Jump to content

Talk:Clement Attlee/Archive 1

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

Untitled

This sentence:

"He attended Churchill's funeral in January 1965 - elderly and frail by then, he had to remain seated in the freezing cold as the coffin was carried, having tired himself out by standing at the rehearsal the previous day - and died of pneumonia on 8 October 1967"

Jarred badly with me. Attlee's own death seems to be thrown in almost as an afterthought in a sentence about Churchill's funeral, and would seem to me to be more suitable for an article about Churchill. If Attlee died as a direct result of the "freezing cold" he endured at the funeral, then ok, but I'd rather it was stated clearly as such (and I've not investigated it myself, but I doubt this was the case).

Photos of Attlee huddled forlornly on a chair at Churchill's funeral are often printed. I don't think it's related to his own death over 2 years later though.

Someone needs to change the picture of atlee its a terrible one


No time to add this now as I'm off to bed, but here is Atlee's cabinet. Need

Lord President: Herbert Morrison 1945-1951, Viscount Addison 1951-1951

Lord Chancellor:Lord Jowitt 1945-1951

Privy Secretary:Arthur Greenwood 1945-1947, Lord Inman 1947-1947, Viscount Addison 1947-1951, Ernest Bevin 1951-1951, Richard Stokes 1951-1951

Chancellor of the Exch.: Hugh Dalton 1945-1947, Stafford Cripps 1947-1950, Hugh Gaitskell 1950-1951

Foreign Secretary: Ernest Bevin 1945-1951; Herbert Morrison 1951-1951

Home Secretary: James Chuter Ede 1945-1951

Admiralty: A. V. Alexander 1945-1946

Agriculture: Tom Williams 1945-1951

Air: Viscount Stansgate 1945-1946

Civil Aviation: Lord Pakenham 1948-1950

Colonial Office: George Hall 1945-1946, Arthur Creech Jones 1946-1950, Jim Griffiths 1950-1951

Commonwealth Relations: Viscount Addison 1947-1947, Phillip Noel-Baker 1947-1950, Patrick Gordon-Walker 1950-1951

Defence: Clement Attlee 1945-1946, A. V. Alexander 1946-1950, Emmanuel Shinwell 1950-1951

Dominion Office: Viscount Addison 1945-1947

Education: Ellen Wilkinson 1945-1947, George Tomlinson 1947-1951

Fuel and Power: Emmanuel Shinwell 1945-1947

Health: Aneurin Bevan 1945-1951

India Office: Lord Pethick-Lawrence 1945-1947, Earl Listowel 1947-1948

Labour and National Serv: George Isaacs 1945-1951, Aneurin Bevan 1951-1951, Alfred Robens 1951-1951

Paymaster General: Arthur Greenwood 1946-1947, Viscount Addison 1948-1949

Cab Min without Portfolio: A. V. Alexander 1946-1946, Arthur Greenwood 1947-1947

Scottish Office: Joseph Westwood 1945-1947, Arthur Woodburn 1947-1950, Hector McNeil 1950-1951

Town and Country Planning: Hugh Dalton 1950-1951

Trade (Board of): Stafford Cripps 1945-1947, Harold Wilson 1947-1951, Hartley Shawcross 1951-1951

War Office: Jack Lawson 1945-1946

Postnominals

I disagree with the FRS post-nominal. This is context-dependent, just as BA, MA, PhD, MD, JP, etc are context-dependent. It is usual, in my experience of encyclopedias, to show only PNLs that relate to honours and awards, not those that relate to educational attainment or membership of learned societies. If this were not so, certain persons would have very long lists of PNLs indeed. Attlee's fellowship of the Royal Society, and the circumstances of this, should be mentioned in the text. Cheers JackofOz 04:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure. That someone is an FRS is an important reflection on their character overall, and is worthy of note. So... Hmm. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 04:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jack (for once). Adam 05:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now come on, Adam, be nice. JackofOz 22:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it IS given as an honour or award though. It is conferred by election, not exam or occupation making it quite differnt from the other examples listed above. Hence I think it should be there. Also Margaret Thatcher has her FRS listed so if we think they shouldn't be there we should remove it there.A Geek Tragedy 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact now I think about it a bit more the "honours and awards only arguement" should take away PC rather than FRS since being made a cabinet minister makes one a privy councillor A Geek Tragedy 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Postnominals revisited

I've removed the FRS once again. It's simply inappropriate to put FRS, Ph.D, Ll.B, M.B., J.P. or similar things in a general reference. If Thatcher still has FRS after her name, I'll remove that one too.

I did remove the PC, but have since restored it. When he was a member of the House of Commons, PC would have been inappropriate after his name since the pre-nom "The Rt Hon" was sufficient to indicate his membership of the Privy Council. But once he became an Earl, he was The Rt Hon by virtue of that peerage, so PC is now necessary to show that he was also a member of the Privy Council. JackofOz 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-edit

In addition to adding some material, I have taken the liberty of re-editing part of the article, in order to clean up the chronology and avoid unnecessary duplication. Nothing has been omitted.

--Train guard 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UT

Evaluation

Can someone say what, exactly, is objected to here? The evaluation is not particularly opinionated, and large parts of it are referenced.

--Train guard 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that no one has put forward any reason why they think the section is not NPOV as required by the notice, I am removing it. Dabbler 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, someone has seen fit to challenge the neutrality of this section. Why?

--Train guard 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

-Because it reads like a funeral oration? Geesh, talk about POV-tone.--Buckboard 07:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


You must go to some bloody odd funerals.

--Train guard 11:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know why his name is sometimes spelt Atlee? Is this just a mistake? If you type clement atlee in wikipedia you are redirected to attlees page--Ruddyell 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a common misspelling, particularly among non-Brits.

Bastie 18:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it is a common misspelling, like "Field Marshall"

Where is El Hanna?

said; "where he was badly wounded at El Hanna" what's El Hanna ? UNSIGNED UNDATED
The Battle of the Hanna --jmb 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware Attlee was at Kut. Just flicked through a biog (Francis Beckett) last night, said he was on the Sinai Front in 1916 after Gallipoli ended early that year. He briefly lost use of his legs after being wounded in the buttocks, and was sent back to UK. Confusion may be because General Maude, who was the last man off Gallipoli, (stepping into the boat commanded by Captain Attlee) was later the general who conquered Mesopotamia in 1917. Also the Burridge biog says he was at Kut but the coverage of WW1 is very thin and may just be a slipup. Somebody else might want to look into it (the best biog is Kenneth Harris but I don't have a copy to hand) but I don't think the article is correct as it stands.

Longest serving?

Paragraph 1 of this article states:

"He was the longest-serving Labour Party leader in history (1946 - 1951)."

Hadn't this record been surpassed by Tony Blair (1997 - 2007)? Vonkje 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Folks are getting confused here. Attlee was longest-serving as Party Leader -- roughly twenty years (from mid-1930s to mid-1950s). But he served only about 6 years as prime minister. By contrast, Blair's time as leader (much shorter overall) was spent mostly in office. I've corrected the para too. Nandt1 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not Sir Clement?

Another user changed Attlee's title under the photo to Rt. Hon. Sir Clement Attlee. I have reverted this to Rt. Hon. Clement Attlee. Certainly he was never known as Sir Clement -- either Mr. (or Major) or later Earl. While I am no expert in these matters, the Dictionary of National Biography indicates that, although Attlee was in fact made a Knight of the Garter (KG) in 1956, this occurred after he had already been created Earl in 1955 (which I imagine would take priority over a knighthood). But I'm quite prepared to be corrected by a true expert in heraldry! Incidentally, perhaps such an expert will explain why his younger two daughters are here given the title of Lady and the eldest not. Nandt1 11:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because he was given a peerage, the lesser knighthood is no longer used. Attlee was given the Garter after the peerage, so he was never known as "Sir" because he was already known as "Lord Attlee". PeterSymonds 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote in May, 1940

The article states:

"The disastrous Norwegian Campaign resulted in a vote of no confidence in the government [3]"

Actually, the government won the vote, but thirty Conservative MPs voted with the opposition on what was in effect a vote of confidence, and Neville Chamberlain's position was unsustainable. The BBC source is also inaccurate. Norvo 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified this in the main text.

--Train guard 10:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm new to Wikipedia and cannot understand how someone can bluntly state that Attlee's time in power was "a Golden Age" for Britain. What if I said that Thatcher's time in office was "a Golden Age"? I'd be no less right...or wrong, would I? Can we remove it?TaxHaven 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gbishton (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Query Ineffectiveness after 1951

In the light of John Bew's Citizen Clem the statement "but had lost his effectiveness by then" does not ring true as a summary of 1951-1955. Bew's account focuses on a good fightback and the Conservative Party arguably winning in 1955 due to a bounce from Eden's recent leadership takeover and the feelgood factor as rationing ended. Certainly Labour led the opinion polls throughout 1953 which does not imply ineffective leadership. <ref Pollbase at https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls /ref>

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clement Attlee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is seriously lacking in inline references. Please take a look at WP:CITE. Because of this, it has failed its Good Article nomination. Once the article is sufficiently referenced, please renominate it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking in inline references. I can only assume you have made this comment without looking at the article. Have you been looking at the same article I've been looking at? G-Man ? 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The following information lacks references:
  • "From 1907 to 1910" paragraph
  • "By the end of World War I" paragraph
  • Entire "Marriage and children" section
  • " 'Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim'." quote
  • "He went on to write:" quote
  • "At the 1922 general election," paragraph
  • "In 1926, he actively supported" paragraph
  • Almost all of " Opposition" section
  • Almost all of "Deputy prime minister" section

These are only from the first 6 of 15 sections in this article. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that seriously lacking was the correct description. However I've made big efforts to bring the article further up to scratch. Since I last nominated this. G-Man ? 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, it was my opinion at the time. Since then, I have given examples of what needs to be cited. In addition, there are still several issues that need to be addressed before this is renominated for GAN, including:
  • References all go after punctuation marks, not before, per WP:FN
  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access date
  • "Further reading" goes after "References" per WP:LAYOUT
  • Only include a period in image captions when they are full sentences; several of them are sentence fragments.

Gary King (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have linked some dates that I believe are relevant to improving the context of the article, as is my understanding of present policies. If anyone wishes to remove them, then I would appreciate it if they discussed it here first, rather than undergoing a blanked revert. Thankyou. G-Man ? 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, I disagree with the linking of all the years, especially the decade links, but you already know my beliefs about linking chronological items—which, as you can tell from the now-completed RfCs, is a position many share with me. However, in the spirit of discussion, I would like to know how any of those year and decade links provide context as you say here and in your edit summaries. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is an explanation:

Clement Richard Attlee, 1st Earl Attlee, KG, OM, CH, PC (3 January 1883 – 8 October 1967) was a British politician, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, and leader of the Labour Party from 1935 to 1955. He served as Deputy Prime Minister under Winston Churchill in the wartime coalition government, before leading the Labour Party to a landslide election victory over Churchill at the 1945 general election. He was the first Labour Prime Minister to serve a full Parliamentary term and the first to have a majority in Parliament.

1945 is the year which Attlee became Prime Minister and 1951 the year in which he left office. These are the most important dates of the article and are therefore highly relevant. They help provide an overview of the period in which he was prime minister. Likewise 1935 and 1955, are the years he was leader of the Labour Party, so an overview of the world situation at that time can IMO be helpful to the readers. Likewise the other links.

Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the Labour Party's official policy, supported by Attlee, was to oppose rearmament, and support collective security under the League of Nations. However, with the rising threat from Nazi Germany, and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, this policy lost credibility. By 1937, Labour had jettisoned its pacifist position and came to support rearmament, and oppose Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.[1]

The international events of the 1920s and 1930s are directly relevant to this paragraph, and the understanding of the period, and are therefore helpful to providing historical context.

==1945 General Election==

Following the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, Attlee and Churchill wanted the coalition government to last until Japan had been defeated. However, Herbert Morrison argued that the party would not accept this, and the Labour National Executive Committee agreed with him. Churchill responded by resigning as coalition Prime Minister and decided to call an election at once.[2]

And...


====1947 crisis====

1947 proved to be a particularly difficult year for the government; an exceptionally cold winter that year caused coal mines to freeze and cease production, creating widespread power cuts and food shortages. The crisis led to an unsuccessful plot by Hugh Dalton to replace Attlee as Prime Minister with Ernest Bevin. Later that year Stafford Cripps tried to persuade Attlee to stand aside for Bevin. However these plots petered out after Bevin refused to co-operate.[1] Later that year, Hugh Dalton resigned as Chancellor after inadvertently leaking details of the budget to a journalist, he was replaced by Cripps.

Seem as these are sections specifically about events which took place in a particular year. A link to that year seems entirely justified in the context.

I hope these are reasonable explanations. Although I see someone removed them again (sigh!). G-Man ? 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You have been one of the few people who have bothered to explain the relevance of a date link instead of blatantly stating that "they are useful". My questions/rebuttals:
  • The four year links in the lead: You are right that the dates are relevant. But are the accompanying links that relevant? For example, I don't think that a reader of this article would care that in 1951, "A Pennsylvania Railroad passenger train derails near Woodbridge Township, New Jersey, killing 85 people and injuring over 500, in one of the worst rail disasters in American history." or that "Muhammad Reza Shah marries Soraya Esfandiary Bakhtiari." Most of the events on the year links are so coincidental and unconnected that they don't really help to provide a smooth overview of that year.
  • The decade links: Fair enough. But I would only link "1920s"; readers can easily get to the article about the 1930s from the navbox at the top of the 1920s article.
  • Not sure why 1945 is linked again. It may be marginally relevant, but is not worth the overlinking.
  • I see your reasoning for 1947, but wouldn't it make more sense to link to 1947 in the United Kingdom? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well.

Some of the information in the year links is relevant, such as the stuff about the Korean War or the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community for instance. The fact that the year pages are poorly formatted is more a criticism of the year pages than an argument against linking to them. Anyway IMO we cannot assume that our readers know anything about what happened in say 1951; this article may be read by 12 year olds who know little about history, and providing a link to relevant dates can be a useful way of providing historical context.
Otherwise, I think you're taking the 'do not overlink' thing a bit too far. Are you really saying that linking 1930s or the others is excessive on an article over 200 kilobytes long?

G-Man ? 12:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Clem Attlee A Biography By Francis Beckett was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Attlee was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

India

Only 2 lines about the partition genocide that he caused killing millions? What a biased article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.225.27 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

India is described as the "first" decolonisation. Most parts of Ireland were effectively decolonised in 1922. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Both reversals of previous policy took place shortly after dramatic wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ireland 1922 was not a decolonisation. Ireland had thitherto been an integral part of the UK, not a colony. Alarics (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not interested in legal technicalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To say "Ireland was not a colony" is insane delusional English propaganda. Ireland was subjugated by English troops, terrorised by genocidal English slaughters, and populated with English settlers sent out from the home country. Normal average colonialism.

DavidLJ (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Southern Ireland remained part of the British Commonwealth until 1949. (92.20.35.73 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree, that the Republic of Ireland only became completely independent of Britain in 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.183.227 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ireland was never a colony, it was part of the UK. The Irish Free State was not independent, it was a Dominion of the Empire. (Gyamk (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
Ireland was technically a Dominion with the understanding that it was totally 100% independent. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No. Ireland wasn't fully independent until 1938 when it was given control of the Treaty ports, otherwise it would have been in World War II. Also its economy remained massively dependent on decisions at Westminster due to the Free State using sterling, and especially during the Trade War. (Gyamk (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC))

Ireland was part of the UK with full representation at Westminster. It only became a colony of the British Empire in 1922. (HobneyStout (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

The Irish Free State was a colony of the British Empire, so this was not an example of decolonization. (217.42.28.224 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

The Free State wasn't a colony, it was a Dominion in which Britain had no presence except the notional authority of the Crown in the conclusion of treaties and the accreditation of foreign ambassadors, but not in foreign policy. The same applied to 'Eire' from 1937 to 1948. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Ireland was never a colony of the British Empire. It was part of the UK, with full parliamentary representation at Westminster. (Mahaaus1973 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC))

Queen Mother

This article seems to think the Queen Mother thought Atlee was a bad PM, but what it says on her article reads like there's a bit more to it than that:

Her political views were never publicly disclosed, though a letter she wrote in 1947 described Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee's "high hopes of a socialist heaven on earth" as fading and presumably describes those who voted for him as "poor people, so many half-educated and bemused. I do love them."[74] She told the Duchess of Grafton, "I love communists".[75] Woodrow Wyatt thought her "much more pro Conservative than the Queen or the Prince of Wales"[76] but she later told him, "I like the dear old Labour Party."[77]

That doesn't seem so anti-socialist to me now does it? 86.136.7.62 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

So much publicity was given to the first boat-load of West Indians in 1948 that Attlee said that it would be mistake to take it too seriously. Eleven MP's sent a letter to Attlee in 1948, objecting to immigration.

Glossing over Attlee's opposition to rearmament

It seems odd that this article deals so little with Attlee's opposition to rearmament (which lasted until 1937), whereas the article on Baldwin contains many more Attlee quotes on this issue (see below). I think that these should be moved across - Attlee's opposition to rearmament right up until the "last minute" is a major weakness in his personal history that should be included to make the article more balanced. After all, if he had had his way, Britain would have lost the War, and the world would be a very different place today.

"Clement Attlee said on 21 December 1933: "For our part, we are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of rearmament".[48] On 8 March 1934 Attlee said, after Baldwin defended the Air Estimates, "we on our side are out for total disarmament".[27] On 30 July 1934 Labour moved a motion of censure against the government because of its planned expansion of the RAF. Attlee spoke for it: "We deny the need for increased air arms...and we reject altogether the claim of parity".[48] Sir Stafford Cripps also said on this occasion that it was fallacy that Britain could achieve security through increasing air armaments.[48] On 22 May 1935, the day after Hitler had made a speech claiming that German rearmament offered no threat to peace, Attlee asserted that Hitler's speech gave "a chance to call a halt in the armaments race".[49] Attlee also denounced the Defence White Paper of 1937: "I do not believe the Government are going to get any safety through these armaments".[50]"

Theeurocrat (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hilton Young

There's an anecdote in Hilton Young's page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Edward_Hilton_Young,_1st_Baron_Kennet) that say that Young took pity on Attlee when they were at prep school together and gave him jam from his own pot, so maybe that should be included here, or is it too 'chatty'? Also, I haven't checked the source of that so maybe that should be done if it's going to be added to this page. 11 March 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.2.70 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1930s

My edit was reverted because it was apparently a "blatantly biased diatribe". Please note that everything I added to the article was referenced by reliable sources and accorded to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As a previous user has stated on this talk page, Attlee's opposition to rearmament was curiously given no adequate coverage in this article. I have rectified this and included his opposition to the Munich Agreement. There is no good reason why this information should not be included in the article.--Britannicus (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Book on Clement Attlee's mission to Beijing

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo4k9an2UEwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference 74

Can someone check reference 74 to make sure it's actually relevant to the article? It googles to a book about nanotechnology, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to Attlee and google doesn't show me the book's page. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Appeasement

The introduction was misleading so I corrected it. Attlee and the Labour Party opposed rearmament and supported appeasement until 1938, after which they reversed their positions. (JimMacAllistair (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clement Attlee. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Too much information was removed from the lede by one editor. Attlee was the greatest Prime Minister the UK ever had, he is too historically important to have a brief summary of his record in office. (109.158.178.180 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC))

@109.158.178.180 : That is your opinion. All text must be properly and reliably sourced (see RS) and not violate POV and OR. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clement Attlee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 15:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis clearly redundant

I cannot see any point in starting the main article with a synopsis. The lede is meant to be the synopsis, and two are virtually duplicated in the present case. Unless anybody objects in the next week or two, I think I should be entitled to delete the synopsis. Valetude (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Valetude. the synopsis was added by an IP who made no other edits on Wikipedia and is unfamiliar with it. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that the synopsis is not required and can be removed as long as no sourced material not included elsewhere in the article is not lost. Macs15 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Major?

The title of 'Major The Right Honourable' cannot be correct. He had been a wartime major, and was often known in Parliament as 'Major Attlee'. But strictly, that honorific is meant to be confined to regular army majors only. Valetude (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nit-picking, but...

The initials FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) are appended to his name in the lede. But the article does not mention when or why he was given this distinction. If the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, should this not be dealt-with in the article? Valetude (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

so right

What a great man. He predicted the bombings in in UK by British people who declared war on the rest of the British people. You only have to look online to see the rivers of blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.166.251 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Decolonisation

Attlee was not an advocate of decolonization. He only gave independence to India because of American pressure and because it required seven army divisions to maintain order when none were available in 1947. Elsewhere he fought to maintain the Empire. (217.42.27.140 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC))

Not true. His Labour Party was anti-colonial for decades and he was point man on decolonization since 1930. William Roger Louis, Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization (2006) p 457 says "Attlee felt morally obliged to concede Indian independence." for more evidence see http://books.google.com/books?id=B8iJNlWcdIUC&pg=PA21 Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Labour continued to support colonialism after 1945. Attlee helped the French reoccupy Vietnam and sent soldiers to Korea and Malaya. He only gave independence to India because there was no alternative, Churchill would have done the same thing. (81.159.6.28 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC))
that's not what the reliable sources say--they are cited. Vietnam and Korea were Cold War issues and never part of the British Empire. Malaya was an anti-communist effort. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Helping France in Vietnam and the United States in Korea was certainly colonialism. Also what about Attlee's policies with regard to Africa and the Middle East? He resisted giving independence to India until February 1947, when it could no longer be denied after pressure from the US over Marshall Aid. (81.159.6.28 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC))
Washington made it clear it was helping South Vietnam and kept trying to force France out. Which happened in 1954. The US did not play a role in India 1947. Attlee was the first British leader to push for independence for India. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Eisenhower provided massive military help to the French until they were defeated in 1954, after which he began supporting South Vietnam (which was the product of US colonialism). Attlee did not push for Indian independence, he was forced to allow it because the UK was bankrupt and had no reserves of soldiers to maintain order. (5.81.223.211 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC))

The 1945 Labour manifesto advocated "the advancement of India to responsible self-government". Seadowns (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-government meant Dominion status, like Ireland at the time. Attlee did not decide independence was inevitable until February 1947, following the naval mutinies. (Mahaaus1973 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC))

Ireland (ie not NI) was independent, it stayed neutral, and so would India have been with responsible self-government as promised in the manifesto. There was much difficulty in ending the Raj. Whether it could have been done better I don't think is known. Seadowns (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No citations in the lede

This lede has next to no sources, I am no expert on Mr.Attlee or wikipedia but surly this is a ploblem? Russell's teapot (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally a Wikipedia lede does not have footnotes. The reason: its source is the following text--that is the lede summarizes the text of the article which has full footnoting. Cites are needed for quotes but there are none here. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clement Attlee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Attlee's coat of arms should display the hearts Or with their attached wings Argent. Some Wiki editor must know how to fix that. Not me.Harrymcmwalsh (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone, who understands how to do it, should fix the coat of arms so that the hearts Or are shown in gold. The wings on the hearts are now correctly shown Argent, silver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrymcmwalsh (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Section on India

I copied the text on India from Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present) and added to it. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

1948

The British Nationality Act of 1948 was passed in 1948, when Attlee was Prime Minister. This might be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have put a reference to the 1948 law into the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clement Attlee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Major Infobox Reform

Attlee's infobox was something to behold - his many offices and the details of his tenure were so jumbled up that it was barely navigable, not to mention his family details plonked right in the middle! I have gone through the whole thing and performed a major clean up, painstakingly piecing the blocks of code back together and placing it all in a rational order. As the infobox was decidedly on the long side, I also split the offices into collapsible sections, as I did with May, Clarke, Churchill and Harman. I pray that future editors can keep it neat! Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

Please look at this link [1] from the bbc. It claims Attlee’s DOB is 2 January instead of the 3 January as stated on the article. Please could someone review and make a decision? Regards Willbb234 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

1945 general election

Was this outcome really an "unexpected landslide". Landslide obviously, but pictures from the victory celebrations often reveal not so few red USSR-flags (and Stalin's horrific crimes were largely unknown). Europe including the UK was affected by strong left often dark-red winds. Hence I wonder "unexpected" by whom ? Boeing720 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all political commentators. The opinion polls weren't taken seriously back then (although this kind of outcome helped their reputation) and it was widely expected Churchill would be re-elected similar to Lloyd George in 1918. Even many Labour politicians were taken aback to have won this time around - many hoped at best for a big increase in seats that would prepare them to win a majority at the following election. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I take your reply as there were polls, and they were in the same direction as the result. But back then few payed attention to them. It also seems like this election was some kind of break though for opinion polls - afterwards. Interesting! Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There's more about it here. G-13114 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

'Lede too long' tag

The lede is only a little longer than it should be, relative to the article. It is the article, at 12,000 words, which is much too long. Such detail really belongs in the articles on the Attlee administrations, not the one on Attlee himself. Valetude (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valetude: The article is long, but not far too long. The WP:SIZERULE says that an article of this size (73 kB of readable prose) should "probably" be divided, but it's significantly lower than the 100 kB threshold that more decisively requires action. That said, you're right that there's a lot of detail about his administrations that could reasonably be moved to the Attlee ministry page with a briefer summary here. Ralbegen (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Re the 100kB threshold, I think we should recognise that Attlee is not actually classed as Premier Division, however worthy (most teenagers haven't heard of him), and that we should keep things in proportion. Valetude (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
If text fails content guidelines then that should be addressed, but WP:LENGTH doesn't address what makes a subject deserve a longer article. I'm not sure that the teenager awareness standard is very useful in any case. Ralbegen (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Most teenagers haven't heard of him? Not the impression I get from the teenagers I know. As for "Premier Division", I recently read a piece in which a recognised authority on British political history pointed out that there have been 55 prime ministers but only five who can be classed as "truly great" (his words): Pitt the Younger, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill and Attlee. This is an encyclopaedia with an unlimited scope, subject to notability, and arguments about what teenagers may or may not have heard have no relevance whatsoever, especially when they are inaccurate and condescending to teenagers. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is 'condescending' to teenagers. It's the other way round. I regard awareness by teenagers as a good litmus test of general notability. Valetude (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what teenagers 'think', if that isn't too strong a word for whatever goes on in their undeveloped brains. Attlee is commonly recognised, with Churchill, as one of the two greatest British prime ministers of the twentieth century, indeed one of the greatest since the office was created, and for substantial and easily provable reasons. If teenagers don't even know who they have to thank for the fact that they can visit a doctor free of charge when they're ill, that's their fault. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Questionable statement

The statement "Ellen Wilkinson, the only woman to serve in Attlee's government, was appointed Minister of Education" is problematic. Wilkinson was the only woman to serve in Attlee's cabinet, but Edith Summerskill served as a minister throughout his premiership (ultimately holding a senior position - Minister of National Insurance - albeit not in cabinet) and Peggy Herbison served as a Minister in the Scottish Office towards the end of his premiership. Thus I think it would be better and more accurate to describe her as "the only women to serve in Attlee's cabinet", as the others did clearly serve in his government. If nobody objects, I would propose to make this change in the near future. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I have gone ahead and made the change. Dunarc (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Questionable statement 2 - end of Attlee-Churchill wartime partnership (section Deputy Prime-Minister)

Only Attlee and Churchill remained in the War Cabinet from the formation of the Government of National Unity in May 1940 through to the election in May 1945.

This reads anachronistically. No election was held until July of 1945. Between May and then there was Churchill's caretaker government in which Attlee on his party's behalf rejected a continuation of the wartime coalition. (I also ask, having consulted the wiki article on the caretaker administration, if Attlee remained as Deputy Prime Minister as I see no DPM named in the list of those serving in it.) Is it not the correct case that the two remained only until the defeat of Nazi Germany and VE Day?Cloptonson (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"As of 2022, Attlee remains the longest serving Labour Prime Minister."

This is surely wrong? Or am I overlooking something?--Knaxberg (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Changed it now myself back to the earlier: "longest serving leader of the Labour Party". --Knaxberg (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clement_Attlee/Archive_1&oldid=1136615989"