Talk:John Ward (trade unionist)

message: There are other "British politicians" named John Ward. I'm going to move this to John Ward (1866-1934) Drutt (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (This has since been moved to John Ward (trade unionist) by another user.) Drutt (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: I have undone an 18/11/2013 reversion claiming it was "accurate before" because I disagree;
Given that he sat as a Liberal MP for 17 of his 23 years in parliament, and as a Coalition/National Liberal for the other 5, I don't think it is wrong to describe his as such in the intro.
"was generally considered to be a Liberal for statistical purposes." is not a usual way to describe someone who took the Liberal whip in the House of Commons as he did from 1906 to 1918. Confirmation of this is widely available.
I would be happy to discuss any aspect of this edit further but feel benefit may come from others first reading around their subject.Graemp (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that he was generally considered to be a Liberal for statistical purposes, but did not take the Liberal whip, is actually taken from his obituary and other articles in The Times, from which he does not appear to have taken the Liberal whip until he actually joined the Liberal Party in 1918. His obituary actually describes him as a Labour MP until 1918, even though he never took the Labour whip. If The Times is incorrect, then please provide documentary proof in reliable sources, because the currently cited sources endorse the form of words before your changes. I'm also mystified as to why you changed his rank to an abbreviation, which is not our usual style, and why you deleted the comment about his anti-pacifism, which appears to be entirely true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always believed that The Times had an overstated image when it came to accuracy. I would also guard against obituaries for accuracy as they are always personal views of an individual. I find the idea that Ward would choose for the first time to join the Asquithian Liberal Party just before standing as a candidate for the Lloyd George Coalition illogical. Label: It was common practice before 1918 to describe any trade union or working class MP as a Labour MP regardless of any links with the Labour Party. It was even a term used by the Liberal Party to describe some of their most staunch supporters. However, in the Liberal Party Yearbooks from 1906 he is described as a Lib-Lab up until that term ceased to be used during WW1. All Lib-Lab MPs took the Liberal whip. I know Ward was a regular attender of the Lib-Lab meetings that were held during the 1906-10 parliament. FWS Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885-1918 also describe him as Lib-Lab from 1906-18. The introductory section to the article should be concise, and I felt that my version better summarised his political description. Pacifism/Socialism: I don't dispute that he was anti-pacifist, but in the context of 'atrocities committed by Bolsheviks' I felt it was more relevant to stress his estrangement from Socialism. Your edit talked about him moving 'further away from Labour' which I think is a confusing statement as he was never close to the 'Labour Party' and was definately not becoming estranged from 'Labour' in terms of his relationship with his trade union. If you wanted to put back into the article somewhere that he was anti-pacifist, that's fine by me, although I would have taken that fact as a given. Lt-Col: I am used to using the abbr. used in Who's Who, who used this version to describe him. I am really not bothered how this is abbreviated and I am happy for you to change it to whatever you think best.Graemp (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party label 

message: I have tweaked this again, deleting "being vehemently" which I think over stresses the point in the context of the sentence. I have restored his 'claim' to have been a witness to the atrocities, as the point of contention is the witnessing rather than the atrocities. All of this is unsourced and could easily be lifted out to avoid further arguement. Graemp (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-war political position 

message: I have edited the page to add the Ward was accused by General William S. Graves, the US commander of troops in Siberia, of misrepresenting the facts in Siberia.
The footnote should be:
Pge 169-171. Graves, William S. "America's Siberian Adventure, 1918-1920" New York, 1941.
The text of the citation is:
Another evidence of British unfair methods is shown in a book written by Colonel John Ward, Member of Parliament. As I saw this
book in the Congressional Library in Washington, and as it purports to report occurrences relative to the action of the United States military representatives which are so at variance with the facts, I am noting a few extracts. Colonel Ward says:
“While at Nikolsk, a telegram from the Station-Master at Kraevski was received, stating in effect, that he was using a line from his house because a detachment of the Red Guard had entered the station, and in the presence of American soldiers who were guarding the railway, had placed himself and his staff under arrest and had taken possession of the station.”
This statement would appear so ridiculous to people who were in Siberia at the time that no additional comment would be necessary. I can assure those who know nothing of the conditions, that if this operator had been driven from his office he would not have been permitted to go to another telegraph office. It is most improbable that the operator had a line and a telegraphic instrument in his house. This statement was designed to show that American soldiers were cooperating with Bolsheviks. I can not say that Colonel Ward did not receive the dispatch, but I can say the meaning he intended to convey is not justified by the facts. Colonel Ward again says:
“Out of sixty liaison officers and translators, over fifty were Russian Jews.”
We had no such number of translators and interpreters around American Headquarters. The United States and Great Britain were both glad to have Jews in the service during the War. I never inquired whether a soldier was a Jew or not a Jew and it made absolutely no difference in my attitude to men under my command. I do not know who at my headquarters came of Jewish stock. I do know that my personal interpreter was a British subject, born in
Scotland. I might also say that he was a very efficient, faithful, and deserving employee.
Colonel Ward knew that Jews were anathema to the autocracy of Russia, the particular party he was supporting and by this false statement he was trying to curry favour with his associates in Siberia. Colonel Ward’s chapter on American Forces in Siberia is filled with mis-statements of alleged facts and occurrences, all of which showed bitterness of feeling and resentment against our troops. 2001:8003:E92C:D800:E490:1905:1542:8D24 (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post- War, Siberian intervention - Could I please have help adding a footnote.