Talk:David Lloyd George/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is nothing here about Lloyd George's apocalyptic beliefs. Was he a dispensationalist? A Seventh Day Adventist or something like that? There is a great deal written about his belief that he was working towards a second coming of Christ by invading Jerusalem. For example in Victoria Clark's Allies For Armageddon. IN the BBC series Clash of Civilizations programme 3, there were interviewees who talked about Lloyd George's ignorance of real geography, of how he believed that cities and places mentioned in the Old Testament were real and in place and demanded that the Army should secure these. There is no question that were he alive today he would be labeled as a Christian Zionist.--Wool Bridge (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You will need better sourcing than that and there is every question as to what he would believe if he was alive today ----Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not asking what he would believe if he were alive today. But asking how he would be viewed. What church did he belong to? Other prominent British political zionists, like Balfour or Gordon Brown and Rupert Murdoch for example, have been Scots Presbyterians. Not sure what Orde Wingate and Winston Churchill were either and the Wiki pages on them do not cover the subject. I can try & look up academic writing on British Israelism & British zionism and see if there is a reference.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this reference?

^{Then-British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George was perhaps even more predisposed to the Zionist ideology than Balfour. Journalist Christopher Sykes (son of Mark Sykes, co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916), noted in his volume Two Studies in Virtue that Lloyd-George’s political advisers were unable to train his mind on the map of Palestine during negotiations prior to the Treaty of Versailles, due to his training by fundamentalist Christian parents and churches on the geography of ancient Israel. Lloyd-George admitted that he was far more familiar with the cities and regions of Biblical Israel than with the geography of his native Wales ­ or of England itself.}

from:

Christians And Zion: British Stirrings

Part 1 in a series of 5 articles on Christian Zionism by Donald Wagner --Wool Bridge (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

YOu need to read up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH your arguments above are good examples of both ----Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It says on WP:OR The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist- But here are published sources, Christopher Sykes son of Mark Sykes of the Sykes-Picot fame, his book, Two Studies in Virtue. And Donald Wagner's article is a university published source. Donald Wagner is professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at North Park University in Chicago and executive director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Are you trying to dishonestly confuse me or are you saying that anything you don't like or agree with or have not heard of before is OR and SYNTH ? --Wool Bridge (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Try not to over react. You have a source which says be might have been more predisposed to Zionism than Balfour and a source which says he knew more of Biblical geography as a result of his upbringing. That is all you have, the idea that he is therefore Christian Zionist is thus synthesis at best. As to "apocalyptic beliefs" there is nothing. Please read those policies again and the examples they give. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In his book ‪Christian Zionism‬: ‪road map to Armageddon?‬ Stephen Sizer writes on page 62 “David Lloyd George who became Prime Minister in 1916 was another self confessed Zionist sharing similar views to those of Shaftesbury. In his own words he was Chaim Weizmann’s proselyte. ”Acetone converted me to Zionism". (ref19) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YtUsAQAAIAAJ&q=Lloyd+George#search_anchor
i.e Lloyd George is quoted in a publication, in his own words, that he was a convert to Zionism! Do you still want me to read Wiki policies? Also see: ‪Albion and Ariel‬: ‪British Puritanism and the birth of political Zionism‬ Douglas J Culver ISBN 10: 0820423033 / 0-8204-2303-3 Publisher: Peter Lang Pub Inc
This is mentioned as well in Victoria Clark's Allies for Armageddon which I mentioned earlier.

This is the man who ordered the conquest of Jerusalem and insisted on the smashing up of the Ottoman Empire leading to a hundred years and more of sectarian fighting & war in the territories. I think we need to know why.--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sizer is writing from within the evangelical tradition about an issue that is fractious within that tradition. It is not the place of WIkipedia to allow articles such as this to be hijacked into those sort of conflicts. Even then your quotation does not support wat you want to say. So yes I do think you should read wikipedia policy, possibly also more widely on this subject. Its always dangerous to look at history through one factional lens ----Snowded ^TALK 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sizer has found a quote from the old boy himself and has a reference. Are you saying this is false? To dismiss his work and say it is not acceptable to Wikipedia because you don't like the tradition in which he has come from is really something new. And what objectionable tradition has Victoria Clark come from that you don't accept her book as a reference? She is a neutral historian respected in both Israel and the UK. And Douglas Culver's Ariel and Albion, an academic book which is sympathetic to zionism, has commited which sin to be excluded by wikipedia policy? I am taking a screen shot of this conversation to show to my students as a prime example of British self righteousness and denial of history, excellent example of 'what I don't know isn't knowledge'. Should send a frame to Jimmy Wales himself so he can see the abuse of Wikipedia Policy by people like you.--Wool Bridge (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get policy here to you? I suggest you show your students WP:SYNTH they may be able to explain it to you ----Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I get 'the policy' alright! The policy is to lie by censoring whatever does not appeal to certain people!--Wool Bridge (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC) --Wool Bridge (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wool BridgeSnowded I don't recall seeing directly on "Christian Zionism" in this book, but the fact that the article contains not a single mention of Zionism would seem to represent a gaping flaw. As you can see, ths book contains an entire chapter on the subject, which is reviewed by the NYT here. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom Segev in his book on the British Mandate in Palestine (One Palestine: Complete, London, 2000) says the prime movers behind the Balfour letter were neither the Zionist leaders nor the British imperial planners, but Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whose support for Zionism, he argues, was based not on British interests, but on ignorance and prejudice.Wool Bridge (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Lloyd George. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110912105223/http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=661 to http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=661
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202003720/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/david-lloyd-george to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/david-lloyd-george/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Ref 104 supports the sentence "Also in 1918 George was one of the many infected during the 1918 flu pandemic, but he survived." The reference says "Collier 1974", but there is no work by a Collier listed in any of the various citations/bibliography/further reading sections. Does anyone know what work this reference refers to? DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've identified the source, it's The Plague of the Spanish Lady: The Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919 by Richard Collier. Still needs a page number. DuncanHill (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Still needs a page number, nearly a year later! DuncanHill (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm marking this as resolved, as I was able to replace it with a reference to Peter Rowland. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been going through the citations, marking those lacking page numbers. As it stands now, 35 out of 190 citations need page numbers. This is very nearly 1 in 5. Any help ion finding the page numbers would be appreciated! DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Now at 25 out of 209, nearly a year after my post. Please help! DuncanHill (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Our article says LlG was given the nickname "the Goat" by Robert Chalmers because of his womanising, referenced to "Grigg, 2002, volume 2, page 146" (That is John Grigg's Lloyd George - The People's Champion). Roy Hattersley, in David Lloyd George - The Great Outsider says he was given it by Francis Hopwood for "swallowing and digesting - with impressive speed - all the information with which he was fed... [the nickname] came to be associated with other aspects of his character". (page 187). DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just checked the Grigg reference, and while it does say that Chalmers gave LlG the "Goat" nickname, it does not say that this was because of his womanising, or indeed of anything else. DuncanHill (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a host of refs to "Grigg 2002, vol3" (that is to say Lloyd George - From Peace to War 1912-1916 by John Grigg) which are clearly incorrect as they refer to events after the close of that book. Refs 71 and 73-82 in the current version. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And more after that as well. I haven't checked them all in detail, but it seems that most of them are probably intended to be references to the fourth volume, Lloyd George: War Leader 1916-1918. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have now checked and corrected these. As I suspected, they were all to War Leader. DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting these references Duncan. I had a lot of trouble with the Grigg refs when I attempted to bring in a consistent citation style for the article back in 2016. I didn't have access to the original sources and IIRC there are several editions of the Grigg volumes with different page numberings. You've done well to clean up the mess, much of which I may have inadvertently caused. Poltair (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Poltair. One of the reasons I've used citebook instead of the harv referencing is it includes a chapter field, which is helpful when readers have different editions of a work. It also means if someone does add a ref from a different edition, they can define that edition and ISBN in their ref, and not run into the problem you had with differing page numbers. Another is, that however careful people are with the harv style, errors do seem to creep in over time (I've seen that on a lot of articles). It's also harder on the reader in my opinion, as more clicks are needed to find a ref and then get back to the text. I've done the same for Hattersley, and will also do it for B. B. Gilbert's two volume Political Life (some are missing page numbers anyway), and Jenkins's Chancellors. Will also get Jenkins's Asquith out of the library to do that - there are a few refs to "Jenkins" without a year which I'm sure are for that and not Chancellors, but I'm reluctant to specify that without physically checking. By the way, I went to Penrice, had friends from Poltair at Scouts though! DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The note in italics at the head of the page advises that his surname was Lloyd George, not George. Shortly after in the bio section, however, it says his father was William George. Later is implied (maternal uncle) that his mother's maiden name was Lloyd. His mother, too, is referred to as Elizabeth George. The double-barreled surname needs explanation. Venqax (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite simply, he adopted it, in honour of his Uncle Lloyd. As a boy he was known as David Lloyd (in the Welsh way of distinguishing people of the same name), and certainly by the time he began practising as a solicitor he used Lloyd George as his surname - the firm he founded with his brother was "Lloyd George & George". In Britain one can, so long as it is not done to deceive, use any name one wishes to. This was previously discussed at Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive 2#His pre-peerage surname (please note that page is an archive and should not be edited). DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

During the Edwardian period the Tories often used to refer to him as "George", implying his double-barrelled name to be an affectation. It was not uncommon at the time though - Campbell-Bannerman adopted one half of his name in honour of a bachelor uncle, in his case I think as a condition of receiving an inheritance. Paulturtle (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Already explained in Henry Campbell-Bannerman's article: "In 1871, Henry Campbell became Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the addition of the surname Bannerman being a requirement of the will of his uncle, Henry Bannerman, from whom he inherited the estate of Hunton Court in Kent. Campbell did not like the "horrid long name" that resulted and invited friends to refer to him as "C.B." instead." Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior discussions established that we should use David Lloyd George as the common name rather than a House of Lords title. I don't see any reason to change that prior conclusion but I make a note here -----Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Checking - the use of his name was long standing until it was changed to the full title in February last year. The long standing use was restored in December last year and was not disputed. It is therefore the current status quo and we need consensus to change it. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that using his common name alone is against the norm. Comparing this article alone to similar articles (Other articles about British Prime Ministers) finds all with honours after serving as the Prime Minister are shown in the infobox. The list below only goes back to 1902, but in my opinion, sets a precedent. I've also gone back through the talk page and it's two Archives and haven't found any of the previous discussions mentioned. Can you provide a link?

Knighthoods - John Major, Edward Heath,

Peerages - Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Alec Douglas-Home (his life peerage), Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Stanley Baldwin, H. H. Asquith, Arthur Balfour

Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I added the paragraph 'checking' when I went through it. It was reverted to the long standing version in December last year - see the edit summary - without opposition. Editors involved can contribute here. -----Snowded ^TALK 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the edit summary. Above you said "The long standing use was restored in December last year and was not disputed.", and now I'm disputing it. Are you able to provide a link to the conversation where consensus was made to have the infobox go against the standard practice? Just because something hasn't been changed in a long period of time, doesn't make it correct. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And change is not justified just because one editor wants it :-) The reason for the long standing position is I suspect, that anyone with knowledge of his history knows, he accepted the title a couple of months before he died to give status to his new wife and former mistress Frances Stevenson; he had little respect for titles (in many senses of that phrase) and it was never a part of his identity. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

So far without proving any previous consensus was made, it shows you're the only editor wanting the article to go against the established norm. I'm going to change the infobox to that of the standard. If you can get consensus to only have the common name, then we can come back to this discussion. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The long standing position was restored in December (not by me but by another editor so more than one) - it is the default position. The discussion is underway here and lets see what other editors say. I've reverted your change - breaking WP:BRD for starters, tone down the aggression please and use the talk page. You could also respond to the point about when the title was granted and why he accepted it. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a standard for these articles that's already been set and cited above. I'm aware you've now broken the WP:BRD. Why can't you provide a link to the conversation that you've cited a few times now? And keep this conversation here please, don't keep posting to my talk page. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, I've made it clear that when I checked this reversion to the long standing version was explained (per my comments above) by User:DuncanHill and was not disputed. He simply restored what had been the position for a long time. So that makes two editors at least who disagree with you. Why don't you try and address the argument made rather than just saying you are right - standards in wikipedia are not absolute. If you carry on edit warring then I will have no hesitation in posting on your talk page again, next time with a 3rr notice. On WP:BRD I'm surprised this has to be explained to an editor with your experience. You were bold, making a change to a version that had stood for over four months, you were reverted, now we discuss. Just engage in the argument - you may be right or you may not be but until there is a discussion and other editors engage we won't know. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Now for the third time in three days I'm going to have to ask you to provide a link to the conversation that you've cited multiple times where you say the consensus was reached for this "status quo". Can you please provide a link? Otherwise, I'll have to assume no conversation took place. I'm more than happy to hear what User:DuncanHill's opinion is on the articles element in question. I'd also suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:3RR, WP:USER and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I also wouldn't consider myself argumentative in this discussion at all, so far you've failed to answer the only question I've asked repeatedly and ignored the evidence I've provided. SThe only 'evidence' you've provided is a statement about receiving the title for the status of the wife, something that isn't in the article and in my opinion questionable as best. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And for the third time in three days I will repeat that when I checked what I found was an uncontested revert to a long standing use of his ordinary name. You want to change that - fine; so far you have only quoted a wikipedia convention not a rule. I've pointed to common use and the very late acceptance (similar to User:DuncanHill when he did the uncontested revert. The late acceptance is a factor in its relevance and I assume you don't dispute the dates. The late adoption to give some status to his second wife I remember from an exhibition and the BBC drama documentary with Philip Madoc. I'll check the Hattersley biography when I get a chance but hopefully another editor can help here. We definitely need some more editors involved and in the meantime I suggest a little more patience on your part. You were (to repeat) bold, you have been reverted and you now discuss. Oh and I'm fairly familiar with 3RR and have made a reasonable number of successful reports for people failing to adbide by it. The policy applies to slow edit wars, its now just about 24 hours. Lets stand back for a bit and let other editors get involved - that is normally best -----Snowded ^TALK 06:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

His common name should be used, as Britannica does and I would imagine most other infobox-equivalents do in other profiles. His peerage is effectively a footnote given he died only months later and never sat in the Lords. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked and Hattersley suggests that the peerage was a convenience proposed by his former PPS, and in part managed by Francis to give him an excuse not the stand in the 1945 election. Given his long absence from Parliament he would have almost certainly lost. The whole thing was kept secret from his daughter who would have opposed it. I think that supports the idea that this was largely irrelevant to his career. Britannica also gives precedent. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that Nford24 makes a very good point. Every 20th Century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that either already had an hereditary peerage or was raised following their prime ministership has their title in the infobox: H. H. Asquith has an inbox name of The Earl of Oxford and Asquith, James Callaghan is The Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, Clement Attlee is The Earl Attlee, Stanley Baldwin is The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Arthur Balfour is The Earl of Balfour, Alec Douglas-Home is The Lord Home of the Hirsel, Anthony Eden is The Earl of Avon, Harold Macmillan is The Earl of Stockton, and Margaret Thatcher is The Baroness Thatcher. Lloyd George was raised to the peerage, the title was created for him, and his descendants continue to inherit the title of Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor so it is hardly an irrelevance or footnote. That he didn't live long enough to take his seat is hardly his fault and if he didn't want to be raised he could have refused it, he didn't, he accepted it. I think that, in common with all the other infoboxes of Prime Ministers, that his title should be respected. Poltair (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Its a common use against wikipedia convention question - not the first time its come up and there is never an easy resolution. Quick responses from a range of editors best way to resolve -----Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not one I'd personally think was worth writing walls of text over. If it were a debate about the article name, which I appreciate it isn't, then it would matter as it would be impossible to suggest Lloyd George is widely known by anything other than his chosen name. But in the infobox…? It's pretty clear to me, OR, that his title mattered little to LG - he had chosen to be, and had managed perfectly well, without one for the previous 20-odd years after his fall. But whatever his motivation, he did chose to take the title in 1945 and that should probably be reflected in the infobox, if such is the convention - which it appears to be. I don't actually think a title mattered that much to Harold MacMillan either. But what really matters to me is that the LG article, and that of his great fellow Liberal HHA, are still at C-class. Now that is shaming! KJP1 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I really understand why the name needs to be in the infobox at all if it's the same as the article title. If I had to choose, I would go along with User:Snowded - I'm happy with David Lloyd George.Deb (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm content with removing 'peerage titles' from the infoboxes of all British prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems frankly bizarre (or at best a sort of grovelling snobbery) to use a title he held for only a couple of months, and is not known by. Comparison with Major, Callaghan, Attlee, etc is silly, they lived long enough after getting their titles to actually have done something other than die with them. Call him by his name, it did him well enough in life and should in death too. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that I agree with the comment above about it being shameful that this article is still at C-class, and yet this silly shenanigans about a name has created more discussion than my attempts (above ad nauseam) to get the refs sorted. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The religious battles of early 20c were intense and the term "enemy" is used by RS. for example: (1) "Evangelicals within the Church ... came increasingly to be seen as disloyal, collaborators with the Nonconformist enemy." see online (2) " In 1903-4 his [Lloyd George] overtures were to the Bishop of St Asaph, ostensibly a representative of the enemy" (see "Lloyd+george"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGlJDb9pLkAhXBJzQIHc5nBpkQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=nonconformist%20enemy%20"Lloyd%20george"&f=false online) (3) look at L-G rhetoric on education issue "Lloyd+george"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGlJDb9pLkAhXBJzQIHc5nBpkQ6AEwAXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=nonconformist%20enemy%20"Lloyd%20george"&f=false online John Clifford was a key player--on the Education bill of 1906 he wrote: "It is the fight of the hour. It is the eternal fight between the intolerant and grasping holders of privilege and the incalculable human soul that is at stake." Quoted in Noel Richards, " The education bill of 1906" Journal of ecclesiastical history 1972 23#1 pp 51-52. 05:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely three uses of the term "enemy": a throwaway comment in a book about evangelicals in the Anglican Church of (or "in" after 1920) Wales, a mention in a recent pop biography and the other a slightly jocular use of the word in an introductory guide for students. "Enemy" or for that matter "religious battles" makes it sounds as though there were vicious personal hatreds involved, or that they were burning down one another's churches (or each other) like they might have done three centuries earlier.

Words like "dislike" and "resent" are a lot more common and more appropriate. Travis Crosby, for example, which I have on my desk in front of me, does not talk about them "hating" one another. Both sides were defensive. The Anglicans knew that their network of church schools could not survive without state aid. Nonconformists thought they were fighting for equality, not to wipe out an "enemy". They were worried about their children being taught Anglican doctrine and felt that the CofE was once again being given privileged treatment and they were taking a backward step in the movement towards religious equality won in the nineteenth century - abolition of religious qualifications for holding public office, abolition of church rates (but not tithes). Things were a bit worse in Wales where the CofE was seen an arm of the Tory landlord/magistrate class.

And one shouldn't get too carried away with what people said in their public rhetoric. Lloyd George in particular was a lot more moderate in private and in Parliament than in his public speeches - as shown by his dealings with the Bishop of St Asaph both then and in 1906 - a characteristic he shared with many politicians then and now. As a schoolboy, Lloyd George had famously led a strike against reciting the Anglican Catechism to the School Visitors - but in a speech in 1902 (sadly I can't find immediately it) he spoke kindly about the Anglican vicar who had taught him, and of how he had kept the kiddies enthralled telling them Bible stories.

By the 1940s relations between the Protestant Churches had all got fairly amicable, but that was still a few decades in the future.Paulturtle (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

By the 1940s the Nonconformist position was collapsing--they had closed most of their schools for example and their Liberal Party was far from power. John Clifford was a major player -- the leader probably--and historians like Richard say he was dead serious. (the quote was from a private letter) And indeed so were the thousands who refused to pay taxes or were ready to go to jail. They really disliked the C of E powerhouse. As for not taking L-G's rhetoric seriously!!! well that seems to overlook his amazing influence. Yes L-G pretended to be religious and kept his agnosticism a deep secret--but he knew his followers were intensely religious and he played to that. I think the consensus of historians is that the battles over schools were deadly serious esp in the 1902-1908 period--see The nonconformist conscience: Chapel and politics, 1870-1914 by D W Bebbington (1982). And that includes battles inside the C of E regarding evangelical vs high church. Protestant religion seems to have petered out in Britain in 2019--tho you still have activity among Catholics and Muslims--but how that happened has long been a major historical topic --see 60 years ago = John F. Glaser,"English nonconformity and the decline of liberalism." The American Historical Review 63.2 (1958): 352-363.. Rjensen (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please could editors actually say what their refs are, instead of giving bare links. I would hardly call the Wilkinson work (Statesman or Scoundrel) reliable or balanced for example. Useful with a pinch of salt yes, but notably disconnected from the context of what it claims. It also suffers from many of the failings of our article, in poor or non-existent referencing. Atherstone (Evangelicalism and the Church of England in the Twentieth Century) works for the Latimer Trust, a fairly extreme evangelical CofE body, and again we need to take what he says with a fairly hefty pinch of salt. I do think the use of the word "enemy" now is rather over-egging the pudding, and for the same reason, a failure to appreciate the context and language of the times. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"enemy" is a pretty standard term that does not exaggerate how the religious issues animated deep political battles, with L-G a prominent and vehement leader. Thousands of Non-conformists deliberately broke the law to defy the C of E success in 1902. Downplaying the religious factor re L-G at this time is contrary to the modern scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged two references to Grigg, John (1988). Lloyd George and Wales. The Welsh Political Archive Lectures. Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales. ISBN 0907158293. as having failed verification. I had previously tagged them (in May 2018) as needing page numbers. The work does contain useful material, but it does not support the material it is used for in our article. Yet another example of careless (or even dishonest) referencing in this article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the citations to Grigg's lecture, and added "citation needed" tags. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

They were originally added in this edit by Rjensen (talk · contribs). DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

In July I marked a block of text in the "Paris 1919" section as having failed verification. It may be a summary of some of Lentin's points in the article cited, but the block of text most certainly does not appear in the article. Again, please will editors be more careful with their citing. Presenting a precis in a manner that suggests it is a direct quotation is misleading at best. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

the old text was the verbatim text from the Lentin article's abstract. the new version is verbatim from Lentin's main text. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page for my thoughts about the infobox image caption. I am responding here as this is the page for discussion about the article content. The current infobox image, File:David Lloyd George.jpg is, I think, a very good choice of image. It shews Lloyd George in 1919, at the height of his powers and fame, and is immediately recognisable. There has been some to-and-fro over the caption, if any. Should it say "The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor", should it say "David Lloyd George, in 1919" (or similar) or should it, as has long been the case, not be captioned? I have to say I find "The Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor" objectionable, both as an anachronism and also as unhelpful. Not only is he not an earl in the picture, it also links to the title, not the man, and it is again (see discussions above about the name used in the infobox), using a name by which he is not, and was not, widely known. We are not Debrett's or Burke's, nor yet the College of Arms, and it is not for us to enforce strict usage of titles and other such baubles. I think we should stick to calling him by the name he was, and is, known.

I'll also say that once the boldly added caption was removed, the next step should have been discussion, not re-insertion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I raised the question with Duncan as I wasn't 100% sure about the naming convention but it seems logical to me, and entirely correct, that an image should be labelled according to what it represented when it was created. If we had a photo of the former Princess Elizabeth during WWII, would we label that Queen Elizabeth II? Surely not, because it would potentially mislead some readers into thinking she became Queen in the 1940s, just as readers of this article might be led into thinking that Lloyd George was an Earl when he was Prime Minister. On Duncan's second point, I agree that WP:BRD should have been followed. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Added sentence and see also reference further up in the article during his period as Chancellor as the activists targeted him during that time for his personal and political views not matching. The specific page on this linked Kaybeesquared (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)