RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1680Goal: $3500

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

In the boring history section, please write in complete sentences. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So is it Douglas Alec-Home or Alec Douglas-Home? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to be more consistent with sentences .... and everything else, I guess. Alec Douglas-Home is right. Wow. Dalek (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for my tone. You're trying to make it interesting, and mostly succeeding with the snark and commentary. perhaps some mention should be made of the huge number of PMs who served twice, non-consecutively? It seems unusual to me in the world of politics. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I'm going to try to expand it a little tomorrow, and will make note of the non-consecutive thing. It's interesting to note that up until Thatcher came about, it was quite usual for people to stay on as a Party's Leader even if they lost the office of Prime Minister. I believe that for about 40 years in the late 1800s, it went something like Disraeli, Gladstone, Disraeli, Gladstone, Salisbury, Gladstone, Salisbury, Gladstone, someone unimportant, Salisbury. Dalek (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I go to the WP list of UK PMs all the time when I am struggling with cryptic puzzles (it's always DISRAELI), and have been struck by that. It's a flaw in modern politics that the essential "strongest leader" a party might have gets shown the door for losing one election (Al Gore comes to mind). I'm sure I'll enjoy your additions as I did today's! If I can think of anything useful to contribute, I will, but my UK politics is shaky. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of also making a sort of "Prime Ministers that never were." article, not sure what I'd call it. A common point of commentary in the UK is what great leaders we missed out on, how things would be different, etc. Think it'd be worth doing? What would you call it? Dalek (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure... try to keep the "mission" in mind when coming up with article ideas, though. Thanks for adding the parties to these people, I was going to suggest that. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Alec Douglas Hume - and the number of Prime Ministers that never were probably could be extended to 'every last MP' (there might be some very peculiar circumstances under which (obscure MP X) could have served as a (caretaker) PM). There are usually good reasons why 'the greatest PM we never had' was elevated to that office. (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


So I ended up on this page while researching the crazy way Prime Ministers are chosen. I couldn’t help but notice that the section regarding Gascoyne-Cecil has some issues. Despite the fact that it made me spit out my coffee, I don’t believe that referring to his actions with the Portuguese-Anglo alliance as “almost kicking them in the ‘nads” (don’t have the actual quote), reads as something backed up by facts.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this Prime Minister or this situation could possibly edit this? I’ll take the time to try to learn so I may be able to, but to use some vocabulary as the editor of this glorious section of this page, I’d rather not kick this task in the ‘nads.

Also, as a side note, ‘nads is not even a correct term to use here. As I assume that the original editor meant to convey the message as kicking it in the testicles (or balls, to use the layman’s terms), ‘nads (gonads) may be too broad a term as it is a general term to refer to any sex organ (testicles, ovaries, etc.). So the edit I’m asking for should either be more academically written, or at least change ‘nads to balls or testicles.

TL;DR This section is amazing, but doesn’t sound academic.