Talk:William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

we should probably move him back to "William Pitt the Elder", since that is what he is known as most comonly -- Tarquin 00:26, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and more specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). These basically say to use the most common name of a person. 30 pages link to William Pitt the Elder and only 3 to the other version. Angela 00:34, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Once again convention prevails against common sense. A man universally known as "William Pitt the Elder" is now treated under "William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham", by which he was not known, nor ever could be: the surname and the title are not used together. Why do we not treat him under "William Pitt, 1st Viscount Pitt of Burton Pynsset, 1st Earl of Chatham"? - Binky 03:23, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Move this to William Pitt the Elder. Lirath Q. Pynnor—Preceding undated comment added at 03:25, 5 January 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. He is very frequently known as William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Certainly more often than Disraeli is Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield. Go over there and complain first. Until you get that moved back to Benjamin Disraeli, Chatham stays. john 05:42, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Again, there's a discussion of this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. Go voice your opinion there. The current consensus seems to be that most people should be known by their highest title, with some exceptions (I tend to think that many 20th century personages who were given peerage titles after retirement - and probably earlier figures in similar situations like Robert Walpole) should be given their common name. Most other people should be listed by their higher title. Certainly there's absolutely no excuse for referring to an eighteenth century personage, who is very commonly referred to as Chatham (there are 4,220 hits on Google for "Earl of Chatham" - I'd imagine that most of these are for the first earl, rather than his elder son. And there are 2,040 hits for "Lord Chatham". Certainly nowhere near as many as for "William Pitt", but both have more hits than does "William Pitt the Elder"). For the latter part of his career, he is certainly universally known as "Chatham". This should be enough for Chatham to be the name in use, since obviously isn't going to be called "Chatham" for the time before he received the title. john 05:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, Binky says: the surname and the title are not used together. Please tell this to the hundreds of other articles on peers which do exactly this, and the numerous lists of officeholders which do the same, including those in Handbook of British Chronology. Note such fine articles as Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, Archibald Philip Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby, Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. If you have a problem with the official naming convention take it up on the names and titles convention page, or on the wikiproject peerage page. john 05:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the surnames being used with titles, I concur entirely with John Kenney. There are severable respected sources that use surnames with titles, including Britannica. -- Lord Emsworth 21:24, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

After a brief interlude, Pitt was recalled by King George II and became Prime Minister in a coalition government with Newcastle. As wartime Prime Minister Pitt oversaw the defeat of France in India and Canada before his disagreements with King George III led to his resignation in 1761.

According to List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom he was Prime Minister once (between 1766-68). One of the articles has to be wrong. --Nk 13:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Secretary of the State for the Southern Department between 1757 and 1761, Pitt was the leading figure in the ministry, and might be unofficially referred to as "Prime Minister." Newcastle was the official head of the ministry, at least insofar a ministries at this point can be said to have "official" heads - prime minister at this point was still an informal office. john k 15:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have rewritten to get round using the term "Prime Minister".

Does anyone feel brave enough to merge the two sets of text into a single article? Timrollpickering 16:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Argh, this page needs to be merged sometime... ugen64 23:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Typical - you make a stab at merging, then someone suddenly notices that it's a copyvio, and it all gets deleted.

*sighs*

James F. (talk) 00:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Corn

This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 29 June 2005 13:17 (UTC)

The link is in reference to an embargo on shipment of corn & referred to corn in the generic sense, that is any grain kernel (eg wheat, barley, maize, etc). AllanHainey 08:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. — Pekinensis 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Strategy

A key point that was missed was the defence of hanover. Pitt's involvemnt in the continental warfare was therefore two fold. He used the army of observation to tie up French resources and also to ensure that hanover was kept safe.

With regards to his resignation in 1761 he actualy proposed a pre emptive strike against Spain.

I have edited the article with regards to these points.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcwheeler (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If England had heeded Pitt's warnings, and kept the spice islands, etc, after the 7-Years War, England's national income would have been much larger (and France's much smaller). This in turn would have made it easier to pay down the mounting debt. Thus this article's claim that there were "good reasons" to prematurely stop fighting France (from an English point of view) are illogical and baseless. It is far better to incur some additional expenses today (by continuing the war) to acquire a significantly larger revenue stream tomorrow (by keeping the Spice Islands, etc).

In short, from a purely ENGLISH perspective, Pitt was 100.00% RIGHT and the opposition, de facto, amounted to anti-English, pro-French treason. Note that the lower income from giving away the Spice Islands in turn required higher taxes... which led to the American Revolution, beginning the 200 year-long dismemberment of the Protestant British Empire... to the glee of Catholic France, incidentally.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-checking

"The eccentric duchess of Marlborough, dying in 1744, at the age of ninety" The page for Sarah Churchill gives her age at death as 84. Which is correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.206.129 (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

She died aged 84 and I've changed this. Also removed the word eccentric as a descrition for sarah is this not fair to her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcwheeler (talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gout, Heriditary Gout, An Heriditary Gout?

I've never seen the word used in such a fashion, is this correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.43.138 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I've added a WP:NOR tag because this page contains analysis of Lord Chatham's life and events in it without citing its sources. Would anyone with specialized knowledge be willing to clean it up a bit? TysK 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the right tag as it is basically the EB 1911 article. Piccadilly 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized that a while back but I suppose I forgot to remove the tag- thank you. TysK 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit EB 1911

I don't suppose anyone feels up to the task of trying to bring this into the 21st century? EB isn't a bad base, but it wouldn't take that much to make this a much more readable article assuming they have an idea of what the EB is blathering on about. Old64mb 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very good at formatting, so i'm just gonna put it here, but this article is way too text heavy. It needs a lot more subheads and pictures, if possible, to make it more visually appealing to the reader, and that would also make it eaier to read (Nelson48 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

This art

has a lot of bias. Work on it?Quatreryukami (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was William Pitt Prime minister in 1759?

I am currently in a discussion on another page about whether Pitt was Prime Minister in 1759 when he ordered Wolfe to take Canada. I was taught at school that Pitt was not PM - is that true? He is absent from the List of Prime Ministers of the UK, but here it says he was Prime Minister.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.89.44 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably strictly accurate as he held the post of Southern Secretary of State rather than First Lord of the Treasury during the taking of Quebec. The term Prime Minister was not a formal post, but was generally applied to whoever ran the Treasury, and during 1759 that was the Duke of Newcastle not Pitt. Nonetheless it was Pitt who directed most of Britain’s war strategy. To sum up then it would probably be best to avoid the term Prime Minister - war leader might be a more appropriate phrase. Hope that helps. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it does, yeah. Thank you. 86.157.89.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Having looked at the article in question, the use of the term Prime Minister was probably justifiable (as it was a brief, short summary of a film). I've put a response to you on the talk page over there. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding Pgh navbar and wikiproject

Hello all, I am from the greatest current legacy (arguably) of the Earl. I wanted to give you a heads up that I was considering adding: {{Pittsburgh}} and the discussion page to Wiki Project Pittsburgh. I understand that the Earl had very little to do with the actual city during his lifetime, but in many ways people that would have never known of him discover his statemenship when they ask how the city got its name. Thanks for your consideration.Hholt01 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this as no one has any objections? Hholt01 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pitt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pitt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrible, unencyclopaedic article

This entire article reads like a statement from the Pitt the Elder fan club. Gushing about his "single genius" and so forth. The tone is utterly wrong and facts wildly biased. Personally I'm a fan of him and his works too, but the article in its present form is a disgrace. Phunting (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree totally - this is partly a result of the fact that much of the article is still made up from extracts of the 1911 Britannica article, which tended to use more florid language. I've been meaning to try and have a major drive on this article, I just haven't got round to it so far. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gathered some sources on Pitt now, so I'll try and have a push at improving the referencing and ironing out some of the more florid phrases over the next few days. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop taking yourself so seriously. It's freakin' Wikipedia for god sakes... who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.226.232 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

When did he collapse / when did he die?

The Tate painting suggests he collapsed in July 1778, but the article suggests he died in May 1778.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.204.176 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He collapsed on 7 April 1778 and died on 11 May 1778. Can't comment on what you say is the suggested date, but the title Copley gave to his painting is a misnomer, for Pitt did not die until 34 days after the seizure in the House of Lords that Copley depicts.Cloptonson (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fall of Walpole

Is it correct to refer to Spencer Compton as Lord Wilmington when saying he succeeded Walpole? According to Compton's page, I believe his title would have been Earl at the time (succeeded in 1742, became Earl in 1730)? 82.0.151.209 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)tulster

He held and bore that title when he succeeded Walpole. Compton/Wilmington was the first Prime Minister to take office from the House of Lords.Cloptonson (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Erroneously captioned portrait

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham

The caption to the German engraving by Ernst Posselt, dated 1805 is incorrect in calling the depicted man the "1st Earl of Chatham" - it is in fact of Chatham's namesake son Pitt the Younger, whose retroussé nose contrasted with the more hooked nose of his father (noticeable in the Richard Brompton portrait of Chatham in infobox).Cloptonson (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. 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/20070420212700/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page167.asp to http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page167.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Leadership

It seems to me that Pitt may have perceived that the French military commanders and Middle Class had become effeminate and less effective than their reputation, whereas the British Middle Class (of which Pitt could be considered a member) remained more robust and therefore in contention to defeat French military pretensions. Indeed the subsequent French Revolution indicated that the French upper classes were less capable of keeping the lid on than reputed. Perhaps the relative standing of naval forces also had something to do with it. Is there anything known to support these explanations of why Pitt might have concluded that France, the mightiest power in Europe, was vulnerable to Britain?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c0:8000:59c0:3966:9a9a:52d5:da01 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Pittsboro, NC named for Pitt the Younger?

May need to remove Pittsboro, NC from list of places named for Pitt the Elder. Both the Pittsboro, NC and Pitt the Younger Wikipedia articles mention Pittsboro, NC as being named for Pitt the Younger. I do not know from any outside source which article is correct, but they are not consistent. Danral (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming, Part the Third

I understand the arguments above yet I believe that it might be better to change the "chatham" in the prime minister box to something like "chatham (pitt the elder)". It doesn't make sense to have a "pitt the younger" in the list but no elder. The alternative would be to remove the "the younger"-part from pitt the younger but I fear it might lead to some confusion. thanks, andreas_td 20:39, 15 Mars 2006 (UTC+2)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas td (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. "Pitt the Elder" and "Earl of Chatham" are common enough names that neither is persuasive over the other. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham → William Pitt the Elder – Anyone can see that this is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, and the name that many respected sources (such as Encyclopædia Brittanica) use. These sources will show you that 'William Pitt the Elder' is the far more familiar term. You see, more people would know him as 'Pitt the Elder', rather than the more obscure term '1st Earl of Chatham'. Even on Wikipedia, when you search within pages for 'William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham', over half more results come up when you do the same thing with 'William Pitt the Elder'. (509 results for 'Earl of Chatham' compared to 1,750 for 'the Elder'). As a fellow contributor once pointed out: It doesn't make sense to have a "pitt the younger" in the list but no elder. Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not obscure. Many histories refer to him simply as "Chatham". e.g. Chatham ministry. Indeed, I'd say Chatham is by far the more common appellation. Say merely "Chatham", and everyone knows who you're referring to. Walrasiad (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Examples from book titles:

• Godwin (1786) Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, (bk)
• Anon (1821) The Ghost of Chatham: A vision (bk)
• Thackeray (1827) History of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (bk
• (1838) Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, (bk)
• Anon (1848) Speeches of the Right Hon. Earl of Chatham, (bk)
• Anon (1849) Celebrated Speeches of Chatham, Burke, and Erskine (bk)
• Anon (1854) The Speeches of the Earl of Chatham, the Hon. R.B. Sheridan, Lord Erskine, and the Hon. Edmund Burke (bk)
• Anon (1870) The Spirit of Lord Chatham (bk)
• Timbs (1880) Anecdote Lives of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and Edmund Burke (bk)
• (1891) Macaulay's Second Essay on the Earl of Chatham (bk)
• Winch (1898) Macaulay's Essays on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (bk)
• Powell (1901) William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778 (bk)
• McDowell (1903) Chatham (bk)
• Harrison (1906) Chatham (bk)
• Ruville (1907) William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (bk)
• DNB entry (1909): "William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham" (p.1240)
• Rosebury (1910) Lord Chatham: His early life and connections (bk)
• Butler (1912) Lord Chatham as Orator (bk)
• Esdaile (1912) Walpole and Chatham, 1714-1760 (bk)
• Williams (1913) Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (bk)
• Tunstall (1938) William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (bk)
• Sherrard (1952) Lord Chatham: A war minister in the making (bk)
• Plumb (1953) Chatham (bk)

Walrasiad (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - in the UK he is far better known as simply Chatham than he was as Pitt the Elder as sources provided above demonstrate. Atomix330 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would add that a quick Google ngram of Google Books from 1800-2019 suggests that the 'Earl of Chatham' is far more likely to be referred to than 'William Pitt the Elder' or 'Pitt the Elder'. Atomix330 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and Rreagan007. This article was created in February 2002 and has been unilaterally moved between William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, William Pitt the Elder, 1st Earl of Chatham and William Pitt the Elder a number of times in the intervening 21 years. Since, as a number of contributors have pointed out over the years in the above comments, the main title header of English Wikipedia's entry for his son is "William Pitt the Younger", the analogous header for the father is intuitively expected to display the WP:COMMONNAME form, William Pitt the Elder. Would alternatively support the previously existing inclusive header form, William Pitt the Elder, 1st Earl of Chatham. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with the latter suggestion - Chatham was only referred to as Pitt the Elder once Pitt the Younger came to prominence - he was always Chatham and so the distinction would be superfluous to the title. Much better in the intro as William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder. Atomix330 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walrasiad. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This Google Trend [1] and Ngram [2] (I had to omit the numbering from "Earl of Chatham", but I highly doubt that would majorly effect it) demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME Estar8806 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walrasiad. If we were to strictly apply COMMONNAME I rather suspect we'd have to move it to Chatham (statesman). DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per @Estar8806 and nom :Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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