Talk:House of Lords

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHouse of Lords is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2004.
Article milestones
November 18, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
November 9, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
April 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Tag: Ref Improve[edit]

Adding the "ref improve" tag because this article suffers from an embarrassing lack of sources. Some sections have no sources at all while others are just generally lacking. For such a key institution in British politics, its page should be well sourced. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

90 or 92[edit]

There seems to be some inconsistencies on this article. The article constantly references the amount of hereditary peers as either 90 or 92. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose it's mostly the lead that confuses matters; the rest of the article seems pretty clear about this. There are 92 peers sitting in the House of Lords by virtue of their hereditary titles: of these, 90 are elected and 2 are ex officio members, which is to say they sit because they are the hereditary peers who happen to hold their respective offices of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
(Strictly speaking, there are more hereditary peers than those already mentioned, but they sit by virtue of life peerages and therefore serve as appointed members of the House.) Waltham, The Duke of 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full title[edit]

This edit restored a sourced claim about the institution's supposed full and formal name. However, the actual sources cited for this are simply two petitions presented by members of the public, who address the House in such terms. As with the same point for the Commons - where at least there is an official source recommending this construction for petitions - it's not clear whether we can claim that this is therefore the official, formal name of the institution; it's just a form of address apparently used for specific contexts. I can't find much non-WP derived or non-petition based online evidence for this name. We surely need something that explicitly claims this is the formal name of the place before we assert as much here. N-HH talk/edits 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it's been put back in again, with this edit, without any response to the above or any cited justification. Can we get an official source that confirms this name please, as the formal title not simply one means of address? Also, can we settle what colour we want the background and the portcullis? A slow edit-war over an infobox seems a little pointless ... N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords[edit]

I count 17 Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords not 19. Any consensus to change? Francium12 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I count 16, if we're going by the list here. - Chrism would like to hear from you 03:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmm. I've mentioned the discrepancies in figures on the page. I find it difficult to believe that Lord Taylor isn't a non-affiliated member....unless he self-identities as a crossbencher now...Francium12 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grouping of Peers[edit]

The box on the right groups Peers as HM Government or HM (ml) Opposition. The way this has been done contains the two incumbent parties as the government, with everybody else as the opposition, including the Lords Spiritual and the Crossbenchers. I'm not sure whether this was done to reflect their function or their seating arrangements, but either way, it makes no sense that members of an established church would always be opposing its supreme leader. As for their seating, they always sit on the Government side of the House. Although non-aligned Peers could notionally be said to always be in opposition, I don't think this is completely accurate for Crossbenchers, given their unique roles and the fact that they don't sit on Government nor Opposition benches at all: they have their own benches aligned across the House, facing the Lord Speaker.

It might be better if we re-grouped the list according to seating arrangements. So the incumbent parties and Lords Spiritual are on the Government side, the Opposition and non-aligned Peers are on the Opposition side, and a separate grouping is created for the Crossbenchers. MaxwellEdisonPhD (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the listing of parties under the box to address your concerns. The image is a significant undertaking, and I would prefer more input before doing anything about it. And while I do see your concern, reflecting the actual seating arrangements would be somewhat difficult to do in an aesthetically pleasing way. I think the present arrangement is meant to reflect not so much government and opposition as such, but those taking the government whip and those not. Otherwise you are quite right, the Bishops and the Crossbenchers (including the non-affiliated, who I believe also sit on the cross benches, though I may be mistaken) are not considered opposition within the House. They are two of four distinct groupings. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest a better rough grouping is simply a three-way split between "Government" (basically Con & LD), "[Official] Opposition" (Lab) and a catch-all "Other" (which would includes bishops, cross-benchers, other/minor parties etc; ie the bottom three in table). I'm not sure relying on seating arrangements is that helpful, as they're quite mixed up (eg the bishops, as noted, plus the fact that due to space cross-benchers are not confined to the literal cross-benches but spill over to the opposition side). As a side point, when it comes to the opposition, I'm not sure how correct – and definitely how common – "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" is as a phrasing. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info box image - "current composition"[edit]

The image: House of Lords current.svg.png is out of date because it shows UKIP as having only 2Lords, David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate has since joined the party from the Crossbenchers. Editors seem determined to constantly change the 3 back to a 2 because the image displayed has 2 purple seats. The image is wrong and is clearly causing too much confusion for editors to cope with, therefore it should be left out of the article until some1 decides to amend it! Just to confirm UKIP's 3 lords are: David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch and David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate. Please see that this mistake is not made again. If we are to include an image it must be correct, as I say it is clearly causing too much confusion. (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a BBC news story from September 2012 [1] which says that Lord Stevens *will* become a UKIP member. However, as of right now, he is still shown as an Independent Conservative on the House of Lords website, which is updated daily: [2] Thom2002 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peers without UK citizenship[edit]

Can anyone provide a list of UK peers without citizenship ?

(User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Agnatic" succession and male to female ratio[edit]

This is now being repeatedly added to the lead, despite my having queried and reverted its initial inclusion. The NYT piece cited here does not mention the term and it is not up to individual WP editors to claim that cited sources "cannot actually refer to" something that they very explicitly do refer to or correct those sources as to what they "evidently" meant, when they said no such thing. I'm no expert on all this archaic and arcane twaddle, and maybe the NYT is not the best source for this sort of thing, but searching for "agnatic accession" doesn't reveal anything in this context. Plus, as far as I can tell, agnatic refers to the very general principle of descent through the male line; it is not specifically about male vs female heirs, which is a different point. I'm happy to have this explained to me and be proved wrong, but can the person adding this make that effort? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I was too bold (and slightly messed up the terms myself), sorry for that. The NYT source doesn't actually refer to "male primogeniture" as claimed, only to "primogeniture". The former I understand to refer to "Male-preference cognatic primogeniture" which means that (like with the British monarch) male heirs inherit before their sisters, but daughters (and then their issue) can inherit if they have no brothers (so descent is not restricted to the "male line"). But the NYT gives two examples which cannot be male-preference cognatic primogeniture by their own description (the historic one in the first paragraph, and the case of "Earl and Countess of Clancarty, who have an 8-year-old daughter but no one to take over the family title"). And in fact our article Hereditary peer (without inline references, unfortunately) states: "More often, letters patent are used to create peerages. Letters patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined by common law. Normally, the patent specifies the peer's heirs-male of the body as successors; in such a case, the rules of agnatic succession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only." So agnatic succession is apparently the predominant rule for peerages, not male-preference cognatic primogeniture. But since agnatic succession is apparently considered a subcase of primogeniture, just removing the word "male" (in accordance with the source) would also be fine, if less specific than my edit. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem – these things are complicated and I'm certainly no expert. Ideally I think we should find another source altogether, which is more authoritative than a newspaper article and which focuses specifically on the point of male/female ratios in the House of Lords rather than broader inheritance issues (and I'd certainly be wary of relying on another WP article). My understanding is that the preceding "male" is often implicit when the term "primogeniture" is used; if that's right, whether we use it or not is probably a moot point, but as you say it would at least be more faithful to the source we do have. N-HH talk/edits 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A better source would indeed be good - among those given in the mentioned WP article, this peers' debate states that in some (implicitly, in most) cases, daughters can never inherit, implying agnatic succesion (but unfortunately not naming it explicitly either). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legally primogeniture means to the eldest child but people invariably use it (through laziness or custom) as though they have said male preference primogeniture. I'm not sure I would regard the NYT as a sufficiently expert source on peerage matters for sourcing. As to the latter point I'm not sure what you are after. The vast majority of all British peerages are heirs male of the body lawfully begotten (male only). A small number of ancient baronies by writ are heirs general (male preference) a small number of Scottish titles are heirs of talzie (property) or heirs/heirs male whatsoever which allows heirs/heirs male not of the body of the original grantee. There are a minuscule number of mad as a box of frogs remainders like Marlborough Garlicplanting (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm after a source for just this claim that "The vast majority of all British peerages are heirs male of the body lawfully begotten (male only)", to make the corresponding lead sentence more specific, and to replace the NYT source. Do you have one? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the quickest google search [3] p194 Garlicplanting (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that looks good. I had searched specifically for "agnatic", which is not used there. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not surprised; agnatic is not a commonly used term in British peerage successions perhaps because it lacks nuance to deal with special remainders. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps; but according to the source the vast majority is agnatic primogeniture with no special remainder... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way I think we are better to use plain English terms where possible - heir male is I suggest an instantly more understandable term to an average reader than agnatic primogeniture. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, the claim of 2 hereditary peeresses in the Lords seems to be wrong as well: Our article lists the Countess of Mar as the only one; there were originally 4 elected hereditary peeresses, but 3 died from 2000-2008 and were replaced by men. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I appreciate the consistency point, but the addition of "The" in front every "Lord/Baroness .." reads very oddly and over-formally. It's not how you normally see these people described or titled. And if anything, we were more or less consistent in not using it before that edit – removing it from Hill rather than adding it to all the others seems the more obvious option on those grounds alone. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20th century - "Asquith" was unidentified[edit]

In the section "20th century", the following appeared: "Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed." Prior to that sentence there was no identification whatsoever of "Asquith" or his role. I have changed the page to read "Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed..." with appropriate link to the H. H. Asquith page. Akld guy (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current seating plan[edit]

The current seating plan is a fine one but it isn't symetrical (it is difficult to visualise the difference between both sides when it is chopped off on the bottom right). I've tried many times to render it symetrically and this is my latest attempt. Here they are side by side:

House of Lords current.svg   House of lords.png

I can easily convert the rounded squares to the square format as is currently used. I've added the same discussion to the house of commons talk page Any comments?

Shabidoo | Talk 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the effort is appreciated, the real value of making the change you propose is mixed, at best.
It looks like your aim was to make the blocks the same width as opposed to the same height. This makes the difference between the sides visually less apparent, particularly for someone who understands the significance of the colors (addressed further below).
Second, given that the composition of the House of Lords changes rather frequently, how long before any given graphic needs to be changed, and who will make the change(s) and upload the new version(s)?
Third, why do you have a black dot sitting in the middle between the two blocks? Without closer inspection, it looks like a misplaced Lords Spiritual.
Fourth, what is your definition of "sides" when you refer to "the difference between both sides"? In the British Parliament, there is 1) the government, 2) the opposition, and 3) other alignments (which in the case of the House of Lords, is mostly Crossbenchers). The main problem with the visualization in the current infobox (and which your work carries over) is that it groups the formal opposition and the "other" parties into the same block.
On the plus side, your call to attention of updating the visualization inspired me to make a separate modification to the composition bar in the Current composition section. It addresses the main concern of mine of splitting the House into three groups, plus can more readily be updated. Farolif (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you are very right about the cross bench and opposition seated together. I've seen images representing other westminster systems that use the term "cross bench" (as not all do) and they placed the cross bench to the right hand side. If I make a mock up in that style it will separate all three groups and the opposition will clearly look smaller than the governing side. I'll upload one and see what you think. I'll also stick to squares as it's the custom on UK charts. Shabidoo (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead - what is its purpose ?[edit]

Apart from this part
"The House of Lords scrutinises bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.[10] It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons.[11] While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances,[12] it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions.[13] In this capacity, the Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process."
Nothing is really stated about the House's necessity, importance or its regular daily work. Has the House of Lords no easily defined main task, which possibly could be mentioned in the lead instead of (or together with) exemplification (as of above) ? Please note this isn't criticism against the House of Lords, just improvment suggestions. Boeing720 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the paragraph you quote pretty much does state the House's main task and regular work, and gives some indication of its possible necessity/importance (that being a matter of opinion in any case). I'm not sure what else might be added in what is supposed to be a summary. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can agree in general, the lead isn't bad or difficult to comprahend. But in my mind (= my interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) examplification is here used instead of a consice defintion followed by examples. Here is a suggestion to improve the lead -
"The House of Lords is the second chamber of the British Parliament, whose appointed members are checking and challanging the British government as well as the House of Commons"
after which the examples well can follow. I read and some other pages. Perhaps also a phrase like "Although without the same power as the House of Commons, The House of Lords keeps a 'wise eye' on the elected but sometimes wavy House of Commons" (the word "wavy" isn't optimal, but I refer to governments with shrinking or no majority (as MP's vanishes for different reasons) , challange of party leaders and also during other cross-party boundry turbulent issues. And after a new government or PM is installed etc). Boeing720 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Checked them, first 2 are fine, 3rd does not work. Jtrrs0 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The House of Lords is the only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House"[edit]

I want to add the above statement to the article. I tweeted this graph yesterday [4] - would it count as "original research" if I sourced the data from Wikipedia? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia can't be used as a source for our own articles under our policy on reliable sources, so you'd need to find an independent source for the information that we can reference. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I've found a source for this (thanks to Google Books). I'll find somewhere to note it in the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regent of a German state as a member?[edit]

Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, was born in England and became the Duke of Edinburgh. Then when his uncle died in 1893, he inherited another dukedom: Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Thus, he became a regent of a (German State) foreign power in allegiance to the German Emperor, "intent on challenging England's supremacy as the foremost world power". In 1893, he is stated as the first person in recorded history to quit the Privy Council of his own volition, in 1893, he also relinquished his seat in the House of Lords.

Would the rules of membership of the (1893) House of Lords have continued to accept Prince Alfred as a member under such circumstances? Did he jump or was he pushed? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The gentleman's article is Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That gives more information and cites which gives still more information. It sounds like resigning was basically considered the natural thing to do in the cirucmstances, but there is no mention of any rule that would have required it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coding Issues[edit]

Please can we clarify how " {{HOLtotal}} " (see "edit" for code) is worked out, and potentially provide a source? (talk), 13:50, 5 August 2016‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a template: Template:HOLtotal. Farolif (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamming independents into unaffiliated[edit]

I was asked by a user to update the diagram (I haven't edited the UK parliament pages in a long time) and noted that five parties were missing in the infobox and made the changes. I was reverted (and possibly rightly so) with the comment that for the purposes of this list and others on WP, these five members are considered same as non-affiliated. I've gone through the talk page and noted that there is no discussion on this and that in previous info boxes independent-party name groups had their own colour box. I also don't know anyother parliament infobox that excludes a small group solely by the fact that they are independent-party name, but instead have a seat threshold (all groups with only one seat are grouped with one colour and the data is still given). I have always been one to support putting small groups into one colour, as long as the names of all of those parties are listed in small text below as is done on a few pages which also omit small parties (there are very very few) however what I find troubling is making an arbitrary choice of excluding independent-partyname instead of including or excluding parties based on the number of seats. There is no reason the green party with only one seat should be listed while the indepentend-libdem with three seats is excluded. At the very least, if they are going to be bunched into one group then all the independent-partyname groups (all five of them) should be grouped into one colour, labeled so and the figures given in small text and not unafiliated as they are not unafiliated most importantly according to the official website of the house of lords which provides updated lists and figures.

House of Councillors (Japan), the Indian Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, National Assembly of South Africa and the Brazilian Federal Senate and Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) for examples per how they deal with multiple small parties or dividing different small parties into groups.

I'm not saying that some parties shouldn't be grouped, but that there is a clear seat threshold and/or grouping and that they are properly divided by affiliation, non-affiliation or independent status. Shabidoo (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The general reasoning is that these Independent members can call themselves whatever they want for the purposes of the House of Lords' official records, but they are still no longer subjects of their former party's whips. Thus, they are treated the same as non-affiliated in most cases. Farolif (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Farolif i am the user that asked to update the diagram and I noticed that the 5 independents had erroneously been grouped into non-affiliated I'm sorry but I don't agree with your argument, the official web site of the House of Lords does not treat them as non-affiliated and wikipedia should reflect the source IMHO. Domdeparis (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a case where Wikipedia is called upon to make an objective interpretation of the facts rather than blindly accommodate the political maneuverings of a small group of individuals. The fact is these "independents" are not currently a member of any recognized political party or movement, nor are they in the Crossbench, an otherwise unique option for House of Lords members. There are likewise other peers who have left their respective parties and did not adopt an "independent" styling for their listed affiliation, such as the most recent example of Dafydd Elis-Thomas, the former whip of Plaid Cymru himself. These namings in question are little more than a policy statement being made by the Lords who use them and do not need to be recognized by the encyclopedia in all areas. Farolif (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very personal opinion and what would seem to be original research. The institution that the article is about recogonises them as being apart and not non-affiliated and I do not think that the editors of an encyclopedia are legitimate to call into question the way that the institution is organised and personally do not recognise them but the House of Lords does. I do not think that a wikipedia page is the best place to attack their decision by imposing your view of things. Wikipedia should be a faithful representation of what the article is about and I feel that you should undo you edit.Domdeparis (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you're clearly still of your original mindset, perhaps you could kindly explain what exactly the difference is between a (non-Crossbench) "independent" vs a (properly-styled) non-affiliated member of the House of Lords? Farolif (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is, one is entirely unaffiliated with anything and the other have affiliated themselves as independent-something. have one member with no affiliation/self identity...and you have a member who identifies/affiliates themselves as something. The other difference is...this is how they are identified and listed on the official website of the House of Lords, which is pretty much as relevant and reliable as our information can get. The fact that these indepentent members were originally appointed by a party (or originally belonged to a party) and now sit apart from them but still identify themselves in some way related to the party (independent-previous-party) makes their affiliation/identity no less important than any other. This happens all the time in legislatures around the world, especially with the Canadian Senate and American state senates and houses. On these wikipedia articles no one groups them into an unaffiliated group because they are affiliated. They have an affiliation. Furthermore, the fact that there are two members who call themselves independent-something all ready tells you that no, they aren't two independent/unaffiliated individuals like any other...but identify as a group of two people with the same identity. They are not unaffiliated.
Regardless of a personal opinion on the matter, the list given by the official website of the house of lords lists them by their affiliation and since that it the source used then they should be listed as such. There are also next to no precidents on any other legislature wikipedia page lumping members who identify themselves as one thing...yet grouping them into something else. Not including that information in the infobox means one is arbitrarily judging their identity/affiliation to be unimportant/trivial/irrelevant.)
I would refer you to this website who define the crossbenchers as

"Crossbenchers are members who have no party-political affiliation and participate in parliamentary proceedings independently. They do not adopt collective policy decisions, but rather speak and vote as individuals. For administrative purposes all crossbenchers are part of the crossbench group. The group elects a Convenor whose role it is to provide information to crossbenchers and represent their interests in the House." Shabidoo (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the other legislatures (particularly the US counterparts), it sounds like you're conflating the concept of a caucus with what goes on in House of Lords. Though I'm glad you felt it critical to direct me to the official Crossbenchers site, as it invites me to question if there are any similar sites for the various "Independent _____" affiliations which the Lords members in question self-identify as, and which you feel warrants a separate listing from non-affiliated's (who also have no official website, government-based or otherwise). Farolif (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you take the time to verify the list of members the independents are classed as "others". They are not non-affiliated members they are affiliated to the different parties but are independent from them. You may not like or understand that definition but that does not give you the right to reclassify them as non-affiliated as the real non-affiliated group (crossbenchers) do not count them as members. If you can provide support of your opinion then please do otherwise please undo your edit. Domdeparis (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"they are affiliated to the different parties but are independent from them" Shouldn't it be one or the other, as the whole point of being independent is to not be affiliated with a party? And I don't think I'm trying to call them Crossbenchers, so what is the point of pointing out that the -real- (?) non-affiliated parliamentary group does not count them as members, either? Farolif (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is becoming tedious...please supply support of your opinion that is contrary to the source or undo your edit, you seem to be very stubborn. Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's this?
Google search - "Independent Labour" official
Google search - "Independent Liberal Democrat" official
Google search - "Independent Social Democrat" official
Google search - "Independent Ulster Unionist" official
Farolif (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is truly a no-brainer. We aren't here to give our opinion about how parties identify themselves. We are here to present information as given by reliable and relevant sources. The onus is on an editor to give a convincing reason to modify the info as presented in sources as well as changing a well established custom of listing all parties in the box. So far the only case presented is "they should make up their mind...either independent or not". That's not an argument, that's a personal gripe about how parties identify themselves. Unless a better case is presented I will include all parties in the infobox. The question is whether to group the independent-partynames with one colour listing parties and seats in small letters or show them like all other parties. Shabidoo (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except. None of these. Are actual. Parties. Farolif (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For crying out loud!! google searches are not proof that you're right. Enough now. Shabidoo please modify it and if Farolif undoes it again I'll file a report for edit-warring which seems to be something he is familiar with from what I can gather.Domdeparis (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shabidoo i'm on this...I think I've found a way to put an end to the .... WP:GF editing from Farolif--Domdeparis (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Farolif has conceeded and changed the box himself. I just edited the colours etc. I'm wondering if the independent parties can be placed in one colour group and then their composition given in smaller text below. What do you think? Should I make a mockup? Shabidoo | Talk 16:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Domdeparis for creating the colourbox templates and the seats per party templates! Shabidoo | Talk 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. The trouble is that they are not really parties but groups from what I understand and it would be misleading to group them again. there are only 4 groups and the House of Lords identify the four groups by name in the "others" section in the same way that they do with the greens and UKIP so if we want to stay faithful to the source it would be best to leave it at that. The criterion of size is not applicable as Independent labour has 2 members whereas the Greens and Plaid Cymru only have 1 member each...Domdeparis (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it would be creating more confusion. Idea scrapped. Shabidoo | Talk 11:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the order of the parties/groups[edit]

Farolif please stop trying to impose your opinion with this childish edit warring. If you continue I will file an admin report. Domdeparis (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if your argument that they are not parties was valid then the non-affiliated and crossbenchers should be at the end too. Domdeparis (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crossbenchers are a recognized parliamentary group with a their own official site & publications, not to mention their own seating arrangement within the House. It would be quite unreasonable to equate them to the sporadic non-affiliated members. Farolif (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the order in the infobox on House of Commons of the United Kingdom as a proper template to follow. Independents are listed at the end, regardless of number. Farolif (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot use the exemple that elsewhere it's done like that so here it should be too. If you take the time to look at this page you will see that the membership of the House of Commons is by size with the independents being in 6th place in a list of 14. The wikipedia page should also reflect that. The source take precedence over other wikipedia pages and your personal opinion. Please resist the temptation to consider this page as your own. You are right about crossbenchers of course but I also said that in you logic of giving listing priority to the parties where do you put the non-affiliated ? You have conveniently ignored that question Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Farolif Please undo your last revert i asked you to continue the discussion here to try and resolve the issue and you reverted again without a consensus being found. if you do not revert I will file an edit warring report with the administrators and let them sort it out. Domdeparis (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want me to list other cases of legislatures' official sites which summarize membership statistics in a completely different order than how they appear in the corresponding WP infobox? There are many, many of them. I only picked the House of Commons as it was most directly relevant to this article, and hopefully a parallel which you could have made an informed assessment of. Farolif (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again it doesn't matter the errors made on other pages, the idea of a wikipedia page is to faithfully represent the information especially as per the source. You do not agree with the fact that they give their allegiance as Independent members of an existing party and have made that abundantly clear with the edit warring and calling them "outliers" is not based on anything but your own opinion. Please revert to the last modification unless you can find another secondary source to back your claim that the House of Lords itself is wrong in the way that they classify their own members. Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it doesn't matter the errors made on other pages So, the whole rest of Wikipedia is wrong, and your vision of the infobox here is correct? You might be even further gone than I thought. Farolif (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a crossbencher subgroup (as they are given on most other articles with crossbench) and I've listed all other opposition groups STRICTLY be number of seats in the group and for those with the same number STRICTLY alphabetically. This is a well established custom on wikipedia's infoboxes on parliamentary houses and is the general consensus on all parties. If one believes this should change to reflect what they personally consider is a "real party" or not, the onus is on the user to explain this by showing reliable secondary sources which make this claim (and do so convincingly). A convincing argument has not been made. Until then, please keep disagreements about what are "real parties" to the talk page and keep it there until some kind of consensus on "what is a real party" (if this is even an issue al all to being with) on this talk page and not in the article. Here are links to all of wikipedias relevant policies which I suggest you aquaint yourself with ESPECIALLY the first:
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
A user has been bold. We reverted the user. The user must respect this policy
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
Google links are not secondary sources, they aren't reliable sources nor are they relevant sources. The user should respect this policy.
The term "consensus" explains itself. The user must respect this policy...that is...until a consensus arrives.
Last warning.
Shabidoo | Talk 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the justification for regarding all the rest as "Other opposition groups". In which RSs are they described as being "opposition"? They were previously described just as "Other parties/groups". --David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi David Biddulph this is an extract from this RS
The Opposition, formally known as Her Majesty's Official Opposition, refers to the largest political party in the House of Commons that is not in government. The leader of this party takes the title Leader of the Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of the Government. More generally, any party that is not a part of the government is described as an opposition party.
regards Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was my turn to be bold. Technically the unaffiliated are not a party but a group with a spokesman. Also, those not in government or crossbench (nor in the lords spiritual in the UK) they are considered part of the opposition and sit with the opposition in Westminster legislatures. If you think changing party to group...or adding opposition to the title is confusing or all means revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talkcontribs) 16:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that all depends on where they sit. When one looks at the seating of the house of lords it becomes terribly clear. The tory peers and the bishops are on the side of the government the crossbenchers are in the middle and everyone else is on the opposition side or opposing side so you only really need to put them under "Other Opposition Parties and Groups" and it should be fine and then comes the problem that seems to irritate our friend Farofil of the order...alphabetical or by size...does size matter I wonder? Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it matter? No...the world won't end. But if it breaks custom/consensus/continuity-amongst-pages, then the excuse for doing this should be better than "I don't think they are reall parties...I don't have sources...but trust me...I'm right". Shabidoo | Talk 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is known they're not real parties because the British Parliament doesn't have anything listed for them: Political parties in Parliament. Farolif (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also from the Parliament official site's page on party system:

MPs and Members of the Lords do not have to belong to a political party. Instead, MPs can sit as Independents and Lords can sit as Crossbenchers or Independents.

— "Independent MPs and Crossbench and Independent Lords"
Since the page doesn't specifically mention non-affiliated's anywhere, and we've clearly established that Crossbench is a separate category, is it not reasonable to interpret this explanation as equating "Independents" and non-affiliated's to the point of being indistinguishable from one another? Farolif (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are have found one quote on the web site glossary where they don't make a difference between between non-affiliated and independents but everywhere else on the website these lords are clearly identified with labels of Independent Labour etc etc so no it is not reasonable at all!!!! if it were then they would be qualified as non-affiliated in the directory. You are grabbing at straws to try and prouve that your right and you are patently not so drop it please. Domdeparis (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if your the parties were not officially considered a party (which is NOT the case here) there is nothing to gain by labelling them as independents. You lose information (that they have separated from the main party, that they identify themselves as outside the group but still align themselves with the party (or at least their platform). I see no convincing reason to remove this information from the infobox and it is highly unlikely you will find a reliable secondary source that explicitly claims they are "just independents". Consider directing your efforts to improving the article's content. Shabidoo | Talk 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox Structure Image Color[edit]

The image representing the composition of the 805 seats in the House of Lords has colors which do not match the colored key provided below it. Specifically, the light blue color code of the Conservative Party does not match the dark blue dots representing this group in the image.

Could this be fixed? Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early 1700s composition[edit]

Bringing this issue up here first rather than hastily making a change under WP:BOLD;

The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,[1]...

Unless my sources are incorrect this statements is false. Membership of the House of Lords hovered around 220 members in the early 1700s; I do not know where the 50 members figure has come from. The earliest date in my source is 1714, which lists the composition as follows; Dukes 23, Marquises 2, Earls 74, Viscounts 11, Barons 67, Representing Scotland 16, Archbishops and Bishops 26. A total of 219. Going forward this had grown to 222 members in 1727, 224 in 1760, and by 1820 had jumped to 372. (Source: Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. (1980). British Historical Facts 1760–1830. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., p.50.)

The Electoral Reform Society is obviously a biased group with an agenda against the House of Lords, and maybe doesn't put out the most reliable academic works. If there are no objections, I will change this text and associated text and the associated source shortly. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which "my sources" support the 1714 membership composition you state? The source "British Historical Facts 1760–1830" by its very title refers only to the second half of the 1700s and the early 1800s, which does not contradict the "early 1700s" number that was sourced by the Electoral Reform Society article. It's quite conceivable that the number of peers quadrupled between 1700 to 1760 (or even between 1700 and 1714, with the Acts of Union inbetween). (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed abolition[edit]

This should probably be added by someone with more knowledge of the topic than I have. (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversy: the Lords Spiritual[edit]

Many British are atheists. Their number is significant. They have supposedly equal rights, but that name is a disproof, also the Union Jack (UK National Flag), lots of heraldry and regional flags with Christian depictions. Is our tradition to oppress or to respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4119:b900:c5cf:dc4b:2fc1:82c6 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is our tradition to respect our nation's history. (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Description under thrones picture says "Note that the Sovereign's throne (on left) is raised slightly higher than the consort's.". I'm not familiar how wikipedia works so I apoligize if what I'm about to say is not propper here. My suggestion is to look on how consort cussion is actualy much bigger, so big that consort will in fact seat higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"seats membership [sic]"?[edit]

In this sentence, "While the House of Commons has a defined number of seats membership [sic], the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed." Shouldn't that be either seats or membership? Please clarify. Thanks. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to slavery?[edit]

The House of Lords has a long tradition of slavery. Should this be under a controversies section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lords Spiritual on the plan[edit]

In the box labelled 'Structure', the seating for these Lords is shown in bright magenta. However, in the key to the plan, the colour for them is shown as a very bluish purple, totally unlike the magenta on the plan itself. I am well aware that blocks of colour appear different to dots of the same shade, but this is far more different than any other of the dot / block comparisons. I have looked at the 'code', and so far as I am concerned it might as well be in Navajo. Could someone more technical please have a look at this? Other comments on the shade difference would be welcome too. Sarandone2 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW the reason I have been looking at this article and the article on the Palace of Westminster is that I am trying to find out where a peer newly inheriting his title in 1841 would take his seat. The Palace burned in 1834, the new Lords was opened in 1847. But where the hell were they in betweeen? I might be missing something here, but I can't see a mention of this. Sarandone2 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sarandone2: Seems like it was changed to that diagram in January. I've reverted it to the old one, as that was in line with the key. As for your second question, I believe that the House of Lords was in the Painted Chamber temporarily, but I'm no expert. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. Sarandone2 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC for use of peerage titles in lists and tables[edit]

Across a number of UK government (especially ministry lists such as First Johnson ministry) and parliament articles, peers are referred to in lists and tables by their full formal style and title, rather than by name. Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS. (See Talk:First Johnson ministry#MOS for listing current peers.) DBD 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This RfC is malformed. What is the question being asked? What does this have to do with the House of Lords article? I suggest a speedy closure. RGloucester 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RGloucester: The question appears to be the sentence Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS. Nonetheless, there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried (let alone exhausted), so I'm pulling the {{rfc}} tag and leaving the discussion open, for now. @DBD: Is this discussion solely about the content of the article House of Lords? If so, fine; but if it concerns several articles, it would be better held at a more central location, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64: Fair enough, this doesn't only involve one article. I did read RFCBEFORE. Of the four other forums listed, I thought this was about a much broader matter of interpreting guidelines than concerns a single WikiProject; RGloucester refused to go to 3O; there are not more than two editors involved; and I'm not seeking general article improvement help.
I'm content to start this instead at WP:POLUK, but please would you advise how I can rephrase such that it isn't "malformed". DBD 11:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the question is about a specific MoS guideline, the discussion should be held at the relevant MoS talk page. RGloucester 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC for use of peerage titles in lists and tables it is. DBD 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholic Lords Spiritual[edit]

There have been no Roman Catholic clergy appointed, though it was rumoured that Cardinal Basil Hume and his successor Cormac Murphy O'Connor were offered peerages by James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair respectively, but declined.

We certainly heard the rumours at the time. Is there any evidence? Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And having been left to answer my own query, if these are left as unreferenced rumours, oughtn't w better remove them Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of members[edit]

The number given is significantly lower than the actual number. (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]