Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H. H. Asquith/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 [1].

H. H. Asquith[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tim riley (talk), KJP1 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... H.H. Asquith, the last British prime minister to lead majority Liberal government, and on that account and the later decline of the Liberal Party alone a significant figure in British history. TO say nothing of his policies. And the War. Nommed on behalf of self, Tim riley, and KJP1.Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Tim Riley listed as a nominator? As far as I can see Tim has never edited this article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim wrote the first third - birth to the Premiership; Wehwalt wrote the second third - Premiership to the War; and I wrote the last third - the War to death. All building on the pre-existing article. Moving the article from my sandbox into mainspace meant that it wasn't possible to show this in the Revision history statistics. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is problematic for attribution purposes; perhaps a history merge would be in order? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but the utility is limited. Perhaps linking to this discussion on talk would be enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond me technically, I'm afraid. But very happy to work on it with someone more competent if the view is that a history merge would be the best approach. The "originals" are readily available in the Sandboxes. My personal preference would be for a merge, if this can be done. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles (which applies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, sections called ==The Biography== should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] DrKay (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - and thanks for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Content-wise it's a step in the right direction but still needs a fair bit of work. Hopefully I should be working on the post-1916 bit - the long sad coda when he hung on for a decade after he ought to have retired - this weekend.
The bits on his premiership are the strongest part of the article, but even there there a few things which need some kind of brief mention - OTOH the Marconi Scandal, the wave of strikes, the CID meeting during Agadir where Asquith (personally, afaik) backed Brigadier (as he then was) Henry Wilson's plan to deploy a BEF to France in the event of war. There's probably a bit more to be said about Ireland. The section on the intrigues of December 1916 needs a going-over as well, not because it's wrong but because it's material of byzantine complexity which must be almost unintelligible to the general reader - more a case of another pair of eyes. It needs a bit more explanation and some of it could be made less confusing (hell, it confuses me) by footnoting controversy over dates where Beaverbrook was almost certainly in error, or perhaps even the stuff about Northcliffe, who was no friend of Lloyd George and the evidence for whose involvement is largely circumstantial.
The pre-premiership sections are good on his early life but less so on the politics, and again there are a lot of things that need a mention and/or fuller treatment - the events of his Home Secretaryship (Featherstone, Welsh Disestablishment) and Asquith's role in the politics of 1895-1905 (the Boer War split, the free trade campaign of 1903, Relugas where it was Asquith who ratted on his co-conspirators).
That's not criticism of anybody. To be honest there is probably a case for hiving off his long and complex premiership into a separate sub-article, perhaps even two with the split at 1914. Happy to continue this on the article talk page. Maybe we can do Lloyd George in some future year.Paulturtle (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the question is length and emphasis, and people can differ on this. For example, I considered including the Marconi matter, especially since you suggested some months ago that the article took too positive a view of Asquith. But I decided the explanation, including introducing various people, wasn't worth the edification to the reader. It's the same with the other prewar matters you mention. We're happy to add anything useful, but I think the issues are at worst cosmetic. As for L-G, happy to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more than cosmetic - Marconi was, apart from being one of the all-time great British political scandals, along with the aftermath of Agadir and the wave of strikes one of the reasons why Asquith let the Irish situation drift for a couple of years. On the other hand it's a classic example of something which doesn't need more than a few sentences stating what Asquith did and referring people to the relevant article. At the moment the article is falling between a few stools - it's already pretty much long enough to justify splitting and goes into full detail on a couple of topics (the Budget/House of Lords crisis which both Wehwalt and I have worked on and the fall in December 1916 which I think is KJP1's work) whilst omitting quite a few things and not going into enough detail on a few others, e.g. the formation of the coalition in May 1915 (a truly murky episode, that one), and just how close that government came to falling apart, several times in fact, over conscription and Ireland. On the other hand, I had to "do" Asquith for History A-Level a number of decades ago and I'm perfectly well aware that an article like this needs to be kept accessible to the general reader, through clear writing, dumping as much as possible into related articles and adding summaries where appropriate. I'm typing up the last of my notes on the WW1 period at the moment and should be working on that section of text over the next fortnight.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you anticipate when you have edited to your satisfaction, that you will support the promotion of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Composing properly-cited text is hugely time-consuming but at this rate of work, hopefully before the end of the year. I am prioritising this and pushing on as fast as I realistically can (I had, fwiw, planned to work on Aneurin Bevan this autumn, having done a lot of work on Gaitskell and Rab Butler). There may be further tweaks after that, e.g after I've dug out my notes on Cameron Hazelhurst and May 1915, but they needn't get in the way of article reviewing.Paulturtle (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#United_Kingdom UK signatures generally receive copyright protection
  • File:Herbert_Henry_Asquith_Vanity_Fair_1_August_1891-cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:H_H_Asquith_1908.jpg, File:Raymond_Asquith02.jpg, File:Cluysenaar_Asquith.jpg, File:James_Guthrie_-_Herbert_Henry_Asquith_1924.jpg
  • File:Venetia_Stanley.jpg: source link is dead. What was the first known publication of this image?
  • File:Votes_for_Women_lapel_pin_(Nancy).jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten those. I've substituted in for the ones I've deleted others that appear to be copyright proper. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • According to this 1834 source John Asquith was executed for his part in the 1663 Farnley Wood Plot, but I cannot find any more recent reference to him, and he is not mentioned in Andrew Hopper's 2002 article THE FARNLEY WOOD PLOT AND THE MEMORY OF THE CIVIL WARS IN YORKSHIRE at [2]. Is anything more known about John Asquith's role? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Koss, Asquith was sceptical about the tales of his Roundhead ancestry (Asquith/Askwith is a not uncommon Yorkshire name), which were accepted as fact by his official biographers. I don't see any evidence that anybody has trawled two centuries of parish records to check.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've no idea either - and not sure it would belong in an HHA article if we did - it's already a very long article! KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the account of his childhood unclear. His mother is said to have been in poor health but a strong character and a formative influence, but she is not mentioned thereafter and the impression is that he was separated from her after his grandfather's death. ODNB gives a bit more detail, stating that he was educated in his early years by his mother (a point worth mentioning), and that she had a heart condition and frequent bronchitis. After her father's death, she moved to St Leonards, presumably for her health, and her sons remained in London while attending a day school. This sounds like the usual pattern of boys living away from their parents during term time. According to ODNB, Asquith's wife was the daughter of St Leonards friends (the article says Manchester), which suggests that he stayed with his mother there in school holidays, and the comment that he was treated as an orphan appears misleading. The statement in the lead that he spent the rest of his childhood at boarding school and lodging with families not his own is incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Koss makes no mention of Asquith ever seeing his mother again, actually. Maybe the evidence just hasn't survived. Can check Jenkins tomorrow. Correct about her influence on his early education, but being a domineering character and an invalid are not mutually exclusive - it was a not uncommon form of passive-aggression in Victorian ladies (e.g. Florence Nightingale).Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that being an invalid and domineering are mutually exclusive, but that it is extremely unlikely - not to say implausible - that a woman with that character was separated from her sons from the beginning of their teens onwards. Looking for evidence that they ever saw her again is like looking for evidence that they had breakfast each morning - it is possible that they did not, but it would be too obvious to mention that they did. You are also missing the point I made above that ODNB gives a different picture of his childhood from the article, and directly contradicts it on two points. The article says that Asquith lived at boarding school and lodgings in London, that he was effectively an orphan, and married a family friend from Manchester. ODNB says that he lodged in London while attending school as a day pupil. It does not say that he spent his holidays with his mother, but that was the usual pattern for upper class boys of spending term time away at school and holidays at home. Maybe the writer who suggested that he was effectively orphaned does not know that. As Asquith married a family friend in St Leonards, where his mother had retired for her health, he must have spent considerable time there. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asquith briefly attended a boarding school in Yorkshire before being farmed out to live with somebody in London, while attending City of London (day) school. Going to boarding school was and is relatively normal for well-to-do families, lodging with other families rather less so, hence the comment by one of his biographers that he was “treated like an orphan”.
Helen Melland was the daughter of a Manchester doctor. Asquith met her while he was staying with his mother one summer (ODNB says he had just turned 18, so would have been mid September just before he went up to Balliol) and she was staying with (presumably mutual) friends in St Leonards. ODNB and his other biographers (Jenkins, Koss) all agree on that.
As far as Asquith’s relations with his mother go, the last letter from him to her in his official biography (Spender & Asquith p29) in 20 May 1868, when he was 15. He spent that holiday with her in 1870, when he met Helen. She died in 1888, aged 60 (Asquith would have been 36 or so) and before she died Asquith assured her that Piggott letter was forged (Spender & Asquith p16). As far as published biographies go, that’s all we have to go on, and writing anything else would be jumping to conclusions. They may have been regularly in touch throughout his childhood and young manhood, or they may have had relatively little contact. He may have loved her deeply, or he may have loathed her and merely gone through the motions on their occasional meetings. We simply do not know, unless somebody has another biography that says different.Paulturtle (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at Jenkins, and he certainly writes of the "ending of any effective home background" by 1864, when HHA was 12. I think this is what Levine means. He certainly didn't stay with his mother on a regular basis thereafter, living as a boarder in private homes. As such, I don't think I'd agree the lede is wrong. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manager of The Times, C. J. Macdonald" ODNB has D. J. Macdonald.
Amended - many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should actually be J. C. Macdonald, as in John Cameron Macdonald 1822–1889. See for example The History of the Times by Morison or Irish Journalism Before Independence by Rafter. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, as illustrated here [3]. Amended with thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest cutting down the text in the lead on his early life and adding something about his important reforms as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
completely agree.. I'm working my way through the text backwards and will probably refocus the introduction when I get up to the top, if nobody else has done by then. Somebody started adding links to it the last time I was about to, and I didn't want to be edit-warring with them.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whiggish element favoured McKenna's appointment" This is the first mention of McKenna.
I think he's now linked properly. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tell me, Mr Asquith, do you take an interest in the war?" This needs some context - who said it and when and why?
Lady Tree, I think. It was intended as a joke, but like many such jokes made him look bad when repeated by others.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed Maud Tree. I've tried to contextualise it.KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Asquith was not himself a 'new Liberal'" What was a new Liberal?
More emphasis on social reforms rather than nineteenth century laissez-faire (and no interest in doing much about Irish Home Rule till the events of 1910 forced it on him).Paulturtle (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With deployment of troops into Ulster imminent and threatening language by Churchill and the Secretary of State for War, John Seely, around sixty army officers, led by Brigadier-General Hubert Gough, announced that they would rather be dismissed from the service than obey." I had to read this sentence several times, but I take that it means threatening language by Churchill and Seely - threatening the unionists?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were threatening the Unionists, and Churchill made an inflammatory speech at Bradford, one of the first occasions in which he used his catchphrase "Let us go forward together..." There were conspiracy theories, widely believed at the time and never entirely disproven, that it was intended to provoke a response so that the UVF could be crushed, hence Bonar Law's "hellish insinuation" that Churchill wanted to make "another Poland" out of Ulster.Paulturtle (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asquith later (in 1913) wrote to Churchill, stating that the Prime Minister had always believed and stated that the price of Home Rule should be a special status for Ulster. In spite of this, the bill as introduced in April 1912 contained no such provision" This wording is a bit confusing. I would state first that the bill did not contain the provision, and then say (I presume) that Asquith made clear to Churchill that he planned to concede the point.
  • You imply but do not spell out that the bill passed a second time in 1913.
Isn't the article long enough already?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bill did indeed pass a second time in 1913, with very little fuss actually. The original plan was for no special status for Ulster, but to concede such status if necessary ("Home Rule within Home Rule"). Then the argument shifted to an temporary optout for the Six Counties.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that the article gets relations with Germany before WWI right. It is not a subject I know much about, but the article seems to imply that rearmament was set aside after 1909, which is not my impression. ODNB on Churchill says that he became increasingly alarmed about German intentions from 1910, that in response Asquith appointed him First Lord of the Admiralty, where he set about modernising and building new battleships.
It's not that rearmament was set aside, it obviously wasn't, given that they were building the dreadnoughts. It's just that it wasn't a big political issue, with the Lords crisis. The paragraph already leads off with and links the arms race. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asquith's cautious handling of his colleagues saw a "slump in resignations."" What does this mean - that ministers were resigning in protest at the prospect of war but the the number of resignations declined?
I've cut that quote. Asquith's success in getting cabinet members to stay is adequately spelled out in the next paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dardanelles Campaign and the Shell Crisis" I would link these.
Linked as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crawford expresses how little he and his senior Unionist colleagues were involved in the key discussions" "expresses" seems an odd word here.
Agreed, and changed. Really appreciate the time you've taken to review and the detailed comments. Look forward to more. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been open close to two months and there's been no new commentary for half that time, so I'm going to archive this and you can perhaps try again after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/H._H._Asquith/archive1&oldid=755423431"