Talk:George Lansbury

Untitled
The emphasis on the national politics of the life of George Lansbury in this little vignette has underplayed the role he took in seeking social justice for the working classes, his imprisonment for refusing to comply with onerous local rates, and the tragedy of the death of the daughter in law who also went to prison over the same issue. The memorials to him (and her!) in the East End of London reflect this personal consideration.


 * Q. In response to the above comment, does anybody know enough about this to add it to the page? EdH 13:52 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A. I was able to find information on Lansbury's work to achieve justice for working people, including women's rights and the Poplar Rates Rebellion, and his imprisionment by the government for these activities. I have included new information in the original article as well as in a new one. While I discovered that his daughter-in-law, Minnie Lansbury, went to prison with him, I found no mention of her death. --Jose Ramos 15:50, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A. I have undertaken some updates to the page. -- Jonathan Rackowe 26 July 2007

Q: The article asserts that George Lansbury said he was in favour of abolishing army and saying to the world "Do your worse" but if you actually examine the source cited (132) it actually specifically says that he did not say that in his address, 'They [another pair of authors] also state that Lansbury sent a message to East Fulham reading: 'I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm the Air Force. I would abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war and say to the world "Do your worst"'. These words do not appear in Lansbury's message, which merely appealed to electors to vote Labour as an escape from the 'menace of war ... widespread unemployment, hopeless poverty and insecurity and dreadful social misery and unhappiness' p. 185, can this be replaced with a different quote? - 20/07/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldJuan (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

George Lansbury books
Q. I have a particular interest in George Lansbury as I am related through marriage. When at university I found a copy of the book he wrote about his life, but have since failed to find a copy; I think it was called "My Life" or something similar. Does anyone know its correct title, and how I might buy a copy?

A. The book was indeed called My Life, published in 1928. Obviously, it only covers a part of his career and life. Lansbury also wrote:
 * Your Part In Poverty, 1917
 * These Things Shall Be, 1920
 * What I Saw In Russia, 1920
 * The Miracle of Fleet Street, 1925
 * My England, 1934
 * Looking Backwards and Forwards, 1935
 * My Quest for Peace, 1938

Biographies have been written by:
 * Edgar Lansbury, 1934 - George Lansbury, My Father
 * Raymond Postgate, 1951 - The Life of George Lansbury
 * Bob Holman, 1990 - Good Old George. Lion UK ISBN 0-7459-1574-4, Aus ISBN 0-7324-0275-1
 * John Shepherd, 2002 - George Lansbury: At the Heart of Old Labour. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-820164-8, Paperback 2004 0199273642

-- Jonathan Rackowe, Great Grandson of George Lansbury. 82.153.70.205 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lido ?
Regarding this item under the heading of HEIRS: "His name lives on in the Lansbury Estate and, of course, the Lido."


 * Is this for real?

Danindenver (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have expanded the line that mentions Lansbury's Lido to reference the location in London's Hyde Park. -- Jonathan Rackowe 82.153.70.205 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

first world war
I think considerably more information is needed about his attitude to the first world war, the supremen political test of the time. The Daily Herald did not campaign consistently against British war objectives, unless I am mistaken... Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Major expansion
This will happen over the next few weeks. The article will, for a while, look decidedly lopsided, but all will come out right in the end. Suggestions for further improvements, sources etc are welcome, for discussion here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of him!
Why is he notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.65.218 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because he was the leader of the Labor Party, a major political organization, and he is mentioned in many independent, reliable sources. See Notability for more information. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  17:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Added images
I have removed the following images, recently added to the article:
 * File:George Lansbury at Skara Brae, 1929.jpg
 * File:George Lansbury, c1935.jpg
 * File:George Lansbury, 1936.jpg

The images lack proper source and authorrship details. In each case the author is given as the "LSE library", which is obviously not correct. Also the licence, which claims PD in the USA on the grounds of original publication before 1923, is clearly wrong when the events depicted in the images date from 1929, 1935 and 1936 respectively. Please do not re-add the images until their PD status has been properly established through author, source and appropriate licence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation
I recently removed Category:British pacifists and Category:British socialists from the article as they seem to be redundant to Category:English Christian pacifists and Category:English Christian socialists respectively. Having been reverted by, I figured I would open a discussion here.

WP:SUBCAT provides that: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous). For example, the article 'Paris' need only be placed in 'Category:Cities in France', not in both 'Category:Cities in France' and 'Category:Populated places in France'. Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."

I imagine it is for this reason that the article is not in Category:European pacifists and Category:European socialists. So I'm not clear on what rationale there could be for keeping the Category:British pacifists and Category:British socialists. Graham (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Graham11 - English Christian Socialist and English Christian Pacifist are specific concepts see Christian Socialism and Christian Pacifism. Do we know that his socialism and pacifism was driven by his faith? AusLondonder (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the categories would not be appropriate for all English socialists/pacifists who happen to also be Christians. However, I think it is reasonable to infer that he is a Christian socialist and a Christian pacifist based on the following excerpts from the article:
 * "There is much agreement among historians and analysts that Lansbury was never self-serving and, guided by his Christian socialist principles, was consistent in his efforts on behalf of the poorest in society."
 * "Lansbury, supported by many in the PLP, moved into a position of Christian pacifism, unilateral disarmament and the dismantling of the British Empire."
 * "His speech—a passionate exposition of the principles of Christian pacifism—was well received by the delegates, but immediately afterwards his position was destroyed by Ernest Bevin, the Transport and General Workers' Union leader […] Union support ensured that the sanctions resolution was carried by a huge majority; Lansbury, realising that a Christian pacifist could no longer lead the party, resigned a few days later."
 * "In an article published in the socialist magazine Tribune, published on 25 April 1940, he made a final statement of his Christian pacifism: 'I hold fast to the truth that this world is big enough for all, that we are all brethren, children of one Father'."
 * Graham (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox additions
An IP is attempting to enlarge the infobox by re-inserting the details od "preceded by" and "succeeded by" in the various offices Lansbury held. These do not constitute "key facts" in Lansbury's career. If the IP has an issue with this interpretation of MoS regarding infoboxes, please bring the debate here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Lansbury. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DXxSnXp4?url=http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITVProgs/1992/01/07/Y05870109//ITN/2009/08/06/T06080924/ to http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618035533/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/library/archive/Default.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * George Lansbury MP.jpg

New fact in lead section proposal
I discovered the other day that Lansbury is Labour's only leader to have never contested a general election - notwithstanding acting leaders and the incumbent, whose tenure has not finished. User:Tim riley reverted the addition of this fact to the article lead, but did not seem to mind it being in the section about Lansbury's leadership of the party. I added it back to the lead, and posted this on Tim's Usertalk page:
 * "Having looked again, I now feel that this fact is more relevant to the lead section of the article, as it is a reason why Lansbury might be notable, so I've moved it there - I hope you don't mind. The footnote should clarify this. Lansbury isn't particularly remembered amongst Labour's past leaders (partly because of how long ago it was, and the era in which he was prominent), but him not contesting a general election does make him stand out amongst the party's leaders, making him unique (acting leaders don't really count, and nor does the incumbent, as his tenure is still ongoing). I added the fact because I think it's the kind of thing which those interested in British political history would find relevant. Facts and feats about such people on WP are not always attributable to a source - such things are in a state of constant change anyway, so even if an old book did state this Lansbury fact, it could still become dated if Keir Starmer stood down before the next election, and would therefore need updating. Hopefully a footnote will clarify it for readers."
 * Tim has reverted this edit and suggested it be discussed at this Talk page, so that's what I'm doing. Tim reverted the text to its "featured article" status. However, WP, like such facts, is constantly evolving, so even when it comes to articles about deceased historical figures, our knowledge of them can change. I think this fact about Lansbury is important enough to be in the lead, given that Labour's past electoral performance is frequently discussed in the media. The FA article text is not static, so it can be changed as and when more becomes learned about a subject.--TrottieTrue (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEAD. There must be nothing in the lead that is not covered in full (and cited) in the main text. You cannot just have this factoid in the lead and not in the main text. Whether other editors think it belongs in the latter we may see; for my part I don't think it merits inclusion in the lead in any event. An statement like this, though unacceptable unless cited, is of mild interest, but it is hardly news and I am sure the main author of the article, the late and still sorely missed Brian Boulton, would not have omitted it had he considered it of importance. If you cannot find a citation for it, that possibly shows that the authors of the sources didn't think it important enough to mention in their books. Let us see what other editors think.  Tim riley  talk   13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim that this fact is surely not lead-worthy, and not even worthy of mentioning in the body, because it is not about the subject. The succession is covered sufficiently by the name in the infobox, - no need to clutter the text. The ref could be added there if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't mind this fact being in both sections, but I was conscious to avoid repetition, which was why I moved it so it was just in the lead. It could be that neither Boulton nor other authors on Lansbury were aware of this fact, or were focusing on Lansbury himself, rather than his place in the history of Labour leaders. A fact can be self-evident without a citation. I'm not sure a footnote in the succession section of the infobox would be appropriate. The succession only covers who came after Lansbury, which doesn't tell us much. Lansbury is a fairly forgotten figure in British political history: at present, this makes him unique. Facts about political figures are still mentioned in their articles even if it is not specifically about the subject (although it can be argued that a fact about Lansbury's significance amongst Labour leaders is relevant to the subject).--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There are two facts here: a) Lansbury as Labour's leader never contested a general election, and b) he is the only leader not to have done so.  Of course neither fact is in the cluttered infobox. I think both are entirely proper to put in the lead, and repeat below, but this is especially the case with a), which surely should be in the lead.  I must say I find Gerda's comments bizarre - how is a) "not about the subject"?  How could it be omitted from the text?  Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. It seems I have made a mistake in my assertion though - John Smith is another Labour leader who did not contest a general election, caused by his death. What would then be appropriate to state is that Lansbury is the only Labour leader to stand down from the leadership without contesting a general election, or to state that he is one of only two Labour leaders not to contest a general election (the other being John Smith). Apologies for the error.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say either, maybe the latter. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave. FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but this will be the least of his reasons. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley that the factoid should not appear in the LEAD section, especially since it is not unique. Obviously, all facts must be cited in WP:Reliable sources, per WP:V. As Tim noted, if we cannot find a citation for for a factoid, it is usually because the authors of the sources on the topic didn't find it important enough to mention. Even the assertion about him "thus" contesting no general elections is WP:synthesis, and the use of three references to support it underlines this fault. I've left that in, for now, but hidden the second, uncited factoid. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added in that Lansbury was the last Labour leader to stand down before contesting a GE, citing The Telegraph as the source.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

, so forgive my lack of familiarity with John Smith (and I can't get to the source cited). Are you saying this edit needs to be reverted? —valereee (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, that edit is fine. John Smith died before he could contest an election. Also, if you use the NoScript browser extension you can quite often bypass paywalls on certain websites (ones that display the page then run a script to hide access to subscribers only), including the UK's Telegraph newspaper. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead
@Tim riley, would you be able to explain how the line: "...he spent his political life campaigning against established authority and vested interests..." is 1.) Supported by the sources and 2.) adheres to the principle of NPOV? Are the concepts of "established authorities" and "vested interests" objective terms in your mind? Alssa1 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the full text – as the reviewers at peer review and featured article candidacy have done – you will find the answer to your questions. But by all means canvass opinion on this talk page to see if you can now persuade these colleagues to change their minds and/or other colleagues to agree with you. If there is a consensus in favour of your alterations to the approved FA text we can make it.  Tim riley  talk   08:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was 'peer-reviewed' in 2013 and is therefore not relevant today. Second, one of the issues is very specific; the NPOV, so I ask again: are the concepts of "established authorities" and "vested interests" objective terms in your mind? Alssa1 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please concentrate: NPOV was policy in 2013.  Tim riley  talk   08:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should concentrate. The fact that it was peer-reviewed almost 10 years ago does not make this article unchangeable and unreviewable for all time. Alssa1 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If we can persuade you to address the point, what conformed to WP policy then conforms to the same policy now. The policy has not changed. You are right that policies here or, in the real world are not "unchangeable and unreviewable for all time" (e.g., as we're on politics, Brexit and the UK's readmission to the EU to undo the damage) but our WP NPOV policy is long-standing.  Tim riley  talk   19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The point has already been addressed; the fact that a version was used in a 'peer-review' 10 years ago does not make this unchangeable for all time. Perhaps you would be able to point to the guidance that justifies your attitude that it unchangeable? Alssa1 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No FAC renders an article unchangeable. Improvements can and should be made continually whenever possible. If you can assemble a consensus that your proposed deletions are an improvement they will be made. There has been no stampede in that direction so far, and your insistence on putting inverted commas around peer review does not suggest that you place much value on the opinions of other editors. The point you seem to have difficulty in grasping is that if something complied with NPOV in 2013 it still complies with it nine years later.   Tim riley  talk   17:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And my contention is that it doesn't comply NPOV, a point that you seem to be unwilling to engage with on any level. Alssa1 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, let us see if you can establish a consensus for your contention. Over to you.  Tim riley  talk   07:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'not relevant today' - um, what?? 2013 is almost yesterday, not like it is 1913 50.111.40.79 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but to be fair, Alssa1 is an openly declared Europhobe, and some tolerance is in order from the rest of us to whom 1913 is not where Great Britain ought still to be.  Tim riley  talk   18:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)