Talk:Stanley Baldwin

message: Um. That bit about him being Alec Baldwin's great grand-father seems (a) a little surprising and (b) spurious in that he's probably still BEST KNOWN for being an ex-prime minister. I'm putting a citation needed tag on it, unless someone wants to remove it as probable vandalism... BristolBillyBob (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice.  It's definitely vandalism; Alec and Stanley are not related at all, as far as I can tell.  The user that keeps adding that does have a history of vandalism, and is likely to be blocked if s/he keeps it up. HonouraryMix (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: The current picture of Baldwin (which, admittedly, I uploaded in my first month here) is unsourced and too small. Does anyone have a line on a decent picture of Baldwin that we can use? Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's been deleted. The problem remains. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: Baldwin was the only PM to serve under three different monarchs (George V, Edward VIII, and George VI). Is this worth mentioning in the article? 172.129.234.70 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three monarchs

message: Having come to the article on Baldwin after reading the article on Edward, I wanted more information on why Baldwin would resign if Wallis was made Edward's consort or whatever the terminology is. The article on Baldwin is almost ludicrously detailed - much more so than most Wikipedia articles - EXCEPT when it comes to the section titled "Abdication." Unlike the entirety of the rest of the article, this section merely notes that Edward abdicated, and that Baldwin weathered the crisis. What gives? Surely the rest of this article was lifted or taken from an encyclopedia article - such is its style and tone and exhaustive detail - yet the section on abdication contains almost nothing. Isn't the abdication a rather significant fact that is of interest to people reading about Baldwin? and, as the article on Edward states, didn't Baldwin threaten to resign from the PMship? Why does this otherwise excruciatingly detailed article gloss over the abdication and Baldwin's motives? Mysterious... Dveej (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know the answer to your question.   At first blush I agree it seems a bit odd.   Since I've been 'watchlisting' this entry for less than 24 hours I can only speculate.   I GUESS that the section on Baldwin and The King's Abdication must have grown rambling and contradictory, and someone came along and decided to remove it,  using the justification that there's a perfectly good entry on the Abdication Crisis under ... Abdication Crisis.   As far as I know, there is STILL an absence of consensus among the historically good and articulate about several aspects of Baldwin's role in The Crisis, so (1) it's easy to see how such a para might have become a bit inconsistent and so (2) any attempt to enter a couple of paras on Baldwin's role in the matter would need to be carefully structured and well sourced.   BUT (3) if anyone reading has access to appropriate sources and background knowledge, and the time to think the thing through a bit first, please add (or reinstate) the section.   I'm interested!   Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this background explanation, JB.   In my judgement, and for what it may be worth, you have produced an unusually well crafted wiki entry.   (presumably that is why our friend came up with the 'lifted' charge which I agree comes over as graceless, though I suppose we are required to view it as thoughtless rather than as malicious - applying the 'good faith' assumption and all that...   it is a weakness of web based communication that we cannot catch one another's eye and wink / grin.   Nor even scowl horribly.)  And interesting.   Quite a challenge to match the quality of what is already there for anyone minded to build a bit more about the abdication crisis.   Matching what is already there, in terms of quality, style and 'article architecture'  is of course a wider wiki challenge that I think touches us all.   Ho hum.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikingly odd omission! 

message: I'm not an expert on the field, but this section seems to be highly biased against Baldwin.    It provides no context as to why Baldwin would wnat to get rid of the King, and it seems to be highly reliant on a single source
Thomas1974 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdication Crisis Neutrality 

message: "Baldwin decided to vote against the government over the Russian Treaties, which brought the government down on 8 October"
I do not think that this is true and I believe that "Baldwin campaigned on the "impracticability" of socialism, the Campbell Case, the Zinoviev Letter" is only partially correct.  From my understanding, the Campbell Case led to the collapse of the First Labour Govenrment as the intervention by MacDonald portrayed the party as radical; this triggered the vote of no confidence which caused the collapse of the Government.  Therefore it was a collection of factors with the Russian Treaties being one of them but the actual spark was the Campbell Case.  If you read Campbell Case it shows it to be the spark so, in order to gain continuity, ths should be changed on this page too.  I will do this myself in a week if no one else does it or if anyone wants to prove me wrong.  Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.159.245 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote was on the Campbell Case but the primary reason was the Russian Treaties:
"Baldwin was careful to emphasise that the Treaties were the substance of his objections. Standfordham wrote to the King, on 7 October, 'I saw Mr Baldwin who, in reply to my question "Do you want to turn the Government out?" said "Yes, but not on the Campbell issue, but on the Russian Treaties which the country generally condemns." He sees no alternative to a dissolution; it has always been expected, some wished for it before now, though he is opposed to hastening the Government's fall. ...' ... And it is true that only in the House of Commons were Baldwin's strictures based on the Campbell case – at Newcastle on 2 October he congratulated MacDonald on the agreement, achieved at a conference in London, on the Dawes Plan for reparations, and then spent the rest of the speech alternately pouring scorn on the Labour party's subservience to its extremists, and tearing to pieces the Russian agreement. But the final debate on 8 October was a mean Parliamentary occasion. Two days before, in a meeting which was something of a suave qui puet, the Cabinet decided to take it as a vote of confidence, preferring to go out on the Campbell case to a defeat on the Russian Treaties which might give the left wing too much prominence.—Middlemas and Barnes, p. 273.--Johnbull (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for the collapse of the first Labour government

message: I find it extremely unlikely that Baldwin would have used the term "Queen Wally". Does anyone have access to the referenced source and can check whether this is a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan1nad (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Wally 

message: There's no explanation about why Baldwin resigned. Surely the sources have this. My assumption is that he had wanted to retire for some time but held out until he had seen the abdication crisis through. But this article shouldn't leave readers to join the dots. Whoever has the sources, please add explanation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation 

message: Stanley Baldwin is my Great, Great Grandfather.
He had a Son called arthur Baldwin, Arthur Baldwin had a daughter called Muriel Rosemary Balwin born: 1921 (she Married Frederick Edward Mann in 1945) They had my mother in, Linda Margaret Mann 1950. Then i was born in 1976! :-) I am very proud of my herritage!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.231.3 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Baldwin 

message: I query the description of his fortune at the time of his donation to the Treasury as being "quite small" - perhaps the adjectives should be deleted. The sum he gave reportedly came to £100,000, high by the standards of the time.Cloptonson (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Small fortune"?

message: The statement he was cremated at Golders Green is, despite mention in Find-a-Grave website, disputable.  His article in Volume 3 of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (published 2004, page 474) states that following his death "his remains were cremated in Birmingham on 17 December [1947], and he and Lucy were interred together at Worcester Cathedral."  Birmingham logical for his place of death, although it is not clear at which of the city's two existing crematoria - Perry Barr and Lodge Hill - it took place.  Worth investigating news sources (I am not local to that area).Cloptonson (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cremation Location

message: Please see :Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: Baldwin admitted before parliament that claims Germany was using gas chambers during WWI to kill prisoners was false propaganda. he went on to apologize to Germans for this. Why is this not mentioned at all in this article? It is important as it is one of the many roots of anti-German propaganda that started during WWI, and continues to this day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.81.59 (talk)  22:25, 24 April 2015‎
:This would be believable if you (above, unsigned and undated) can put forward a date he made the claims in Parliament (not hard to find, as we have Hansard etc).  The use of gas to kill prisoners (in concentration extermination camps) in WWII, as far as I know, grew out of previous use to euthanize mentally handicapped or ill German citizens under the Nazis earlier in the latter war; they were not prisoners in legal sense of the word.Cloptonson (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI German Gas Chamber Propaganda 

message: Above the picture, he is currently refered to as simply "Stanley Baldwin". Yet all other prime ministers have their honourific title in this place. For example Harold Wilson is reffered to as "The Lord Wilson of Rievaulx". Should Baldwins title above the picture therefore be changed to "Earl Baldwin of Bewdely'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susangatesuk (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title  

message: It seems odd that the article says that Baldwin went to Brighton College after Harrow. I see that the Brighton College article also says that he was there, but the Cambridge University source cited only seems to refer to Harrow. Also the (1938) Who's Who entry for Stanley Baldwin only mentions Harrow. Poshseagull (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the mention of Brighton College, as it is unsupported by the reference given. I also checked the ODNB article, and that also does not have him at Brighton. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks Poshseagull (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brighton College 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stanley Baldwin. 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/20111216134952/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/stanley-baldwin-2/ to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/stanley-baldwin-2/
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) 10:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We could do with more (even a passing mention would be more) on his disastrous negotiations over the American Debt in 1923. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American Debt