Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Disraeli/archive1

Crisco comments

The Conservatives who split from Peel had few who were adept in Parliament, - I'm assuming this means aside from Disraeli?

Indeed. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Party's William Ewart Gladstone - why repeat his full name?

Point taken, but I've just tried it as just "Gladstone" and it looks strange. We can't say "Liberal Party's leader, Gladstone, because that was only in the later years of Disraeli's career. I'm rather inclined to leave it as it. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversial wars in Afghanistan and South Africa - link to either of them?

Indeed. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

shortly before he died in April 1881 at age 76. - Why repeat April 1881 here?

True. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Last completed novel... What about Falconet?

Alas Falconet was very far from complete when he died.

Maria (Miriam) - When did she take the name Maria? Before or after Benjamin was born?

I don't think this is made clear in any of the sources. Indeed, I'm not sure that it was that way round: I have assumed that her given name was Maria but that she was known as Miriam, but I can't say for certain. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is very common indeed for Jews to be informally referred to by their Hebrew name, which Miriam probably is in that case.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

there were some highly distinguished forebears. - such as?

Disraeli's mother's family were believed, probably with justification, to be descended from Isaac Aboab, the last Gaon of Castille. The family, known as the Aboab Cardosos, included such notables as Isaac Cardoso and Miguel Cardoso. But I don't think we can spare the room to name them in the article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• A short footnote may be useful. I hate hinting at something but not making it clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. As Blake wryly implies, how silly of Disraeli to make up moonshine about paternal ancestry without bothering to check on the genuinely distinguished forebears on his mother's side. Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Warden of the synagogue - Link?

Good idea, but I can't anything useful to link to. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse and Hunt - might be better to use emdashes or endashes here.

Yes. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

at the suggestion of Maples, - why would Maples want Disraeli to leave?

English lawyers came in two varieties: solicitors/attorneys, who did the everyday office work, and barristers, who appeared in court, and were often quite famous celebrities. I am guessing that Maples thought Disraeli's flamboyant personality more suitable to the latter role, but the sources don't justify saying so.

John Gibson Lockhart (Walter Scott's son-in-law) - relationship with Scott not necessarily pertinent here

I see your point, and would be happy to delete. Wehwalt, what think you?

How did the elder D'Israeli feel about Vivian Grey? He was a literary critic too, wasn't he?

Isaac was actually portrayed in the book as "Horace", the hero's father. I haven't seen reference to his view of this book, but when The Young Duke came out he is said to have commented, "What does Ben know of dukes?"

His fiancée, Sarah, never married, and devoted the rest of her life to her family. - Change to Sarah Disraeli, perhaps?

Yes. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

a sexually transmitted disease - which?

Nobody specifically names it, as far as I can recall. According to Blake it was treated with mercury, but that seems to have applied to both syphilis and gonorrhoeae.

In the early 1830s - perhaps merge this paragraph with the above?

Yes, think so. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

He began to find himself moving in Tory circles. - He began moving in Tory circles.

Yes. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Francis Sykes - notable?

Not notable enough to have his own WP article, certainly, but I think he ought to be mentioned here. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's it f or today, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Assuming Dizzy was her pet name for him?
  • Indeed. He was (and still is) often referred to as Dizzy by friend and enemy alike. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• the financial demands of his Maidstone seat - such as?
  • "Bribery" would be too strong a word, but let us say oiling the wheels of the local electorate. I haven't got any specific details. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• and Peel became Prime Minister. - wasn't he PM the paragraph before?
  • Indeed he was so labelled there – quite wrongly. So glad you spotted that. Now corrected
• Disraeli was sympathetic to some of the aims of Chartism, - you mentioned this above (and linked it) so why is the explanation only coming now?
  • The "argued for an alliance…" stuff is over and above his sympathy to the Chartists, rather than a description of their policies. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• CN tag added
  • Citation added – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• pro free-trade Conservatives - wouldn't this be pro-free-trade Conservatives
  • I suspect it should be pro-free-trade, but that's a hyphen too far, and I have blitzed the "pro", which we can do quite well without. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• You've mentioned "Peelite" several times, but the link comes quite late
  • moved link up to first mention in the main text; added another to earlier footnote. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• In the event the matter was not put to the test, as the Tory split soon had the party out of office, not regaining power until 1852. - do you mean "In any event" or...?
  • No, that's what I meant to say. Possibly a difference in UK/US idiom. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• the Queen - have we linked to the proper queen yet?
  • We have – in the last para of the 1830s section.
• 23 voted on the measure altogether, and 17 were opposed. - what's with "altogether?

Good point. Redrawn.

• Corrupted Practices Bill - notable?
  • I think so, definitely. A much-needed reform, and a step to democratising the franchise. But I am now poaching Wehwalt's shots, and I shall stop forthwith. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• await Liberal mistakes, leaving him with much time on his hands, - so is this saying that the Liberals didn't make many mistakes?

I did notice the ambiguity but decided it was too subtle. Evidently not.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Two paragraphs in a row start "in (year)"
• Reading the article on her, Mary Anne sounds like quite the character. That doesn't get through in this article as much. Should it?

Given the comments we've had on length, I am reluctant to spend space on anyone else but the subject. There are endless Mary Jane anecdotes, however. They are destined for her article, I am afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Prime Minister, Gladstone, called several times to enquire about his rival's condition, and wrote in his diary, "May the Almighty be near his pillow." - So did they respect each other secretly?

• I doubt it. Gladstone was a very religious man and was probably thinking of Disraeli's soul.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources mention this quote in that context? I don't know if I'm the only one, but that quote gives off a "public enemies, secret respect" vibe to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blake says: "The old statesman's struggle for life was watched with intense interest and increasing anxiety by the public. Great numbers called at Curzon Street to inquire , among them Gladstone. 'May the Almighty be near his pillow,' he wrote in his diary." That's the only source I have with me, but a google books search didn't turn up much. One source describes Gladstone "unctuously", another "chivalrously".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thus implying that it was more of a social nicety than true reflection of Gladstone's feelings. Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Protocol forbade her attending Disraeli's funeral - Funeral --> funeral. Any way to avoid this?
• Sarah Brydges Willyams - where is Mr Willyams buried? This is an... odd... arrangement.

I would imagine at the parish churchyard in Devon where her estate was. But I suppose it would have looked churlish for Disraeli to take her money and disregard her dying wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Her dying wishes... shame space is so limited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• the speech was a model of its kind - according to whom?

I think the point does not need inline attribution. There's a ritual about these things. You come both to praise the man, if not to bury him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• But it is on his novels - Beginning a sentence with But?
  • Yes indeed. This is one of the bees in the Riley bonnet. Starting a sentence with But (or And) is all right with Fowler and with God (e.g. Genesis 2:6 in the Authorised Version). The Oxford English Dictionary gives 14,842 examples of "But" at the start of a sentence. Fowler calls it a superstition to believe that you musn't start a sentence with a conjunction. And I concur. Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I note that an IP added that Disraeli is the only British PM to date of Jewish descent to date. Worth keeping? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can say that for sure. Clearly he was the only PM to date who was a Jew, but I don't believe it is an established fact that no other PM is of Jewish descent. Most Englishmen are mongrels (me included – an émigré German great-grandfather who may have been Jewish or may not) and it's often impossible to say what are and aren't one's ancestral roots. I see what the anonymous contributor means, but I think we need to redraw if we are to keep the line. Perhaps "He is to date the only Jewish Prime Minister of the UK"?

No, that will confuse people who look on Judaism as a shared faith, rather than as an ancestry. Perhaps, "to date the only British Prime Minister of Jewish birth."?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I rather like Wehwalt's wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Me too. Nihil obstat. Wehwalt, would you care to do the honours? While we're here, there's a small point above outstanding, viz do we mention that J G Lockhart was Walter Scott's nephew or blitz it as irrelevant? Views, please. Tim riley (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for overlooking our comment above, I've been traveling and my internet has been spotty. Delete the nephew bit, not relevant to Disraeli and just too remote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Disraeli continued to the last to pillory his enemies in barely disguised caricatures - what happened to his creed to never again write of his own life?

If I may lay my bat across this in recompense for my colleague poaching one of mine, I would say that emplacing ones foes in fiction (a long and fairly honourable tradition) does not necessarily mean that you are on the pages yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The tory democrat myth - caps in original?

Yes, there is no standardisation on this phrase, that I have seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Duplicate link: Reform Act 1867

Granted, but the first is in an awkward place where the reader might have trouble finding it, if they are coming to this article for information on Disraeli's role in it.

• Remainder over the next two days, or sooner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotten those which relate to my bailiwick, and one or two which passed close by.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that - Wouldn't a simple "although" work?
• As MPs prepared to divide - prepared to go home, prepared to vote?

Vote. I think that the proper political term is being used in an appropriate context. "When in that House, MPs divide …".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Queen reluctantly asked Palmerston- why was she reluctant?

She didn't like him and felt he was a bit of a loose cannon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• —the oaths required of new members could only be made in good faith by a Christian. - isn't this redundant to the Bible above?

I think the fact of the oath was what truly kept the observant Jews out. After all, if you take it on the full Bible, you take it on a book part of which is not holy to you, but if you take the oath, you violate a commandment against swearing a false oath, and Jews have traditionally been sensitive to that issue (see Kol Nidre, for example).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, makes sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• grudgingly agreed - Grudgingly? Was it a very small majority?

I am not certain, Blake does not say, but makes it clear that bills to allow Jews to sit in the Commons had repeatedly failed in the Lords. This was a compromise.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Faced with a vacancy - which?

As I discussed elsewhere on this page, that of Lord Ellenborough, who was a loose cannon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see Ellenborough on either page, and this is the only mention of "vacancy" in this review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'll add the ref to Blake, who discusses it in more detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Put a footnote in explaining a a bit about the context.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• expected the South to win. - Do we have an article on why this happened? I would like to read more

As I discussed elsewhere, the source does not say but my best guess is that upper class Britons felt the planter class in the South more akin to them than people who are not like us, like that uppity fellow, Lincoln. Born in a log cabin, would you believe?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Worth linking Britain in the American Civil War? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• two days before his eighty-first birthday. - redundant, as he was just turning 80 in 1864 (paragraph above)

Remainder ASAP, gotta go to work now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The ones I didn't respond to, I've changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• At the Lord Mayor's Dinner at the Guildhall in November, at which it is customary that the Prime Minister speaks, Disraeli was three-quarters of an hour late due to his infirmities, though many commented on how healthy he looked. - lots of subordinate clauses here.
• go to the country - very much a Britishism. Is there a variant-neutral word?

This is an article about British politics. If the reader cannot take a common term used in British politics, they are free to indulge in taxidermy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• an impressive beard - POV

Since Latin is the thing these days (the new English perhaps?) let me respond with Res ipsa loquitur--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shame I can't say "Agree, but still POV" in the same language. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am not of the school that every adjective relating to a personal characteristic is POV. Is there historical debate as to how impressive Salisbury's beard was? Did it matter to the House of Commons? I read Andrew Roberts' book some years ago, and read parts of it again a few weeks ago; I recall no particular discussion of Salisbury's beard, though, I am nearly certain, he was not born with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• the earldom of Beaconsfield was to have been bestowed on Edmund Burke in 1797 - is the year right? That's 80 years before this is all going down

It would hardly have been likely to be bestowed on him after 1797, for certain vital reasons. The passage traces the use of "Beaconsfleld" as a name or title.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, just curious as why it was just coming to Disraeli in the 1860s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Those factors are the ones known to historians who are guessing why Disraeli might have picked Beaconsfield for himself & noble wife.

• Artisan's and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act 1875 - Feels like there should be an "of" in front of 1875

That is because you are a colonial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• And a coloniser at the same time, if you'd believe my classmates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • God bless and save us! What is an elderly Englishman to do to keep the peace between the bravest and best of our former colonies? Pax, gentlemen! Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• one office at £2,000 per year. - which office?

First Civil Service Commissioner, given to Lord Hampton (the former Sir John Pakington). As we don't give a lot of attention to Pakington, it did not seem appropriate to go into detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• When Disraeli returned as Prime Minister in 1874 and went to kiss hands, he did so literally, on one knee, - when did the actual kissing cease to be an expectation? The article on kiss hands is not clear. If this is what most PMs did in the 1800s, this isn't quite as notable as it seems.

I think by then it was no longer literal. It would not have been mentioned in the bios if it did not stand out. I can't imagine William IV standing still for ministers kissing his hand, especially Lord John Russell, I expect it vanished around his reign.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The Pas de deux (From the Scène de Triomphe in the Grand Anglo-Turkish Ballet d'Action)" - what's with the italics and quotes?
  • One for me. It's a faithful transcription of the original caption. I know what you mean, though, and I dithered before adding it thus, but I think it's probably the right thing to do. Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, thanks for the explanation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do you need an image review?15:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will look at these in greater detail later in the day.

Images already reviewed, above, I'm glad to say, by Quadell for whose perceptive and helpful review many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rothschild did so; though he took a commission on the deal, his capital was at risk as Parliament could have refused to ratify the transaction. - perhaps "Rothschild did so, though he took a commission on the deal. His capital was at risk as Parliament could have refused to ratify the transaction." Not sure the relationship between capital and commission

I've clarified the matter. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• 25 November - 25 November 1875, perhaps?

I don't think there's risk of confusion as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• The last mention of 1875 was several paragraphs prior. An extra four characters (five with space) is a fair trade-off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unless my eyeglasses are playing tricks on me, the second sentence in the paragraph contains the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• since the Melbourne ministry - how many years prior?

Melbourne is recent, fairly recently, as Vikki's first PM, and her accession is dated. Since there is a link, I dislike to clutter the text with repetitions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• By my count that's some 30 years. I'd be tempted to include that information, particularly as that's pertinent to why we're mentioning a long gap in the first place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lord Melbourne is mentioned fairly recently, which is actually what I meant above. Just two subsections above, as is the fact he was Vikki's first PM. While I do see your point, I think it is close enough to first mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alright... still not keen on this (Victoria's rise was at least 30k characters prior), but in the interest of space I'll keep my peace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• second behind a Conservative - behind who?

I don't believe a pipe is called for here. It was a brewer, as I recall. It is at two removes from Disraeli.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• his subject - tempted to just go with "the prime minister" (or with capital PM)

I do not believe abbreviations are called for. I think the present solution to the "he" problem is adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was talking about Prime Minister, not just PM, but okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• When a rebellion broke out in 1857, Disraeli took a keen interest in affairs, having been a member of a select committee in 1852 which considered the question of governing India, - not explicit from the text that the rebellion was in India. Perhaps "When a rebellion broke out in India in 1857, Disraeli took a keen interest in affairs, having been a member of a select committee in 1852 which considered the question of governing the colony,"

India was not a colony, at least not a British one. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Is the Royal Titles Act best handled in Domestic or Foreign?

I do not think a section predominately dealing with India and Vikki's concerns about keeping up with the Romanovs should be considered domestic, just because the Queen was English (sort of).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• That may have been her motivation, but the changes were mostly to how the Brits addressed their sovereign and how she addressed herself and asked to be addressed. I see where your coming from but I'm not sure how much of an international impact there would have been. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The domestic political fallout in Westminster was brief, but the title Empress/Emperor of India endured until 1947, and on the whole Foreign seems the more appropriate space, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)