Jump to content

Talk:David Lloyd George/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Old talk

This bit:

Quote:"We have to reserve the right to bomb the niggers."

...seems to be loitering around rather disconnectedly at the end of the article. A Google search [1] brings up a few variant versions of this quote; does anybody know the correct text and the exact source? It seems to be from DLG's diary, and possibly relates to the Disarmament Conference of 1932. I don't particularly want to take it out, but putting it in context would probably cast a little more light on the man. --rbrwr

H.A.L. Fisher - President of the Board of Education was an Historian who wrote a 2 volume History of Europe. From my contemporary POV - a racist -- but after glancing at the above entry,maybe just a man of his time and place. - Sparky

Ireland

I think that the article should include soemthing about Lloyd George's role in the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent peace settlement. Ausseagull (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Peerage title

Was his peerage title "Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor"? I thought it was just "Earl of Dwyfor". Timrollpickering

I suspect you're right - the form "Lord x of y" is usually associated with modern life peerages, on top of which his surname would presumably have to be hyphenated to be used in a title. sjorford →•← 14:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That's what the "of Dwyfor" bit is for - to allow the lack of a hyphen. (Also, Earl Temple of Stowe, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, Earl Alexander of Tunis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Earl Alexander of Hillsborough, Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, etc.) Proteus (Talk) 08:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
"Lloyd George" was hyphenated in the peerage, according dictionaries which I have read. Anglius
"Dictionaries"? I'd rather trust Burke's and Cracroft's Peerages, both of which give it without a hyphen. Proteus (Talk) 08:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

As I just noticed that the older image formerly illustrating this article, and then for a while used in other articles, at present seems to be an orphan. I'm putting it here just so anyone who might have use for another image of Lloyd George on Wikipedia may be made aware of it. -- Infrogmation 18:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this one should be reinstated in the article(s). It's a nicer pic, plus it has specific copyright/sourcing information. –Hajor 18:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

File:LloydGeorge.JPG

DLlG a Welsh Nationalist

In the article it notes that Lloyd George was bitterly oposed to Welsh Nationalism. This is incorrect - you should read the history of 'Cymru Fydd' a national movement lead by Lloyd George and Tom Ellis.

Just in case someone decides to add this last statement to the article, I thought I'd point out that the past tense of lead is led.CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sale of Titles

To whom did he "sell" titles? William Waldorf Astor, Sir William Maxwell Aitken, or Sir Rufus Isaacs? I read that King George V objected to Sir William Aitken's elevation to the baronage. Could that have been the reason? Anglius None of the above. Sir Max Aitkin became Lord Beaverbrook in 1916, the King did indeed object to his elevation but Beaverbrook paid no money, rather it was in the hope of buying his newspapers support that D LG sought his elevation, (see A J P Taylor's Beaverbrook pp 125-127 (Chatto &Unwin)) Sir Rufus Isaacs became Baron Reading when made Lord Chief Justice in 1914, for the people to whom honours were sold see my edit on the article Backnumber1662

On L.G's comment "We reserve the right to bomb the niggers"

David Lloyd George's comment, "We reserve the right to bomb the niggers", is cited in N. Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance" page 161 (Penguin, 2004), or from its original source, i.e. that quoted by Chomsky, V. G. Kiernan's "European Empires from Conquest to Collapse" (Fontana, 1982). SamWilson 19:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________________ DLG & Greece Should some mention be made of Lloyd George's support for a creation of a greater Hellic state which included most of Turkey Agean coast and Thace. Reading from Patrick Kinloss's biograph on Ataturk and other sources it would seem that the Greek invasion was in part started due to the support of DLG himself?

Solomon

Qutoe from Lloyd George on Wilson and Clemencau

Could anyone tell me when and where answered Lloyd George to the question on how he did on the conferences? Where he compared Wilson to Jesus and Clemenceau to Napoleon? Thank you very much!

No mention of Suez

I found it quite strange that there is no mention of the Suez crises, the events that led to his downfall as a politician.--87.210.137.93 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The Suez Crisis brought down Sir Anthony Eden, not Lloyd George.

Lloyd George Knew My Father ?

Shouldn't there be some mention of the song "Lloyd George Knew My Father" - even if we don't mention My Father Knew Lloyd George ? -- Beardo 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Party Leader 1926-31

The section covering this part of his life is very brief and does not mention his role in the development of the Liberal's Yellow Book and subsequent program for government "We Can Conquer Unemployment" which dominated debate in the 1929 election. However, it goes into some detail of Trade Union activity from 1916-18 which seems out of place in thi article. (Graemp 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Squeeze the german lemon quote

Added link to Eric Campbell Geddes, the author of that quote. Cite is located on his page.


Hitler was a fan

Article states:"Despite this embarrassment, however, as the 1930s progressed Lloyd George became more clear-eyed about the German threat and joined Winston Churchill, among others, in fighting the government's policy of appeasement."

Searching Goebbels diary for something else I noticed numerous entries praising the work and political stature of Lloyd George. Obviously since its Goebbels his interest is in the media so I think there is even more to this than mentioned below

  • 9 October 1939 - Lloyd George has written an article for Hearst in which he recommends serious consideration of Hitler's proposals. [Footnoted as: On 29 September 1939, after the fall of Warsaw, Germany and the Soviet Union had issued a joint appeal to the world to recognise the new status quo in Poland. Hitler made a formal peace offer to Britain and France in a speech to the Reichstag on 6 October. Lloyd George, who had already pleaded in the House of Commons that Britain 'should not come to a hurried conclusion' if Germany submitted detailed peace proposals, went further in an article that also appeared in Beaverbrook's Sunday Express on 8 October. He wrote: 'If we antagonise Russia by our reply to Hitler, we must face the stern prospect that an offensive and defensive alliance between Russia and Germany could not be overthrown by a three years' war. I dare not contemplate all the possibilities of such a tremendous combination of strength against us'. He pleaded for Roosevelt to act as honest broker in the setting up of a peace conference, since 'nothing would be lost, and everything might be gained, by such a conference'.]
  • 10 October 1939 - With the Führer. He welcomes Lloyd George's article, which was certainly a clever move. The man stands head and shoulders above the present crew of British politicians. He foresees the deep crisis of the Empire. Hence his plain speaking.
  • 16 October 1939 - Lloyd George has written another article in the Hearst press containing violent attacks on the British government. Very advantageous for us. I order it to be published without too much fuss, however, so as not to compromise L.G.

Also remarked on are Lloyd Georges attacks on Churchill in 1941 debates. Someone might want to go into this aspect of his career in a little more detail rather than skating over what he was doing during this time. Fluffy999 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think more space ought to be given to wrong steps in Lloyd George's war management, including his false charges of war crimes against the Germans. E. P. 9:26, 21 May 2007

DLG on Russia and Poland

There is some useful material at RFH (Britain and the war between Poland and Russia) which could be adapted into this article. In particular see Lloyd George and Poland, 1919-20 (a paper by Norman Davies).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Query

Did he like pie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.103.87 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but he knew my father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.134.22.105 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm being serious, I need to know if he liked pie or not. If so, what flavour was his favourite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.103.87 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

6 Citations..?

The "bomb niggers" quote being used by multiple politicians has 6 quotes. Is that really neccesary? It seems very unprofessional.

Lloyd George on Ataturk

Deleted the section on Turks. Seemed like unbacked fact to me and certainly not in a neutral viewpoint, more of an attempt to smear him for certain policies conducted.

201.87.18.119 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy" section

Of course there isn't a legacy section at present....the items I might add to it if there were one would be redlinks at hte moment anyway, but just to advise that various features in the Northern Rocky Mountains of British Columbia were named in honour of him:

New file File:David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George from NPG.jpg (left) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.71.169 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Churchill and Lloyd George

Churchill and Lloyd George had worked together in Parliament and had been good friends however in later life this friendliness cooled somewhat. However in 1945 a few months before he died Lloyd George was raised to the peerage, According to 'Lloyd George and Churchill' by Richard Toye it was a final friendly act from Churchill that raised the ailing Lloyd George's spirits as he was dying. Perphaps the input from Churchill could be mentioned?Willski72 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance of munitions and DLG attempts to provide same

In the cabinet minister section it says, This resulted in Lloyd George's defeat in Cabinet and the adoption of estimates including provision for eight dreadnoughts. This was later to be said to be one of the main turning points in the naval arms race between Germany and Britain that contributed to the outbreak of World War I.

What is meant by the last sentence? I don't see it as a turning point, and it was not particularly one of the facts which contributed to Britain taking part in WW1. The war would certainly have taken place without us had we remained disinterested spectators (France would have lost). This particular reversal was not the instigation of a change, but more the culmination of one, where the politicians had become convinced, as eventually in Lloyd George's case, that military expenditure was essential despite all the reasons they did not want to do it. The affair of the ships was very public, but it was only reinstatement of ships previously cancelled so that overall British policy of maintaining naval supremacy over all comers remained consistent throughout 100 years.

The article goes on to say he attempted to rest control of military matters away from the generals. The first section of his autobiography talks about his conflict with Kitchener, in particular over the supply of munitions. This was entirely handled by the war office, who despite his giving them carte blanche as chancellor of the exchequer to spend as much as they needed, failed to order guns or ammunition. At a point when they anticipated having 3,000,000 men in uniform they only had rifles on order for half of them, never mind how many they physically had. I dont know how much he later wetn on to criticise their military strategy, but thus far he has concentrated on criticising their ability to provided guns and ammunition to people who were dying for lack of them. The progress of the war was being kept secret by the war office, even from the cabinet, to the point they were finding out what was happening by reading the newspapers or going to France to look. He states that general French in France was crying out for high explosive shells, but the war office insisted in supplying him with shrapnel ones, and way too few of any kind, despite HE shells being technically easier to make. Kitchener refused to allow engineering companies other than those who were established munitions suppliers before the war to make munitions. LG states that this similarly impacted on Russias ability to fight, because they were also placing orders with the same companies which were all being accepted, but which it was impossible to fulfill. The war office refused to countenance returning skilled engineering workers to munitions factories despite machinery lying idle for lack of them and men dying in the trenches for lack of what they shoulkd have been making. The picture he presents is quite extraordinary, with the war nearly being lost because of disorganisation at home rather than in France. The army was totally out of control by the government.

Reading his book I am struck by the parallel he provides to the UK situation now. He railed against the governments folly of accepting the advice of bankers (very very expensive mistake), and against the inability to supply troops with equipment they needed in a war which was taking longer than expected to accomplish anything. A prophet for our times. Talking about chancellor of the exchequer M'Kenna in 1915 he says, his action had, no doubt, the fullest authorisation from leading circles of banking and finance. But the country has since then had ample evidence that these circles are by no means to be reckoned as infallible advisors. (p.74, war memoirs vol I, DLG, Odhams, 1938)Sandpiper (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Places of birth and death

Place of birth is given as Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, United Kingdom. Place of death is given as Tŷ Newydd, Llanystumdwy, Caernarfonshire, Wales. I will add "United Kingdom" to the place of death, for sake of accuracy. Irvine22 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of playing petty games across multiple articles? Change UK to England if you want on the first, but one country is enough for the address --Snowded TALK 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I am a tireless seeker after accuracy. I think a U.K. politician of the stature of Lloyd George deserves nothing less. I'll use "U.K." for both places, for sake of accuracy and consistency. Irvine22 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't fool anyone. No agreement to change --Snowded TALK 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You just did agree to change. Irvine22 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) I agreed that if you really felt the need for consistency you could change UK to England for place of birth. I did not agree for the use of UK on both as its unnecessary. He was born in Manchester, he died in Wales. I think its fine as is--Snowded TALK 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely more accurate information is better? He was born in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, England, United Kingdom. He died in Tŷ Newydd, Llanystumdwy, Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom. I take it you don't dispute those historical facts? Irvine22 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The existing version is accurate, it is no more accurate if you add UK. Look Irvine you have played these games on Irish, Scottish an dWelsh pages as well as a fair number of biographies. Its always the same a small petty minded change and then protestations of innocence, At least half a dozen admins have cottoned on to your disruptive behaviour and warned you. Your response is then to back off and return somewhere else. I've no idea what aspect of your personality creates these need for this sort of behavior but it wastes time. FAD, NO agreement to change. --Snowded TALK 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It is more accurate in the sense that there will be additional accurate information that is currently missing. We are an encyclopedia, we should always be striving to improve both the quality and quantity of accurate information we provide. We certainly shouldn't withold accurate information for reasons of personal prejudice. You might sincerely wish it had been otherwise, it might even be a source of irritation to you, but on March 26th 1945, the date of Lloyd George's death, Wales was part of the U.K., and it remains so today. That's a plain, undisputed fact, like it or not. You should deal with it and not retreat into an alternative Wiki-reality. It's not healthy for you, it's not healthy for the project. Irvine22 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree that Wales is a part of the UK. Now I'm not prepared to indulge your little games here. I don't agree the change, if other editors want to take you seriously then maybe you will get agreement to change. Otherwise the long standing wording stands. --Snowded TALK 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Your agreement isn't necessary to make a simple change on a matter of fact - a fact you have just stipulated to. Irvine22 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You need a consensus position to make a change, the current wording is factual. Of course you could say 'Tŷ Newydd, Llanystumdwy, Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom, Europe, The World, The Universe, It would be a simple matter of fact (that was sarcasm by the way not an agreement to an edit) --Snowded TALK 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
So if you accept that Wales is in fact part of the U.K., and was at the time of Lloyd George's death, what is your objection to including that fact in the article? (The alternative version you offer doesn't seem consistent with Wikipedia style to me. Oh, and if you're using sarcasm properly you really shouldn't have to declare it.)Irvine22 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Its unnecessary Irvine and in general I don;t think you should be encouraged in your games. I've also learnt to 'declare things" when dealing with you. Either way its now down to the involvement of other editors. I'm for the status quo which is accurate. If others want to support you then so be it, but you will need others involved to change it. --Snowded TALK 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's necessary in the sense that it is more complete and accurate information than is currently in the article. I appreciate that you have been honest and declared that you are motivated in this by whatever personal issues you may have with me. On reflection, I'm sure you will conclude that encyclopedic accuracy requires you to set such considerations aside, as do I. Irvine22 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

repeat prior comments --Snowded TALK 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the WP policy that says it is okay to keep accurate information out of an article because you have a problem with the editor, rather than the content? Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I refer you to my above comments --Snowded TALK 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read them. You seem to be saying that your problem is not with the accurate content I want to add, but with me personally. My question is where you imagine you find support for such an attitude in Wikipedia policy? Irvine22 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As I clearly state above, the current version is accurate, your proposed addition is unnecessary and (by way of a side comment) you are carrying on your long tradition of multiple unnecessary edits on Welsh, Sottish and Irish related pages. Assume this is the response to any further comments that raise no new issues --Snowded TALK 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's accurate in so far as it goes. We can and should add additional accurate and undisputed information in the interests of improving the article. Your personal issues with me are irrelevant, and appear to be counter to the interests of the project. I suggest you disengage. Irvine22 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Put it down as born in "..., England" & died in "..., Wales". Using United Kingdom in one spot & not the other, is wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, we should use U.K. for both. Irvine22 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
United Kingdom shouldn't be used. I've been through all those arguments before, with Snowded, Daicaregos, Jack etc etc & I'm not interested in re-starting them (the arguments). GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you dispute that his birthplace and place of death were both in the U.K.? Irvine22 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you dispute that his birthplace and place of death were England & Wales? GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, in fact as I said above he was born in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, England, United Kingdom. He died in Tŷ Newydd, Llanystumdwy, Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom. Thems the facts, like it or not. Irvine22 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're not planning on heading over to the American Presidents bios infoboxes, to add United States to their BP & PoD sections. I mean, I'd highly recommend against that. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm going to wait here to see if you can come up with a solid reason to keep this undisputed information out of the article. Irvine22 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW I looked at three former UK PMs Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher. The usage there seems to be "Scotland, UK" for Blair's birthplace and "England, UK" for Major's and Thatcher's. Irvine22 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You may 'delete' the UK from those (if ya like). Trust me, you don't want to get into these types of disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact I'll be adding UK to all the UK Prime Ministers who don;t already have it. (Most do). Why would you want to delete it, when it is accurate, verified and encyclopedic? Is it something to do with POV? Irvine22 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If I had it my way, I'd skip England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & just go with United Kingdom. But, I don't have it my way (a tough lesson, I had to learn) concerning that topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you agree that United Kingdom is accurate? Irvine22 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The UK is accurate, applying it is troublesome. Ya can't say I didn't warn ya. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
But we must strive for accuracy, surely? This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Irvine22 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
'Tis your choice, I haven't been reverting you on them (and won't again, here). GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That's an incredibly ironic or ignorant or purposely provocative statement, Irvine, considering the list of actions you have recently taken, here and here and here and here and...you get the picture? All of which seem calculated purely to raise your soapbox a little higher than the next fellow's. I suggest you stop trying to make a point. Cheers, LindsayHi 19:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just adding accurate info to the infoboxes for U.K. Prime Ministers. (One of them - Andrew Bonar Law - was born in Canada, as it happens. Or the "Dominion of Canada" as was at the time of his birth. Those were the days, eh?) Irvine22 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're gonna (re-)add UK? please use commas, for example Manchester, England, UK. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Place naming policy

There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states:

  • In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City
  • In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under placename, principal area. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales
  • Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on my own article on Wikipedia. His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.

I will also post a notice at th talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted. --Snowded TALK 07:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For information, that policy "describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places" (my emphasis), not the use of place names in the UK more generally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, but its the nearest thing we have and probably the place to have a single conversation --Snowded TALK 09:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Ghmyrtle is right. Those guidelines are for articles on UK places, and are completely inappropriate for biography articles, including this one. That's also not the proper location for a centralized discussion. I would think an ever-aspiring admin like Snowie would know better. Irvine22 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead footnote

The opening paragraph of the article has the footnote "If James Callaghan is excluded from consideration." From consideration as what? "The first Welsh Prime Minister"? Even if Callaghan was Welsh (which isn't mentioned in his article, and doesn't seem likely to me, considering he was born in Portsmouth and had an Irish surname), he can't be a candidate for the _first_ Welsh Prime Minister. "The only Prime Minister to have spoken English as a second language"? I think it's even more unlikely that this would apply to Callaghan, and I would expect it to be mentioned in Callaghan's article were it true. I propose that the footnote be deleted, if clarification is not forthcoming. Tevildo (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actioned, good call --Snowded TALK 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany, 1936

Did LG visit Hitler in March, June or September 1936--or all three? Does anyone have the exact dates of these trips to hand? Drutt (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tomás Mac Curtain

As an outside observer, I'm starting a thread here simply so that the issue, of whether the article should refer to this case, can be discussed. The IP should not be abusive to other editors, but equally those other editors should, it seems to be, be more hesitant in removing apparently referenced information. Personally, I would have thought it deserves a sentence but perhaps not much more - but I admit to very substantial ignorance both about Lloyd George's life as a whole, and Cork in 1920 in particular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think its relevant. Lloyd George was not in any way involved in the decision in question, in effect it was his office which was attacked not the person. At best its a sentence and I originally suggested (prior to the abuse) that the IP raise such a possibility on the talk page. Its perfectly reasonable to suggest the same in the lede and see if the editor wants to take it to talk. The subsequent history of edit warring without using the talk page indicates a problematic editor. --Snowded TALK 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but why not consider drafting a shorter piece of text, which also places the incident in context? If that was the only occasion on which Lloyd George was accused of murder - whatever the background to the case - it seems to me, on the face of it, that it deserves a brief mention, in context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If the IP was/is serious about wanting it added to the article he should argue his case here on the talk page. Hes been told several times now to go to the talk page. The one time he did post on this talk page it contained a clear violation of WP:NPA which i undid.
I have several concerns about his addition but i was only going to get into a debate on this if the editor wants one. At the moment his motives when taking into account his abusive comments are questionable and the source doesnt appear to be easily available for us all to check over what exactly it says. This is a very serious accusation to include without us knowing the details and the text he continues to insert that he knows will be undone hardly provides balance. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I indicated I was prepared to discuss that, although I would want a much better source before I took it seriously. I don't have access to my books at the moment (I am in Australia) but I don't remember it being mentioned in any biography. I'm also pretty fed up with extreme unionist and nationalist editors at the moment, and one that are abusive do should get short shrift --Snowded TALK 12:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. This online BBC article mentions the case but doesn't refer to Lloyd George. This source (p.19) states: "On March 19th the Royal Irish Constabulary (police) assassinated the Lord Mayor of Cork, Tomás Mac Curtain, as he was sleeping in his own home. Subsequently, the Coroner’s Court found the British Government jointly responsible." It, also, does not name Lloyd George specifically. The other refs that come up on Google appear to mirror the WP article on Mac Curtain. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense - its the office of Prime Minister. Its also a very minor issue in the whole Home Rule issue which is already well covered on the page. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The following confirm the claim. Surely if other wiki pages accept it then this one should as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_Mac_Curtain

http://www.corkcity.ie/aboutcork/historyofcork/themurderoftomasmaccurtain/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/anglo-irish-war/british-response.html

http://www.rsfcork.com/maccurtinmacsuibhne.htm

http://books.google.ie/books?id=xscRAhBt2JgC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=david+lloyd+george+cork+murder&source=bl&ots=8p65pboN5Q&sig=ceTZATwakRCXN0nByi5ylzGrb6A&hl=en&ei=sDQ3TNeEJo_QjAeyh43cAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=david%20lloyd%20george%20cork%20murder&f=false

http://books.google.ie/books?id=IF5xjYKxwBkC&pg=PA194&dq=david+lloyd+george+tomas+mac+curtain&hl=en&ei=6Uo8TKDYIcGCOOGo-awP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.ie/books?id=JrIjuAtEK_wC&pg=PA306&dq=david+lloyd+george+tomas+mac+curtain&hl=en&ei=6Uo8TKDYIcGCOOGo-awP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Ccommons5.htm

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/39649 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.165.150 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not just the source, although of those only the CorkCity page and the book, which has errors considering it calls David Lloyd George the Prime Minister of England could be considered reliable and for such a controversial claim more reliable sources would be helpful. There is the question of notability of this individual case, im sure it is heavily glorified in the Republic of Ireland and in nationalist communities, but is it notable enough for an individual mention on this article? The British Empire during the period this man was Prime Minister ruled a rather large part of the world, should every death be linked to him simply for the office he holds?
Your inclusion certainly provided no balance, the fact this man according to one of the sources you listed was " Already he was a marked man because he was also Commandant of the Cork No. 1 Brigade of the IRA, which covered Cork City and its hinterland seems a rather important fact to leave out.
You should also consider apologising for your previous rude comments and for edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Coogan book (p.124) does appear (I only say that because I can't access the reference itself) to give the verbatim wording of the jury's decision in the coroner's court, and it specifically names Lloyd George. (The fact that the jury itself got his title wrong isn't really relevant.) I think it is certainly worthy of clarification in the article on Mac Curtain, and it may be that it should also be mentioned in this article. The issue is essentially one of weight and balance, but it seems to me as though the sections on his 1918-22 premiership, and Ireland within that, are actually quite short, and a mention of the Mac Curtain case could relatively easily be made within a (slightly, not excessively) longer paragraph explaining his role in relation to Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If something is to be included it must be very clear about the man that was killed. The fact the IPs edit simply said the man was a Mayor and avoided including details about his IRA background clearly justifies the removal of his edits. Its clear the article on this dead guy is also biased. As for that book source, the one line preview backs up the sentence he is trying to add but the restrictions prevent reading what is said before and after, and any form of context. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And i do agree it would be less of a problem if it got a mention in a wider paragraph on the subject of Ireland, provided it has the correct balance. A full section on this incident is not justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Any new or expanded paragraph does indeed need to set out the context in a balanced and unbiased way - but the facts are that he was an elected mayor of an important city, who was a member of Sinn Féin. An encyclopedia shouldn't go beyond that, to imply either that therefore he was a bad man, or that therefore he was a good man. We are talking about a period of conflict - but, irrespective of the circumstances, the fact that Lloyd George was specifically indicted for murder by a jury seems to me, on the face of it, to be notable (and supported, now, by several sources). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: I don't understand why you can't read the text of the book - most of the pages are accessible to me (but not to copy and paste). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
any inclusion of this death must certainly go into the mans background. Just stating he was a member a sinn fein and a mayor does not provide a balanced context. This mans violent past and role with the IRA must be included. I will be making my way to that article on this dead guy to raise my concerns over there about its bias.
As for the book, a search for the Lloyd George's name takes me to the sentence in question but it doesnt allow me to see other text from that page in the free preview. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Bye! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The book is a valid source (less sure about the others), although it is partisan and seeks to imply that Lloyd George was directly responsible (the reference to his newspaper earlier)

This must be regarded as a reliable source.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=3dgOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA68&dq=david+lloyd+george+tomas+mac+curtain&hl=en&ei=R0s8TO-OLZOaOO-jqZoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

The issue is weight and the latest edit makes this the one incident that is covered in the whole war. I think that is excessive, either no incidents or an extended entry surely? To expand on the point, one of the worst disgraces in British History was the Black and Tans, established during Lloyd George's time as Prime Minister. At the same time he was one of the most vigorous in attempting to gain home rule for Ireland. The previous version of the article in effect made no commentary, just the historical events. It is now unbalanced so I am going to revert it for the moment while we reach agreement on how to handle this. Ideally we would have some reference from a biography of Lloyd George rather than an incidental one from a book(s) with a different focus. For the record I do not agree with BW that any reference would have to go into the past of Mac Curtain --Snowded TALK 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i am not after his life history being mentioned, but just saying he was sinn fein and an elected mayor surely fails to put the thing into context. According to one of those links posted by the IP he was a Commandant of an IRA brigade. I have no idea if that is accurate, but it was his source and if other sources back up such a position in the IRA then it needs to be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If it goes in it really does not need all those qualifications BW, its a simple fact. My point is that there are currently NO incidents mentioned in the article so it is completely out of balance to include this one amongst many possible--Snowded TALK 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


man

would it be fair to presume he is the most powerful man to have ever lived because he was in charge of the biggest empire at its peak?? should be put in maybe...? 86.2.249.20 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No. British PMs don't have much power - that is the beauty of a political system based on freedom. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

In 1919 Britain had one rival of similar power (the USA) and two others not far behind (France and Japan). Britain did not dominate in absolute terms in the way of the Roman Empire under Trajan, or even to the extent of the USA in the 1990s and 2000s.Paulturtle (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Welsh Wizard

Although fairly trivial, no where in the article is the term 'Welsh Wizard' used, though this was a common nickname and one that appears often in trivia and modern newspaper articles 1, 2. 3, should this not be acknowledged? FruitMonkey (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lloyd George

The article calls for a citation showing that Robert Lloyd George is accurately described. I don't have a citation, but I know from personal acquaintance that he is. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Lloyd George probably wasn't Jennifer Longhorn's father.

This says she might not be:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article711381.ece

http://lloydgeorgesociety.org.uk/news/000006/memories_of_david_lloyd_george__by_jennifer_longford.html admits her father is more likely to be someone else, called Tweed.

I haven't found any trace of the result. This book review (not a verifying source) implies Jennifer go the DNA tested and then didn't tell anyone. http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001808.php http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/television-in-wales/2009/09/18/ffion-hague-why-i-find-the-women-behind-lloyd-george-so-captivating-91466-24722426/

Drianmcdonald (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish independence war!

Why the is nothing about Turkish national independence war??As we know as well the falling falling reason of politic life of David Lloyd George is Turkish victory!--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't know anything well unless we have reliable third party references. When you have that and a concrete proposal we can look at including something.

--Snowded TALK 11:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:UK government ministers - August 1920 - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg eText 16707.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UK government ministers - August 1920 - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg eText 16707.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
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

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:UK government ministers - August 1920 - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg eText 16707.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Honours

After noticing no mention of when Lloyd George received his OM, I have made a list of honours he received - decorations, academic distinctions and honorary freedoms - cited to Burke's Peerage, Kelly's Handbook and Who's Who. I have only attached dates where there was mention in any of my sources.Cloptonson (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive_1&oldid=1136309413"