Talk:Clement Attlee

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)

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)

Date links

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.

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.

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. 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 Iron 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)