Talk:Anthony Eden hat

Picture of hat added
Picture of hat added IXIA 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
This is a charming and generally well-written little article that, in my opinion, richly deserves GA status. There are only a couple of improvements necessary. There are a few too many parenthetical statements that make the article flow less smoothly than it could, and it would be good if the text could be rewritten to eliminate these. Also, while citations are present, they aren't as full as they could be. Do Brief Lives, Anthony Eden and The Eden Legacy have authors, for example? You may find Citation templates of use in fixing this.

Once these issues have been dealt with, I will be happy to pass the article. MLilburne 10:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I must sadly concur. In the single section that I've just twiddled with, Vicky's characterization of Eden isn't made more striking by our knowledge that it was Vicky who invented Supermac: this is the kind of aside that's entirely right in a printed book but rendered unnecessary here by the hyperlinking of "Vicky". Also, Betjeman's couplet about Edward VIII is, well, about Edward VIII and not about Eden: there's something worth saying here about the fact that the famously hatted Eden was actually unhatted back in the days (or three years after the days) when such an act merited mention in a poem, but the article overdoes it a little. However, I must add that like MLilburne I greatly enjoyed reading this. -- Hoary 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to me that there might be a little more about the fall from popularity of the Anthony Eden hat. As it is, the article ends with a quote from a Kinks song. I like the Kinks as much as the next person, but the article just trails to a halt rather than being concluded properly. MLilburne 11:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Have tried to improve the flow and have added some context, while remembering that this is primarily about the hat, rather than the man. I think the Betjeman ref, which I have amended, is relevant as the best known observation about hatlessness in the 1930s - relevant too because Edward VIII was another man with perceived star quality. Don't like the large quotation marks too much and so have removed. Hope this doesn't cause offence. IXIA 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine, the large quote marks are a matter of taste. The article is looking really a lot better--excellent work. However, I've noticed that there are still a lot of parenthetical statements floating around. Do you think you could do something about those? Cleaning up the parentheses would give it that final push into GA status. MLilburne 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I confess I tend to take a differing view. If you don't have the quotes, it's difficult to pin thoughts on anything. There is no really objective view about much of this, but, in my view, the observations of individuals offer do offer some insight and impressions: for example, Thorpe's comments about the Moscow photo seem to be to create a real image. I'll think about it! I'm intruiged how an article that started almost with an element of tongue in cheek has aroused such interest. Many thanks. IXIA 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just checking--were you replying to me? Because I agree that the observations of individuals are excellent and very interesting. What I was after were all of the phrases in the article that are in parentheses (like this) and just read awkwardly. MLilburne 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, you and the world. Is this any better? Forgive me, I do understand what parentheses are, but somehow got the wrong end of the stick. (Long air flight yesterday!) IXIA 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking better, but the removal of the parentheses has still left a few sentences that are run-ons. (I know, I'm being picky, but the article deserves to be as good as it possibly can!) The worst examples are:


 * In one episode, when Wilson was told by Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), who, as manager of a bank, wore a bowler, that his hair was too long, Wilson replied that "Mrs Pike [his lover] says it makes me look like Eden".


 * and


 * In the period after his resignation from Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet in 1938 and the outbreak of war in 1939, when he returned to Government as Dominions Secretary, Eden and his acolytes, who, broadly speaking, favoured a tougher stance against Hitler and Mussolini, were often referred to as “the glamour boys”.


 * Once these are taken care of, I think we'll be there. MLilburne 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had another go. Maybe this is better. IXIA 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I think that's do. Congrats. MLilburne 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. IXIA 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steptoe and Son - Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambell.jpeg
Image:Steptoe and Son - Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambell.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG
Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Suez Affair - Hugh Thomas (Pelican 1970).JPG
Image:Suez Affair - Hugh Thomas (Pelican 1970).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG
Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The removal of this image, which is fairly esential to illustrate what has been judged a "good article" is frankly bizarre. Why does Wikipedia so often shoot itself in the foot? IXIA (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If possible see if any related external links can be added and try to find a couple of free images for use in the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger into "Homburg (hat)"
This was closed (though not archived) in March 2011 with this edit by Half price, as there was 'no consensus to merge. Latest comments, and new proposal, below. Swanny18 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to cover a lot of the same ground as the article Homburg (hat), as this deals with a variant of said model. As this article is not terribly long, perhaps it ought to be moved there. —Julian Grybowski (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. There is distinctive historical and social background to the "Anthony Eden hat". This article stands alone and has GA status. Best leave alone, I think. IXIA (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge. A better approach would be to improve the article on the Homburg. LymeRegis (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can the "merger" tag be dropped now? IXIA (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree I think the two articles are marginal at best and merging can make a fuller, better article. Ettatrain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

Disagree The social, political and other aspects of the Eden article would tend to be submerged as a result. As noted above, it would helpful if someone could improve the more general Homburg article. BONNUIT (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree and maybe it's about time the tag dropped. The article stands alone and has GA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.141.118 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Query about referencing
This article cites The Long Weekend: A Social History of Great Britain 1918-1939 by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge. I have a copy of this book and I can find no reference in it to Anthony Eden's hat. It would be helpful if the relevant footnotes could include page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.206.233 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's page 376, though curiously there is no reference to that page in the index. I have inserted this information in a few places.IXIA (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Glamour boys" section
Re the tag, I think much of this material is relevant in that the hat was part of Eden's overall image. Most of it was there when the article was accorded GA status. However, there is lengthy, but interesting, footnote about Eden's private life that possibly would sit better in the main biographical article about him. Will consider this further. IXIA (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the comment here, tag removed. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 15:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NO Photo?
Um, how can we have an article on a specific style of hat and not show said hat?Sedimentary (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge, again
Snow close. A tip of the Anthony Eden hat to all who participated. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(moved from previous merge discussion: after 8 years this should be a new proposal. Swanny18 (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Merge tag reintroduced. Could anyone actually give any example on how this hat is different from the homburg hat, rather than (as stated above) merely being an aspect related to one of its users? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: "The best-dressed politician of all time was Anthony Eden. [...] Even the fabled hatter Lock and Co renamed the Homburg hat ‘the Eden’" - https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/jacob-rees-mogg-a-sartorial-standard-bearer/. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this an argument for, or against, a merger? Swanny18 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would Oppose this: It isn't clear what the reason for this merge would be; Duplication presumably. If so, then they would have to be on the same subject, with the same scope (they aren't). These articles are on discrete subjects, no matter how similar they may look. Homburg (hat) is on a type of hat; this article is on a style made famous by Anthony Eden (It happened to be a Homburg; it could have been anything).
 * OTOH the reason for not merging would be that the result would be "clunky": Homburg (hat) is still only 5Kb long, despite some improvement, while this is a 24Kb page that still has Good Article status, so merging them into a 30Kb page that is almost entirely about one particular usage would not be an improvement. Also, there has been little change since the last merge proposal, so the previous arguments still apply. IMO. Swanny18 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand your arguments. What was distinct about Eden's homburg hat(s)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that this is a British dress style exemplified by Eden, while the Homburg is a type of hat. OTOH it isn't clear what your rationale is for this merger; all you've done is offer a question. Why should this merge take place? Swanny18 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above and last time. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it seems none is going to make the effort to give one example of a detail that explains how a Anthony Eden hat differs from a Homburg hat. Nothing seems to motivate why what homburg hats meant to Anthony Eden cannot be dealt with inside of Eden's own article, does it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose An Anthony Eden is a specific cultural item of greater historical significance than the Homburg hat itself. Merging it with Homburg hat would be like suggesting that the Big Mac article should merged into the Hamburger article.Tetsuo (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every relevant source says that Anthony Eden's hat was a homburg hat, sometimes specified as a black homburg hat, right? How can you compare one of the most iconic specific streetfood meals that sells possibly to millions every year, with one man's homburg hat? Again, I'm not saying all its content is relevant, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be merged with Anthony Eden and homburg hat? I could understand at least slightly better a rename to Anthony Eden's homburg hat, but that kind of even better indicates its inherent separate article relevence issues, doesn't it?
 * So, now you want to merge this to the Anthony Eden article? As that page is already 117Kb, ie. well past the threshold for trimming it down by creating subsidiary articles (which is kind of what this is already) then adding 24Kb of material on a peripheral subject would be pretty counter-productive, n'est-ce pas?  Also, it isn't "Anthony Eden's hat"; the Anthony Eden hat, (or Eden hat) is the British name for one of these things, as the article makes clear. Swanny18 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Have you decided on your rationale for this merger yet? Swanny18 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic is indeed, in full wording, "Anthony Eden's homburg hat". See and listen for instance to BBC. Pretty clear. I hesitate whether that is encylcopedically relevant as a standalone article, hence my contributions to the discussion above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well: Now I fail to understand your argument.
 * First of all, the topic, as you put it, is a merge discussion, which you started when you placed the merge template on the article; and despite being asked three times for one, you still haven't given a reason for why this merger should take place (or even made clear where you want this article is to be merged to). The WP:MERGE page gives a list of reasons why a merge might be appropriate; I suggest you read them, pick one and then explain why it applies in this case (it also says why a merge might be inappropriate; I suggest you read them, too)
 * Second, you've offered as evidence a BBC programme which states (in the first couple of minutes) that this item of headgear was called the "Anthony Eden hat", and then spends the next 10 minutes or so describing Eden's sense of style, as exemplified by the hat (which is precisely the subject of this article). So is this evidence for, or against, a merger?
 * Finally, you've referred to the article's "encyclopaedic relevance"; are you questioning it's notability now? Swanny18 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The content is about a name for a black homburg hat, as popularised by one of many people who wore such a hat: Anthony Eden. Then again, much of the article speaks about Anthony Eden rather than black homburg hats or even Anthony Eden's balck homburg hat. I hesitate whether a separate standalone article is relevant and motivated for that name as a topic on its own. Merge reasons: #1 and #2. It seems to me the article would better be merged with Anthony Eden, with some content also split into Homburg hat. If you would create articles for Anthony Edens whatever other cloths, I would probably hesitate about the relevence for standalone articles for that too. As I would if you would create on article on, say, Winston Churchills or Konrad Adenauer's black homburg hats too, or any other person's black or other colours of homburg hats. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At last! I assume by 'reason #1' you mean Duplication (two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope): This has already been dealt with, on the 19th, but again: It is only your opinion that this article is exactly the same as the Homburg (hat) one because they refer to the same hat; It's been pointed out ( by me and others) that this page is about Eden's style, and about the hat as his trademark (So no, Churchill's hat wouldn't have the same notability, though Churchill's cigar probably would).
 * I also assume 'reason #2' is Overlap (two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap): As there are maybe two sentences in the Anthony Eden article that cover the same ground as here, and just one at Homburg (hat), where is the overlap (ie. text covering the same ground) with the other 20-odd Kb of material here? (Also, if you now want to merge with the Anthony Eden article, you'll need to put a merge tag there, as well)
 * But if your main reason is that you "hesitate whether a separate standalone article is relevant", then you'll need to make a case that this page (despite its Good Article status and numerous sources, not including the two you've presented yourself) actually lacks notability. Otherwise all you are left with is that you don't like it. Swanny18 (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that sensation here, it was implicated all along. I acknowledge there is substantial opposition against a merge of this article, hence retreating. PPEMES (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Anthony Eden is bigger, or at least more well known, among English-speakers than Homburg. And the Big Mac vs hamburger comparison is spot on. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that homburg hat should be merged here? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, if I had I would have said so. I see no problems with having two articles, since one is only about the hat, while the other is about the hat and the man who gave the hat a name that is better known among native English-speakers than homburg. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Still don't understand the fixation of this stand-alone article about Anthony Eden's homburg hat, but giving up. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – per WP:AT (The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles), and WP:GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.). By the way, congrats on your avblockering. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 15:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Eden hat → Anthony Eden's homburg hat – What this topic is actually about, without confusing it: Anthony Eden's homburg hat, or more precisely Anthony Eden's black felt homburg hat, but that's not necessary. In any case, precurrent title potentially confusing for anyone not initiated on a WP:FRINGE level, seeimingly implying that this would be an altogether essentially different hat than a black homburg hat worn by Anthony Eden. As such, per WP:PRECISION, along with WP:CONSISTENCY with homburg hat. See also discussion above. For anyone arguing that Anthony Eden hat is a more WP:COMMONNAME for a homburg hat in English language, then arguments would be welcome for a merge with and subsequent rename of the article homburg hat. PPEMES (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: it's known as an "Anthony Eden hat", not as "Anthony Eden's homburg hat". The fact that an "Anthony Eden hat" is a homburg hat is totally irrelevant for the naming of the article, see discussion in the section above. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thomas.W, it's a good redirect though and will add it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural close and/or Oppose – It isn't a particularly good redirect (although redirects are cheap so I don't oppose its creation) because it doesn't mean the same thing at all, in the same way that "Lagerfeld's jacket" (the Dior Homme jacket he wears frequently) is not the same as "Lagerfeld jacket" (one from his line, worn by anybody). On top of that, Eden no doubt owned more than one hat, so by WP:PRECISION it wouldn't even be clear what the article was about if it was renamed this way. This is a bad idea on the merits, and even worse procedurally: it appears that this move request was made by a user as a way of getting around their very recent failed proposal ( just above) whose outcome she didn't like. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was in favor of a merge but since that was not acknowledged, I suggested a rename. All transparent, all due process, if you don't mind. And all with the intention to try to make Wikipedia better. Have a great day! PPEMES (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge was acknowledged, it was just universally opposed, which is not at all the same thing. This smacks very much of WP:IJDLI. As you said yourself, you [s]till don't understand, but whether you agree with previous results or understand them or not, doesn't mean you should open a new request so soon after a previous one was closed. Give it some time (I'd say, at least six months, but a year would be better), and then try again; perhaps consensus will have shifted by then. Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact in another instance, someone precisely urged to make a completely different request rather than to alter the first one when discussion has ensued. It's hard sometimes to cater for everyone's wishes. PPEMES (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah...: if you are talking about this, you weren't being "urged" to do anything except follow procedure, and to be honest about what you actually want. Just to be clear... Swanny18 (talk)
 * Made the redirect not because it's the same exact topic but because it is wording that some readers may type in while searching for the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mathglot, my Eden is not Eden's Eden. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Tom, Mathglot, et al. This article isn't about "Anthony Eden's hat", the item is called the "Anthony Eden hat", so the current title is correct (By the same logic, this isn't "the Duke of Wellington's boot", it is a "Wellington boot"); This point has been explained to the proposer several times in his/her previous incarnation as but he/she still, apparently, does not understand it. I don't know what else can be said, except maybe to drop the stick... Swanny18 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is only one small, blurry picture of the hat
This article needs at least one close-up of the hat that the article describes. Lashdown1 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added one on top of Churchill (and removed the other of him - an Eden hat needs to be black I think). Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)