Talk:Anthony Eden hat

Picture of hat added

Picture of hat added IXIA 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

This is a charming and generally well-written little article that, in my opinion, richly deserves GA status. There are only a couple of improvements necessary. There are a few too many parenthetical statements that make the article flow less smoothly than it could, and it would be good if the text could be rewritten to eliminate these. Also, while citations are present, they aren't as full as they could be. Do Brief Lives, Anthony Eden and The Eden Legacy have authors, for example? You may find Wikipedia: Citation templates of use in fixing this.

Once these issues have been dealt with, I will be happy to pass the article. MLilburne 10:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I must sadly concur. In the single section that I've just twiddled with, Vicky's characterization of Eden isn't made more striking by our knowledge that it was Vicky who invented Supermac: this is the kind of aside that's entirely right in a printed book but rendered unnecessary here by the hyperlinking of "Vicky". Also, Betjeman's couplet about Edward VIII is, well, about Edward VIII and not about Eden: there's something worth saying here about the fact that the famously hatted Eden was actually unhatted back in the days (or three years after the days) when such an act merited mention in a poem, but the article overdoes it a little. However, I must add that like MLilburne I greatly enjoyed reading this. -- Hoary 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to me that there might be a little more about the fall from popularity of the Anthony Eden hat. As it is, the article ends with a quote from a Kinks song. I like the Kinks as much as the next person, but the article just trails to a halt rather than being concluded properly. MLilburne 11:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Have tried to improve the flow and have added some context, while remembering that this is primarily about the hat, rather than the man. I think the Betjeman ref, which I have amended, is relevant as the best known observation about hatlessness in the 1930s - relevant too because Edward VIII was another man with perceived star quality. Don't like the large quotation marks too much and so have removed. Hope this doesn't cause offence. IXIA 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine, the large quote marks are a matter of taste. The article is looking really a lot better--excellent work. However, I've noticed that there are still a lot of parenthetical statements floating around. Do you think you could do something about those? Cleaning up the parentheses would give it that final push into GA status. MLilburne 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I confess I tend to take a differing view. If you don't have the quotes, it's difficult to pin thoughts on anything. There is no really objective view about much of this, but, in my view, the observations of individuals offer do offer some insight and impressions: for example, Thorpe's comments about the Moscow photo seem to be to create a real image. I'll think about it! I'm intruiged how an article that started almost with an element of tongue in cheek has aroused such interest. Many thanks. IXIA 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checking--were you replying to me? Because I agree that the observations of individuals are excellent and very interesting. What I was after were all of the phrases in the article that are in parentheses (like this) and just read awkwardly. MLilburne 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, you and the world. Is this any better? Forgive me, I do understand what parentheses are, but somehow got the wrong end of the stick. (Long air flight yesterday!) IXIA 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking better, but the removal of the parentheses has still left a few sentences that are run-ons. (I know, I'm being picky, but the article deserves to be as good as it possibly can!) The worst examples are:

In one episode, when Wilson was told by Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), who, as manager of a bank, wore a bowler, that his hair was too long, Wilson replied that "Mrs Pike [his lover] says it makes me look like Eden".

and

In the period after his resignation from Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet in 1938 and the outbreak of war in 1939, when he returned to Government as Dominions Secretary, Eden and his acolytes, who, broadly speaking, favoured a tougher stance against Hitler and Mussolini, were often referred to as “the glamour boys”.

Once these are taken care of, I think we'll be there. MLilburne 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had another go. Maybe this is better. IXIA 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think that's do. Congrats. MLilburne 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. IXIA 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steptoe and Son - Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambell.jpeg

Image:Steptoe and Son - Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambell.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG

Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Suez Affair - Hugh Thomas (Pelican 1970).JPG

Image:Suez Affair - Hugh Thomas (Pelican 1970).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG

Image:Anthony Eden Hat.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The removal of this image, which is fairly esential to illustrate what has been judged a "good article" is frankly bizarre. Why does Wikipedia so often shoot itself in the foot? IXIA (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If possible see if any related external links can be added and try to find a couple of free images for use in the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger into "Homburg (hat)"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was closed (though not archived) in March 2011 with this edit by Half price, as there was 'no consensus to merge. Latest comments, and new proposal, below. Swanny18 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

---

This article seems to cover a lot of the same ground as the article Homburg (hat), as this deals with a variant of said model. As this article is not terribly long, perhaps it ought to be moved there. —Julian Grybowski (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. There is distinctive historical and social background to the "Anthony Eden hat". This article stands alone and has GA status. Best leave alone, I think. IXIA (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge. A better approach would be to improve the article on the Homburg. LymeRegis (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can the "merger" tag be dropped now? IXIA (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree I think the two articles are marginal at best and merging can make a fuller, better article. Ettatrain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

Disagree The social, political and other aspects of the Eden article would tend to be submerged as a result. As noted above, it would helpful if someone could improve the more general Homburg article. BONNUIT (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree and maybe it's about time the tag dropped. The article stands alone and has GA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.141.118 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query about referencing

This article cites The Long Weekend: A Social History of Great Britain 1918-1939 by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge. I have a copy of this book and I can find no reference in it to Anthony Eden's hat. It would be helpful if the relevant footnotes could include page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.206.233 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's page 376, though curiously there is no reference to that page in the index. I have inserted this information in a few places.IXIA (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Glamour boys" section

Re the tag, I think much of this material is relevant in that the hat was part of Eden's overall image. Most of it was there when the article was accorded GA status. However, there is lengthy, but interesting, footnote about Eden's private life that possibly would sit better in the main biographical article about him. Will consider this further. IXIA (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

NO Photo?

Um, how can we have an article on a specific style of hat and not show said hat?Sedimentary (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge, again

(moved from previous merge discussion: after 8 years this should be a new proposal. Swanny18 (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC))

Merge tag reintroduced. Could anyone actually give any example on how this hat is different from the homburg hat, rather than (as stated above) merely being an aspect related to one of its users? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "The best-dressed politician of all time was Anthony Eden. [...] Even the fabled hatter Lock and Co renamed the Homburg hat ‘the Eden’" - https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/jacob-rees-mogg-a-sartorial-standard-bearer/. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this an argument for, or against, a merger? Swanny18 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would Oppose this: It isn't clear what the reason for this merge would be; Duplication presumably. If so, then they would have to be on the same subject, with the same scope (they aren't). These articles are on discrete subjects, no matter how similar they may look. Homburg (hat) is on a type of hat; this article is on a style made famous by Anthony Eden (It happened to be a Homburg; it could have been anything).

OTOH the reason for not merging would be that the result would be "clunky": Homburg (hat) is still only 5Kb long, despite some improvement, while this is a 24Kb page that still has Good Article status, so merging them into a 30Kb page that is almost entirely about one particular usage would not be an improvement. Also, there has been little change since the last merge proposal, so the previous arguments still apply. IMO. Swanny18 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to understand your arguments. What was distinct about Eden's homburg hat(s)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The distinction is that this is a British dress style exemplified by Eden, while the Homburg is a type of hat. OTOH it isn't clear what your rationale is for this merger; all you've done is offer a question. Why should this merge take place? Swanny18 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above and last time. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oddly, it seems none is going to make the effort to give one example of a detail that explains how a Anthony Eden hat differs from a Homburg hat. Nothing seems to motivate why what homburg hats meant to Anthony Eden cannot be dealt with inside of Eden's own article, does it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose An Anthony Eden is a specific cultural item of greater historical significance than the Homburg hat itself. Merging it with Homburg hat would be like suggesting that the Big Mac article should merged into the Hamburger article.Tetsuo (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)