Talk:Alan Clark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Coven

In the sentence containing the word "coven" is very unclear who is referring to what. It needs reading a couple of times to even begin to make sense of it. Can it be re-worded?

WW1

Can the following extract from the 2nd paragraph be correct?

"His first book, The Donkeys (1961), was a revisionist history of British involvement in the Great War, which was well received by the public but which greatly irritated the Army. However, in more recent years this work has been condemned by some historians for being too one-sided and failing to recognise the intelligence and humanity of the large majority of World War One generals."

While my WWI history is not particulary current "the intelligence and humanity of the large majority of World War One generals" does not fit well with the slaughter of a generation on the western front, indeed with the repeated failure of the same tactics. I was under the impression that history does not look favourably on the WWI generals.

I'd like to remove that bit but am not sure enough of my ground to do so.

Comments please.

Unfortunately Clark 'Made UP' the quote "Lions led by Donkeys" and its now generally agreed amongst historians that the WW1 british generals were far more able than Clark or previously Liddle Hart had given them credit for. The british generals by 1918 had created an army that in the summer offensive of that year drove all the way from the hindenburg line to the outskirts of Brussels by the time the German army finally capitulated under this onslaught. A fact deliberately played down, 1st by Lloyd George, the appeasers of the inter war years and by Hitler. Clarks works should be see in the light of this 'tradition' and is now widely discredited by modern scholars such as Terraine and Keegan. - Galloglass

Rubbish!

No mention of AC's father, his family's history, Saltwood, his legacy, Barbarossa, his machinations on the MOD review, Thatcher's ankles, the Brighton bombing, the death of the heron, having gone too far, Wolfie, Janet Fookes' vast arse, the delightful globes joggling along during a train ride - rubbish! Clark's account of his career during the Thatcher years is the most entertaining political read since Plutarch. Hang the editors! And Revisionist? Sod off.--shtove 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it was Clark himself who depicted himself as the Revisonist. As you might guess from my comments above I don't for one moment believe he was at all, being in the tradition from Lloyd George onwards in depicting the WW1 British Generals as idiots and blunderers. The Revisionists came later when the abilities of those generals were better appreciated as well as the limitations they were working under. And while I wouldnt express it in the terms the above writer does, I do think that section needs a re-write. Oh and I think Shtove should add something in about the heron ;) Galloglass 14th Jan 2006

I went too far, didn't I? Balls. There will be a heron edit, but a separate article on the Diaries is being prepared.--shtove 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote Re The IRA is incorrect. Not sure of the exact text, but something more along the lines of "it would be possible to solve the problem by ... etc 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Churchill accused of being drunk at the dispatch box? (By Lady Astor, giving rise to the retort along the lines of "you are ugly, tomorrow I will be sober?") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.203.222 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Diaries article

Perhaps Alan Clark's diaries deserve a wikipedia entry to themselves? The three volumes, especially "In Power" are seen as one of the most illuminating primary source on the internal mechanics of the Conservative Party, especially Thatcher's downfall.

"The Last Diaries" are also newsworthy as they cover the demise of the Conservative Party leading up to the 1997 General Election, Hague's early years and the Matrix-Churchill Affair. Also, the final entries of Alan's death are quite a revealing account of a cancer (brain tumor) sufferer's final days.

I am more than happy to belt out an entire new article purely on AC's Diaries, as long as the article won't be put up for deletion after all the work's been done!

Have made a start on an entry for The Diaries. Check it out, see if you like where it is going, whether it is worthy of an article, which will certinally be of some lenght, here. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll resume where I left off tommorrow. Mrjohnjenkins 06:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on the entry and am happy to see the Diaries article is under way. The quote captures it perfectly. But, as it stands, I can't contribute to the article. How did you do that? I hope to contribute in a leisurely way, once I find my paperback copy of the Thatcher years and stick it back together. Should you be using the present tense? On the main article: can you contribute info on his successful libel action over the newspaper parody of his diary style?--80.4.252.114 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wine tasting

I wikified the link to wine tasting. I seem to recall from the televised diaries that it was a vertical wine tasting, but I don't have a source for this. Anyone know better? Richard W.M. Jones 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Like integration in competition law.--shtove 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I notice the picture is broken/missing. I found a portrait image at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~morgandj/AlanClark.jpg but do not know the copyright. 125.62.94.252 10:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

MoS

As per the Manual of Style no Rt Hon in the inline - I have attached to the picture which doesn't appear to work at the moment - it's ok to be there.Alci12 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good article

This has come along nicely.--Shtove 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Privy Councillor

This person should aboslutely NOT have the post-nominals PC in their name!!!!! No other person is allowed to have those letter after their name unless they are a Privy Councillor AND a peer. See Michael Portillo or David Cameron.

I agree. WP should allow the Rt. Hon. to be used, but it doesn't, oddly. So, as it's not a manual of style, this the logical alternative. I know it's wrong, but that's life sometimes.--Counter-revolutionary 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's not allow anywhere else it is not allowed here!!!! I once added PC to Michael Portillo and shot down by many users. PC is not allowed unless they are a peer. It is simple. I have not set the precedent. It has been set before me.

If you think it should be there, even if it is [sic]! Then we should change precedent, rather than arguing. Consensus was reached with Sir Norman Stronge bt. --Counter-revolutionary 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] --Counter-revolutionary 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NO, there many many ways of reflecting that someone is privy councillor, as this page now demonstrates. But you can't simply decide to start adding letters to people's names when they shouldn't be there, simply to make a point.

Do you not understand WP is not a manual of style. --Counter-revolutionary 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But it should accurately reflect a person's correct name and style (as does every other page on this site as far as I am aware.) If you wish to add PC then do so, but only if you are prepared to have this same discussion on every other privy councillor's page (who isn't a peer). The term "The Rt Hon Alan Clark" is used twice! The term "He was a Privy councillor" is also used. The category "members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is also included. PC is not accurate AND not needed.

The accurate form would be to use the Rt. Hon. from the beginning. Would you not like to pursue this?--Counter-revolutionary 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also, that every member of the cabinet is a Privy Councillor, and none of their pages have the letters PC in the person's name. See Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Margaret Beckett,Jack Straw, must I go on? Why are you so certain that you want add PC, when none of the other Privy Councillors who are not peers want to add it. If you want to add PC then set up a discussion and vote on the Privy Council page and let the users decide rather than trying to seek the letters onto obscure pages.

Read my comment. --Counter-revolutionary 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)