Talk:David Lloyd George

message: thumb|right|The photo in question
I think we might need some work on the caption for the March 1916 Paris Conference photo.
I reckon:
The British delegation are the ones on the left, facing away from us. Kitchener is the British general sitting with his back to us (in so far as one can tell from a photo of a siting man, he looks tall and strongly-built, which fits the bill). Lloyd George is two to his left, turning to look at us. Is Grey the dark-haired one to Lloyd George's left, leaning forward to obscure his face? Is that Asquith two further to the left, leaning back to look at the camera? Is that Esher or Francis Bertie in between Grey and Asquith?
The French are the ones on the opposite left, facing towards us. I can make out Aristide Briand in the middle of that row. Joffre is on the opposite corner looking at us (to the right of Briand - his left). Is that Foch (CinC French Army Group North at the time, tasked with liaising with the British for the upcoming Somme offensive) in the dark uniform, standing by the fireplace behind Briand?
The Serbs are on the opposite right, looking towards us. Pasic, with the long grey two-forked beard, is in the middle of that row. The man with the handlebar moustache sitting next to him looks superficially like Kitchener but I think isn't.
I reckon that is a Japanese delegate on the right of the photo, behind the Serbs (as every schoolboy knows, they were on the Allied side in WW1).
I guess the Russians and Italians are on the near right side, but I wouldn't like to hazard a guess which moustachioed sixtysomething is Salandra and which is Izvolski.
Liz Greenhalgh mentions the conference briefly in her "Victory through Coalition" (a history of Allied relations). She says that it didn't achieve much, as Briand for reasons unknown vetoed moves to set up an inter-Allied secretariat. Her biog of Foch does not mention him attending, which of course does not prove that he didn't.Paulturtle (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 1916 Conference Caption 

message: I don't have access to the book being cited, so I don't know if the reference is for the timing or the fact that he Lloyd George never took his seat; but the following statement is contradicted by other sources and other parts of the article-
:"On New Year's Day 1945, Lloyd George was raised to the peerage as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, and Viscount Gwynedd, of Dwyfor in the County of Caernarvonshire; however, he did not live long enough to take his seat in the House of Lords." (Wrigley & Chris (1992), p. 146.)
Elsewhere in the article he is stated as receiving his peerage 12 February 1945, over a month later. Taking a reference from Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, the London Gazette dated 13 February 1945 states the letters patent creating the peerage were dated the 12th Feb. At a glance, I think the issue is 'Offer and acceptance of a peerage ≠ Being made a peer' (e.g. Zac Goldsmith just waited a month for his creation). I (perhaps wrongly) assume in January he accepted an offer to be made a peer, but it wasn't finalised until February. Although somewhat trivial, I think this is a contradiction that ought be resolved. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He was offered a peerage by Churchill on 18 Dec 1944, and telegraphed straight back "gratefully accept". It had been arranged by A J Sylvester, who lobbied Archibald Sinclair. It was announced in the New Year Honours List for 1 Jan 1945. Lloyd George hoped to be able to attend the peace conference at war's end, but this was not to be. (He was of course almost certain to lose his seat, which he had held since 1890, at the imminent General Election).Paulturtle (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I looked it up and you are correct, he was named in the 1945 New Year Honours (the article would benefit from being edited to include this). The confusion seems to be that the announcement on 1 January 1945 was a declaration of intent by the monarch to confer a peerage, and the letters patent creating the peerage weren't 'done' until 12 February 1945 (which is the date most sources use). Effectively, it was nearly 2 months between acceptance on 18 December 1944 and creation on 12 February 1945. I will edit the sentence in question to make the sequence of events clearer. Editing with Eric (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of peerage creation 

message: Lloyd-George was properly styled as "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor" not as, "The Right Honourable David Lloyd-George." Standard practice on all individuals with noble titles is to use the title and honorific in the infobox and then to use name and title number in the opening paragraph. The only instance in which this rule is excepted is on infoboxes for military persons, which are blue, in which case we still use title but skip the honourific. Therefore there are no grounds for exception here. The reasons for the issue of and the usage of the title have no relevance to the inclusion of the title in the infobox. This article's exclusion of this standard is out of order and incorrect. RexAntica (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This was previously discussed at Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive_3#Info_Box_name (please note that page is an archive and should not be edited). The use of his name rather than his title is long-standing. I do not see any need to change now. He held the title for only a few months at the end of his life, and never took his seat in the Lords. To change would add nothing to the article, and runs the risk of confusing readers. We have a note in the infobox mentioning his title, which seems sufficient to me. For very nearly all of his life - and for ALL of his active years - he was "properly styled" as David Lloyd George. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that he did not hold the title for very long, however by standard that is irrelevant. Also, you must understand that it is not our place to decide what could confuse readers or to decide what we subjectively think adds to the article. It is only our job to report what is factually correct. Standard is to us the title, and in this case it is factually incorrect to call him The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd-George, because that was not what he was called when he died. The only proper and correct name is "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor", not anything else. The note in the infobox does not matter since the name atop the infobox is the problem. It does not matter what he was called for most of his life, it is simply factually incorrect, wrong, and out of order to exclude the title as the name in the infobox. It breaks wikipedia standard to exclude it, it breaks British standard to exclude it, and it follows no standard to exclude it. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to exclude it.RexAntica (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very much our place to decide what adds to the article, and to address anything that might confuse readers, that is what this page is for. It is not "factually incorrect" or "wrong" to call him David Lloyd George. It does not contravene any "British standard". We are not Debrett's. An infobox is just a way condensing some of the most salient facts about a person into a small space. His peerage is, in the grand scheme of things, really rather insignificant. Anyway, I'm sure other editors will be along to contribute their views. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It does not contravene any British standard." Yeah and one plus one is three. In any event ALL titled prime Ministers have their titles in the infobox, so it's wrong to assume they'd be confused by this one article. If anything it's more confusing to exclude his title from this singular article's infobox, it deceives readers into thinking that he was untitled. It is not our place to decide the significance of his peerage, we are not political historians. But even then that doesn't matter, because it's simply our job to include the simple facts in the infobox. Standard is to include the title in the infobox, no matter how significant it was. If you're so worried about the title confusing people (you make it seem like readers can't understand that a person can have a title) then add an addendum in a paragraph that he was usually known by his name. Frederic Leighton's title has always been  in his infobox (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Leighton) even though he was only a peer for one day until his death. Also, it is factually incorrect to call him "The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd-George" same as it would be factually incorrect to say that Caitlyn Jenner's actual name is Bruce Jenner. The fact is that it is wrong, by standard and rule, to exclude the title. It confuses and deceives readers when you exclude the title. And their is no legitimate reason with any grounding in how we do things here to justify excluding the title.RexAntica (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What British Standard do you think we are contravening? What rule? The comparison with Caitlyn Jenner is irrelevant at best - I am bending over backwards to assume it was made in good faith, and I hope you do not repeat it or anything like it. Suffice it to say that Lloyd George did not change his name when he received the title. We constantly make judgements about what to include or exclude and what to emphasise. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's called style. It means how a person is legally styled according to the little old thing called the law. Granted it is not illegal to call them something else, but they would legally be called their title. It's legally incorrect to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce Jenner, and it's legally incorrect to call him The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George, since he legally would be called The Rt. Hon. The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. It's the exact same concept. Either way it is wrong not to use his title, and you haven't given a reason with precedent to superseded this standard. We must be consistent between articles, and all articles use the title regardless of its significance. Therefore all we do by excluding it is confuse people and show ourselves as inconsistent. RexAntica (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no law to say we should call him by his title, there is no legal requirement to call anyone anything, nor is there any legal requirement for anyone to use any particular formulation of their own name. Again, stop with the comparison with Caitlyn Jenner. Someone adopting a new name and discarding their deadname as part of their transition is not in any way comparable with someone being ennobled. Either point us to a policy or stop bullshitting. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Want a standard? Here you go, from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Knighthoods,_lordships,_and_similar_honorific_titles), "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." Due to this standard this is no longer a matter of actual debate, as standard from wikipedia is that we use the infobox. If you'd like to contest the manual of style then I suggest you go do that there, but the standard for wikipedia is to use the title in the infobox. This should no longer be a matter of debate. I have presented you with the policy, so why don't you stop bullshitting?  RexAntica (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: This matter has been discussed before Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive_3#Info_Box_name, and I continue to think that the arguments against using the title and honorific in the infobox are weak. However, I was persuaded in that earlier discussion that little useful purpose is served by discussing this whilst the article languishes at c-class. I'm inclined to support the status quo, and suggest this matter is left to those editors who are seriously interested, and have made significant progress, in raising the status of the article. Poltair (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Our propensity to re-litigate debates is a bit depressing but, as we are, I agree with others that the infobox title should reflect the subject’s commonly-used name. In this case, that is indisputably Lloyd George. I cannot recall reading a single historical study, or a contemporary one for that matter, in which LG is generally referenced as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. To suggest that calling him by his common name “confuses and deceives” is verging on the hysterical. His title is referenced in the Infobox, in the first paragraph of the lead, and in the appropriate place in the chronology of his life.  It is also worth noting that all of the major contributors to the article hold this view. Therefore, stick with the previously-agreed status quo, and focus on more substantial issues in order to improve the status of the article. KJP1 (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Title 

message: Odd that this long article doesn't mention LG's house being blown up in 1913! Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pinfold Manor]]