Talk:George Brown, Baron George-Brown

older comments
Hey...wow...look at this...kooll..hmm


 * Yes, it's a featured article. I wrote most of it. If you can improve it, please feel free to make constructive edits. David | Talk 23:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Peerage
One has to be very careful when dealing with this particular subject and the peerage, since he did not accept all the traditions of the peerage. When the article says he wanted to be known as "Lord George Brown", this is correct as written. He did not want to be "Baron George Brown", because it isn't usual to refer to life peers as Baron outside of formal naming and George Brown was a very informal man.

Likewise, strict application of category ordering would place Lord George-Brown under the 'G's, but that would be inappropriate in this particular case. He still regarded Brown as his last name. David | Talk 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye and thanks for the explanation. Greetings Phoe 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition
George Brown was Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party between 18 January 1963 and 14 February 1963, between the death of Hugh Gaitskell and the succession of Harold Wilson. I have made some amendments to the Gaitskell and Wilson articles to reflect this fact. --Dovea (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gbrownloses1970.jpg
Image:Gbrownloses1970.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) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Name and Peerage title
We need to be careful with the subject's name and Peerage title on this article. See above for an earlier discussion. Essentially the subject particularly valued the simplicity of the name 'George Brown', and would have preferred to be 'Lord George Brown' if the Garter King of Arms had permitted it. The compromise which was worked out involved him changing his legal surname to 'George-Brown' practically simultaneously with receiving a Peerage under the same title. The article lede has to reflect this accurately while also referring to the name(s) by which he was usually known by the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Brown and drinking
I'm sure I heard an interview with one of Brown's contemporaries at the DEA who claimed that Brown was not a heavy drinker. He said that Brown was a fairly moderate drinker but was completely unable to hold his drink, so appeared intoxicated after quite small amounts, which resulted in a widely held belief that he was a chronic drinker or alcoholic. If anyone can find a reference to substantiate or refute this, it would make a useful addition to the article. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As he died of cirrhosis of the liver, this would suggest heavy drinking. Valetude (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

At the Kennedy tribute
'When Brown went on air, millions of viewers saw him interpret a fair question as an accusation of his having overstated his closeness...' Does this mean he was claiming to be a close friend of Kennedy? Clarify, please. Valetude (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Loss of City job
He started work as a junior clerk in the ledger department of a City firm, but was made redundant after pressing his fellow clerks to join a trade union.

I question the use of "made redundant" to describe the termination of his employment. Legally, redundancy means that a person's position no longer exists and nobody will be hired to replace him in that position. Surely the correct term is "dismissed" if he was fired as a result of his union related activities (then more commonplace earlier in the twentieth century), unless it can be proved his post was coincidentally abolished. How did he describe it in his autobiography (if any)?Cloptonson (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

History
" trade union right wing,"? That's an interesting thought. HOw long has anything to do with unions been considered right wing? 2.24.68.178 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You've removed it from the context - this is a wing within the Labour Party. The party as a whole was and is on the left of politics, but has an internal spectrum of views. The trade union right wing are marked by opposition to any moves by government to restrict trade union activities, but are also relatively economically liberal on issues other than employment rights (they think workers earn more if they work for profitable companies). They are also inclined to social conservatism, and to support Atlanticist foreign and defence policy - reflective of instinctive anti-communism within their unions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Archbishop of Lima
Ok, the Archbishop of Lima incident is gossip in a way, but sometimes a story becomes so widely repeated that it becomes notable gossip. I think we should mention that the story probably isn't true. PatGallacher (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, (1) the text itself describes it as an "anecdote" and "unsubstantiated" with a heading that includes the word "rumoured". It pretty much advertises itself as "unencyclopedic"! (2) do we really want the purple prose "was said to have lumbered over to a tall, elegant vision in red" ?? (3) and a whole section to itself with a heading "Rumoured Archbishop of Lima incident"? (4) The final cited sentence that he never visited South America during his term surely kills it off as factual material. Maybe it deserves one sentence but surely not this whole section which must contravene WP:BALASP and possibly WP:DUE? Actually, a more thoughtful coverage would be why this clearly false story got any sort of prominence. I don't know enough about Brown to investigate that but that might in fact be encyclopedic.  are you really happy to fully restore this in all its glory?! DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes, I am in favour of including it. It is only 4 lines in a fairly lengthy article.  There could be a question about how this story came to be widely repeated.  However the answer could be that it's not disputed that Brown was a heavy drinker in his time in office, so it's one of these stories that ought to be true even though it probably isn't. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that long. It's way over the top for such a silly urban legend to have its own section and retold in a gossipy anecdotal detail. It's utterly unencyclopedic. I've shortened and reworded it and incorporated it into the preceding paragraph about his drunkenness. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)