents and purposes, biologically dead as well? In that case, why not just say ‘died on or after 8 November 1974’? And Parrot of Doom, exactly, so why not put it right next to his date of birth in the lede? As I've said before, it would be illogical to include one there without the other. Esszet (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"so why not put it right next to his date of birth in the lede" - because we don't know when he died and trying to explain that in brackets is messy and stupid. And if any readers find that confusing, then perhaps they shouldn't be reading the English Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Because then it would say the same thing twice: "Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (born 18 December 1934; died on or after 8 November 1974), commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer suspected of murder who disappeared in 1974." The fact that he is presumed dead and went missing in 1974 tells you all you need to know: that he died in or after 1974. Wikipedia is for the readers not the significant number of editors who (bizarrely) want everything to look the same because "it's logical" (to them)... Firebrace (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Baronet of Nova Scotia

This is listed in his titles, which I think gives the misleading impression that he was 'Baronet of Nova Scotia' in the same sense that he was Earl of Lucan. Is there some better way of phrasing it? Does the source of the baronetcy even matter - do we say 'Baronet of England' in the sidebars of comparable people with English baronetcies? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably list it as "Baronet (of Castlebar)". Proteus (Talk) 16:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to Baronet Bingham of Castlebar. I did so earlier in the body article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-headings

Any chance you're going to actually justify your reversions, Parrot of Doom? The accessibility guidelines are pretty clear about not using pseudo-headings, whereas the only argument you've made is that that's how it's been. --Xanzzibar (talk)

They're guidelines, not rules. The headings are as they are to reduce clutter. I can't find it for now but I know for a fact that for a long time, Wikipedia also said something along the lines of "don't waltz in and change things based purely on your personal preference". Parrot of Doom 17:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You can make spurious accusations of editing to personal preference all you like, but that won't make it true. I've cited the guideline I'm basing this on, to make things more readily accessible for those with screen readers. The only one here editing to personal preference is you, since you can't or won't cite a guideline.

Also, you should self-revert your violation of the three revert rule, since this is the fourth revert of me you've made in the last 24 hours. --Xanzzibar (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, I found it "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[b] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot." And as I've said until I'm blue in the face, I don't care about blocks or implied threats. Go ahead and make your report if you like. Parrot of Doom 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You feel it's acceptable to make navigation more difficult for readers using screen readers? I'm not quibbling over column widths, I'm trying to keep things accessible for all users. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I feel it's acceptable to make navigation less difficult for ordinary readers. I don't like clutter. Parrot of Doom 18:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In what way do actual headings make it more difficult for "ordinary" readers? It improves their ability to navigate the article, as well, since they can jump straight to the various sections. Also, instituting a style because "I don't like clutter" is the very definition of editing based on your personal preferences. This is not your article.--Xanzzibar (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ableism, gosh there's a word for everything. Now I'm an ableist, I see. What's the word for people who ignore counterarguments? People can click the references section and go from there, it isn't hard and being offended on behalf of others isn't big or clever. Parrot of Doom 19:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You can make the same argument for any sub-headings - for example, why have a marriage sub-section in personal life when someone could just scroll down to it? Why arbitrarily apply it to only the references/further reading sections?

And what argument have I ignored, exactly? --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Xanzzibar, you are ignoring the counterargument offered by PoD. You think that just having a different opinion qualifies you to revert to your preffered version and then wave the OWN flag at those who disagree with you. It doesn't. Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, which counter-argument have I ignored? The only thing offered is personal taste in style (lack of "clutter"), which is secondary to accessibility issues. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been no accessibility issues up until now, so I don't see this "issue" at all. Rather than trying to force your preference onto the page, despite it passing WP:FA without it, I might add, why don't you try discussing things first? You cannot mindlessly revert and enforce your POV on an article which has gone through the vigorous process of FAC. Discussion is essential. Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a silly feud to get worked up about. I believe PoD / Cassianto's version of the formatting is consistent with other GAs and FAs I have both seen and worked on. Nikkimaria has done quite a few formatting changes of this ilk, and I did question it once or twice, but now I'm used to it, and I think it's important to emphasise that it really doesn't matter too much one way or the other. I'd much rather we were concerned about the article being well-written and factually accurate, and for an FA it damn well should be. I appreciate that trying to keep an FA under control is difficult when the subject has suddenly been all over the news, and I don't really have a good answer to that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What really annoys me about these kind of things (it isn't the first time) is that some user comes onto the page, sees something he doesn't like, and changes it. Fine, I disagree with the change and revert (usually with a brief explanation in the summary). Said user then insta-reverts, eventually coming onto the talk page to start waving guidelines and rulebooks around. Now I don't care about blocks and that malarky and I no longer engage in the nonsense seen on the admin pages, so I'll just keep reverting until someone finally points out the correct process here - which is WP:BRD. Anyone who engages me in a level-headed discussion won't receive any contempt, unless they just mindlessly repeat the same old arguments year after year (I'm not referring to Xanzzibar here).

Regarding this article, I like things well structured, neat and tidy. Using level three headers for references sections not only serves no purpose (who would ever click on them anyway when the section is so short) but it clutters up the contents box and makes it less readable. It's the same with infoboxes, they just become arenas of chaff, filled with useless information that's better offered in prose. I've used the same system in all the articles I've had heavy input on and I cannot recall it being an issue at any stage of review, be it GAN or FAC - and those processes are populated by far more experienced editors than me.

As for accessibility, I don't believe the way I format headings is any less accessible for the disabled than using level three headings. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Er...Ritchie, I've changed from ;Heading to '''Heading''', but not from '''Heading''' to ===Heading===. Definition list headings (the semicolon option) cause problems for screenreaders, but my understanding is that regular bolding (what this article uses) does not. See this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References sections aren't always all that short, especially in a high-quality article, so being able to skip past the footnote citations to get to get to other type of references is potentially useful for people with readers. The bold formatting doesn't mess up their reading like semicolons do (readers just note that it's in bold and then read it), but it's still a navigational issue.

I guess I just don't see how making them actual headings makes anything more cluttered. It's basically the same text, in the same place, at the same size. The only meaningful difference is a line or two in the ToC for navigation. It's not nearly the same as a crufty infobox.--Xanzzibar (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't find "it got through FA" (lots of things pass FA with issues) or "nobody's complained yet" (people are often silent on things) to be particularly compelling arguments, or a reason not to try and improve accessibility where we can. That said, this article is otherwise fantastic in its layout (I especially appreciate the preservation of formatting in quoted materials), so I'll leave well enough alone. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Death certificate issued

That pretty much establishes a date of death, doesn't it? It's been announced in a number of reputable sources, and meams there will now be a succession. When it put it in, it was reverted. Why don't you folks who maintain the article want that date listed as his death date? Pkeets (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the exact date on the death certificate has not been published anywhere. It is probably 8 November 1981, that being seven years to the day since Lucan disappeared, but we cannot hazard a guess in the article because it would constitute WP:ORIGINAL research. The 1999 probate document, which declared him officially dead, stated: "Be it known that the Right Honourable Richard John Bingham, Seventh Earl of Lucan, of 72a Elizabeth Street, London SW1, died on or since the 8th day of November 1974." [12] We have to use that until the date on his death certificate is revealed publicly... Firebrace (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If you don't want to protect the whole article, you could put an explanation about that in the partial protection notice where users could see it when they start to edit. Pkeets (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it would only be his "judicial date of death". This kind of declaration that somebody is deemed to have decesed doesn't attempt to pinpoint the date of actual death, which will often remain unknowable. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the article so everyone can edit it now. I think the discussions about the infobox and formatting have now died down so we hopefully won't get any more edit warring issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry

I have reverted an edit by someone who has included a vast amount of information to do with Lucan's ancestral history. A major edit such as this, I feel, should be discussed first on a featured article. What do others think? Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to the inclusion of an Ahnentafel or other ancestry box; but I'd want a more reliable source than the one offered. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think complicated ancestories should take the form of separate articles. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I would rather this article not get too bogged down with the listing of distant reletives. I'm having this exact problem on a peer review to do with Olivia de Havilland at the moment where the nominator is convinced that everyone should know about de Havilland's reletive who fought in William the Conquerer's army nearly 1,000 years ago. Cassianto^Talk 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

James Bond

Hi I was surprised to read he was once considered for the role of James Bond in the lead. It's a bit of a stretch really isn't it because we read all the way down to see that in actuality he turned down the offer of a screen test. So he wasnt considered for the role he didnt get that far. Shouldn't it be classified as trivia, it certainly isnt a defining feature of the man Hmcst1 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Cassianto^Talk 22:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

New book?

This book appears nowhere in the article, not even in the lists of Non-Fiction or Fiction:-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Lucan-Encounter-Clive-Payne/dp/1786237520

Perhaps this could be added. Testbed (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Inquest - last time allowed or last time exercised?

...in his absence the inquest into Rivett's death named him as her murderer, the last occasion in Britain a coroner's court was allowed to do so...

The law wasn't changed for another two and half years - did a jury need the judge's permission to deliver this verdict with this being the last occasion it was granted or was this just the last time a jury actually exercised a power that could have been used until mid 1977? Timrollpickering 00:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

"The Right Honourable" is an honorific used for earls. It is not a description. Whether editors think he was an honourable man or not is irrelevant. Is there some valid reason we should not be using the honorific title "The Right Honourable" in this article? This is a featured article and the honorific has been in the article for at least three years (I didn't go back any further). Meters (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay in for the reasons given above. I think many would certainly agree that he was (or is??) not a nice man, and probably not particularly deserving of lovely honorifics. But we are not a court, nor an arbiter of socially appropriate language, nor yet a place to Right Great Wrongs, so I think it needs to stay unless or until someone comes up with a clear and convincing policy-based argument for its removal. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I've seen no reference stating that the honorific "Right Honorable" must be used when naming an earl. It is a convention that does not need to be followed in cases where it is clear that the honorific does not apply. Lord Lucan 7 is broadly acknowledged (on wikipedia and elsewhere) to be a murderer who fled authorities rather than standing trial. We should not blindly follow convention and assign him the honorific "Right Honorable" in this case. I agree that wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs" as asserted by DBaK. However, it is a place to cultivate the truth to the best of our collective knowledge. In some cases, blindly following convention runs counter to this principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaygerlach (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The only questions here as I see it are: 1) Is he rightfully an earl? (And are there reliable sources for it) and 2) Is "Right Honorable" the appropriate title for an earl? Frankly, Jaygerlach, you would need to present reliable sources that contradict either of my above points and gain a consensus based on that. Your viewpoint on his worthiness (along with mine) have no place here. This is an encyclopedia and as such is based entirely on information paraphrased from reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nordhoek?

On another note, did the authorities ever look for Lucan at the late John Aspinall's mansion in Nordhoek, Cape Town? I worked there. Plenty of hidden doors, secret passages and so on ...... Never found him.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. 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/20151117030414/http://www.westendextra.com/lordlucan to http://www.westendextra.com/lordlucan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. 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/20120606235852/http://www.ladylucan.co.uk/index1.htm to http://www.ladylucan.co.uk/index1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming

Is it necessary to put "(colloquially known simply as Lord Lucan)". All peers are referred to as Lord Whatever. Mintguy 03:26, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Duke of Omnium is referred to as that, not as 'Lord Omnium'. Xxanthippe 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How many of those peers are reguarly discussed in popular press, and the subject of books? Besides which, the bracketed text ensures that the page is found by anyone seaching for the string "Lord Lucan". Andy Mabbett 10:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A search for Lord Lucan gives you this disambiguation page which is appropriate for this encyclopaedia, because there was more than one notable Lord Lucan. As for the usage of figures about whom book have been written what about Lord Lichfield, Lord Byron, Lord Longford, Lord Hailsham, Lord Louis Mountbatten, Lord Nelson, Lord Hailifax, Lord Russell, Lord North etc. etc.. Mintguy 16:10, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is necessary to put "colloquially known simply as Lord Lucan" because of the frequency he is referred to like this when his title is Earl of Lucan. Dukes are known simply as Duke and not as Lord as the other grades of the peerage are known. They are Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.It is correct to refer to them firstly by their actual title and thereafter to refer to them simply as "Lord". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess of Lucan (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that this Wikipedia entry refers solely to Richard Bingham. It is just as inaccurate to refer to Boris Johnson as Alexander Johnson. Boris was christened Alexander Boris but no-one calls him anything other than Boris. Similarly the 7th Earl of Lucan was christened Richard John Bingham but he has never been called Richard but always John Bingham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Early life

No doubt this has been edited over time - it certainly feels like it. For example we are told that Lucan didn't know Goldsmith at Eton. I suspect there are several people at Eton he didn't know, can we clarify why the people mentioned are important to his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei2g (talk • contribs) 23:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The "Mark Way" affair

I can find no other references to this anywhere on the Internet outside Wikipedia mirrors. I would imagine it would have found its way into the local press at least, given its recent date, so I'm assuming it's a piece of false information and am deleting as such. -- Archfalhwyl 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Officially dead

I have firmed up the statement about the High Court officially declaring Lucan dead. For a reference see [13] .jguk 18:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If he has been declared "officially dead" by the high court, why can his son not claim the peerage? And why is his death simply assumed to have been in 1992? Why should this be a logical assumption? He has not been declared "officially dead" by the high court. I have already stated that the 7th Earl's son can style himself Earl of Lucan.. What he cannot do is take his father's seat. The Lord Chancellor would not authorise it. There are now only 98 hereditary peers left sitting in the House of Lords as the rest have been expelled. The remaining 98 hereditary peers will also be expelled in due course.The law moves in mysterious ways and to the uninitiated it may well appear illogical. If you don't understand something, don't you ask me? My email address is "countessoflucan@hotmail.com I also want to make clear that Bill Shand Kydd was not one of the 7th Earl's close friends.(See his sworn witness statement for the coroner at the inquest on Mrs Sandra Rivett.) He is no relation of the late Frances Shand Kydd. He is my brother-in-law and by extension my late husband's brother-in-law also.The interesting relationship is that of the 7th Earl of Lucan to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. He is a fifth cousin and second cousin once removed of Diana, Princess of Wales, her brother Earl Spencer and his sisters.

"He owned a house in Castlebar Co. Mayo Ireland and to this day he still owns most of Castlebar." How can this be if probate was granted in 1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lady Lucan's web page - [14] says that the son IS now the 8th Earl but he chooses not to use the title. Further, Lady Lucan's page quotes the High Court grant giving his death as "on or since 8th November 1974." If there's no objection here in the next couple of weeks I'll edit the article. Cathi M 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection registered - the 7th Earl of Lucan has not been declared "officially dead". He has been presumed deceased - quite a different thing. There is nothing to prevent the 7th Earl of Lucan's son styling himself Earl of Lucan but he cannot take his father's seat because the Lord Chancellor would not authorise it. See current editions of Debrett's Peerage and Burke's Peerage & Baronetage. The late Lord Lucan was presumed deceased in Chambers on 11th December 1992. The order enabled the trustees to deal with the 7th Earl of Lucan's Settled Estate on the basis that he was dead. It is correct to state that on 11th August 1999 Probate was granted and this refers to the 7th Earl's free estate as opposed to the settled estate. The probate process was therefore not protracted, it was delayed - quite a different thing. Probate means the official proving of a Will, a verified copy of the Will with certificate as handed to executor.I am not wrong.My husband was not declared legally dead by the High Court in 1999. Probate was granted on 11th August 1999 and is not an official confirmation of death for all purposes; nor does it operate as if it were a death certificate. The grant is valid for probate purposes only and is a technical requirement for the administration of the subject's estate.

Don't see a problem with the article referring to Lady Lucan's assertion that her son is now the 8th Earl - she does assert that, even if she's wrong. Need not say that he IS the 8th Earl, only that she says he is. Cathi M 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"High society" has many mansions

"High society" like any other horizontal cross-section of the social pyramid, contains a variety of persons, ranging from rogues and morons to saints and geniuses. Like in the other cross-sections, the greater bulk in between consists of average decent respectable people of no particular note. Of course, the rogues make the best stories. Read Balzac, Thackeray, Proust.

It therefore seems unfair to tar the whole of "high society" with the brush of Lord Lucan's gambling associates who would have found little welcome in the better parts of it. Xanthippe.

Detail?

From beginning to end this article refers solely to his murder and his disappearance and nothing about his early life, or even where he was born, and to whom. Surely something like this, as it stands, should be re-titled "The Lucan Murder", or something smilar? Otherwise these details really should be addressed.

I noticed that too and I have tried adding some other biographical info. I only found references to him being a student of Eton, in the Coldstream Guards, and his gambling friends, though. It's rather hard finding anything else. There is of course, the stuff about his right-wing political views, with him buying Mein Kampf, etc. But I don't know how to incorporate that in the article. It has a good source (the Observer) but if you know how it can be inserted, go for it! --Ashley Rovira 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)If you want more details why don't you email me at countessoflucan@lycos.com ?

Otherpoints I wish to make clear are that the 7th Earl is a second cousin once removed and a fifth cousin of the late Diana Princess of Wales, her brother Earl Spencer and his two sisters. Bill Shand Kydd is NOT related to the late Frances Shand Kydd. He is my brother-in-law and by extension the 7th Earl's brother-in-law as well. The 7th Earl was born on 18th December 1934 in London. He married Veronica Mary Duncan third daughter of late Major Charles Moorhouse Duncan M.C.on 28th November 1963 when he was still Lord Bingham. He succeeded to the title approximately 7 weeks later on 21st January 1964 following the death of the 6th Earl. Newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate which is why I set up my website called Setting the Record Straight. The late Sir James Goldsmith was two years older than the 7th Earl of Lucan and left Eton early so the two did not know each other during their schooldays. What I have written is verifiable.

It is said that "There was no evidence of another assailant". But is there any evidence that Lucan was the assailand. Fingerprints, for instance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The evidence that Lucan was the assailant includes the detailed testimony of Lady Lucan, pretty persuasive I would suggest. There is in addition a huge volume of circumstantial evidence. As to whether there were fingerprints, according to Lady Lucan he was wearing gloves when he attacked her (ITV interview 2017)

New Zealand sightings

Somebody appears to have pasted a news article whole-sale into the text, rather than linking to it. This should probably be removed. Sladen 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The entry should be removed in any case, as it was a completely bogus "sighting", and not worthy of serious consideration. I could accuse my neighbour of being Lucan, but wouldn't add that accusation to the Wikipedia entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"most of Castlebar"?

The "Early life and career" section ends "to this day he still owns most of Castlebar." The "Probate" section states "The net value [of his estate] remaining amounted to less than £15,000", and provides a citation. I am sceptical of the former statement. The Probate section is referring to his free estate not his settled estate.The Irish Estate is part of his settled estate and not included in Probate.Maproom (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I have put an infobox into the article and a photo.--andreasegde (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Case reopened in 2004

I have a paper clipping from The Age (Melbourne) dated 18 October 2004, reproducing a piece from The Telegraph, which says the case was being reopened by London's Metropolitan Police, using DNA profiling and computer age-progression software. Did this go anywhere? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it went nowhere.

Thanks to my anonymous interlocutor. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

8th Earl of Lucan

Do we know definitively that the son of the missing and now dead-in-absentia 7th Earl cannot use his father's title and style himself the 8th Earl of Lucan? Do we have an indisputable source? His estranged mother, the Countess of Lucan says, “He automatically became 8th Earl of Lucan when his father was presumed deceased in 1992 but chose not to use the title. No one else has a claim to it. He is the 7th Earl of Lucan's only son and heir.”[15] The Lord Chancellor refused him a writ of summons to sit, but no-one can deny him the right to use his title. In a newspaper article Lord Bingham said "Five years ago I obtained an order from a Chancery Court which, I am advised does everything you can in law to treat a man as dead. So from that moment (11th December 1992) forward, given no disputed claim I had succeeded to the title. I shall now begin calling myself the 8th Earl of Lucan." SpikeToronto (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED

Edits have been removed in relation to supposed sightings of Lucas, and WP:ALLEGED has been invoked in said removal. To quote WP:ALLEGED "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Read the final part of the sentence. By nature every sighting of Lord Lucan is an example of when "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". This is an obvious truth. As the words of every person in this article to have allegedly sighted Lucan are completely unsubstantiated, the word "alleged" is perfectly acceptable in that particular context, as clearly defined by WP:ALLEGED. There are other instances of this elsewhere in the article. Example, "a former Scotland Yard detective thought that he had tracked the earl to Goa." and "interviewed a homeless British expatriate who neighbours claimed was the missing earl".

Another reason should be provided for the edit removal, or it should be restored. Progressive reactionary (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You do not get to add whatever the hell you like to a featured article just because you want to. If you are reverted, such as you have been, you should abide by WP:BRD and seek a consensus via the talk page. What you are trying to add is merely speculation and goes against the MoS, here. Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I was put off creating an account on this for many years because of people like yourself I'm sad to say. You've been incredibly hostile to me. For starters, you revert my edit purely on the basis of it being "uninteresting". For one, there is no objective means of determining what is 'interesting' and what isn't. I found it interesting. And as it came from the son of the victim I thought it pertinent-- perhaps more pertinent than some of the other alleged sightings for that very reason. Secondly, you accuse me of edit warring. I simply asked you to provide a more substantive reason for removing my edit-- perfectly reasonable in my opinion. 'Uninteresting' should not be acceptable in any academic setting. Because you're an experienced user or something do you get to arrogate yourself to the position of deciding what is or what isn't interesting? Honestly, I'd say it was on you to explain what was 'uninteresting' in the talk page. I accuse you of starting the 'war' as you put it (which consisted of 2 reverts.) Thirdly, you do kindly provide a legitimate reason, which I try and rebuke sensibly above, and in return you address none of my points. As WP:ALLEGED clearly states "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted." Accusing a man of being Lord Lucan is wrongdoing being asserted. Alleged is therefore acceptable in that context. As I said there are other instances. To be quite frank, I don't care at all. I was only trying to help. I just found you rather impolite. I barely even know what a 'featured article' is, but I'll assume it means you're the dictator here, and I'm dirt in comparison, so I'll just leave you to it then.Progressive reactionary (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because you find something interesting, doesn't necessarily mean it should be added. Just because something exists, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be added. This is not a database to include every known fact, tidbit, and nugget of all known information about any given subject. It is an encyclopaedia and everything should be sourced reliably and scrutinised. Secondly, have you even read WP:BRD? The cycle was designed to assist in collegial discussion rather than edit warring. You were Bold is adding it, I Reverted you, you must then Discuss it. You didn't. You were bold, I reverted, and you reverted again. That is edit warring. Thirdly, we cannot have material that alleges anything. Until something is confirmed, then that is what is added. But that is up to you to discuss on the talk page. Open up a WP:RFC. That way, you will gauge the opinions of others to see if they think it is a good idea. Lastly, a featured article is an article that has been through a very vigorous review. It is well sourced, written, researched. WP:FACR explains what is needed for an article to be considered as a featured article. You will know a featured article by the gold star in the top right hand side of the article's page. We have over a thousand of them. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

My response would be just because you find something uninteresting, doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed. Interest is subjective and wasn't the reason for my adding it. I added it as I thought it was pertinent due to the alleger's link to the victim. But I get what you mean now though-- "Until something is confirmed"-- the person in question hasn't been identified yet, so until then no mention of it. Fair enough. When you said "merely speculation" in your first reply, I didn't understand straight away, as technically all the sightings mentioned here are speculation. If you'd have made than clear initially rather than going down the unusual road of saying it's boring no doubt would've avoided this. Still I appreciate the slightly more friendly tone you've taken with me this time.Progressive reactionary (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I will find it interesting when the sightings are confirmed to be true, but up until then, sadly, it is merely gossip. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the sighting in question, as with every other sighting of Lord Lucan on this page, and as with all future sightings, with no doubt be false. Still, I'll endeavour to ensure that any future edits I make which fall within the jurisdiction of your little realm here and elsewhere conform to your own personal standards of interest-- and no one else's. Good day.Progressive reactionary (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, I just find it mystifying how somebody who's obviously an intelligent person (as one glance at your profile suggests), thinks "uninteresting" is acceptable in any academic sense. It stinks of arrogance. I've not been here long, but a few clicks clearly found it to be afoul of WP:REVERTING.

"Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony."

"ubinteresting" does not satisfy any of that, as any reasonably sensible/intelligent person would know. It is I who find you unbelievable for exactly that reason. Just because you're evidently superior to me on this website doesn't mean you can be about doing whatever you like to other peoples work. I shouldn't have to argue with you just to get a legitimate reason for reverting me, which i eventually did. It puts people off from genuinely wanting to contribute here.Progressive reactionary (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

An edit summary is not the be all and end all, that is what a talk page is for. If you took umbrage at my edit summary, then you were free to discuss it here, which we have. Not only that, but hopefully I have also introduced you to a bit more of how this place works. But to still be banging on about a one-word edit summary seems to be a little moot now the main issue has been solved. Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of how trivial it is, and I don't care at all about the original edit at this point-- i've already conceded defeat there-- only your attempts to justify yourself baffle me. It is your obligation to provide a valid explanation for your revert. Those are the rules. I'm fully within my rights to ask for one before going to the talk page (which I immediately did upon being given one). Just because your name has a dark background behind it doesn't make you above the rules anymore than me. You must have been aware that your reason was wholly inadequate and would lead to problems, as clearly defined by WP:Reverting (and Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts for that matter)-- yet you persisted anyway-- and further still was hostile with me upon being called out on this. I only ask you to be more civil with people in the future. But, despite everything, I appreciate you clearing a few things up for me.Progressive reactionary (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"I'm fully within my rights to ask for one before going to the talk page..." not by edit warring, you're not. A "dark background"? Oh dear. Time for you and I to part ways. Good evening. Cassianto^Talk 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)