This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Edward VIII is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
For what it's worth, I did a cursory skim and couldn't find any scholarly reviews of the book, or any evidence it had been peer reviewed prior to release. It seems that he hasn't been given much credence by historians of the period—which is telling, because contrary to what many will insist, academics love arguing with public dilettantes and cranks if it makes their field more visible for a moment. That is to say, I wouldn't call Lownie a crank, I haven't read his book, but I would need to see some scholarly engagement with it before including it in the article. Remsense诉00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't during the Blitz, which started in September 1940, it was a cable from the German ambassador in Portugal to Ribbentrop on 10 July, asserting, 'The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing will make England ready for peace.' (Cited by Lownie to DGFP [Documents on German Foreign Policy] AA-B15/B002549, Vol.X, p.152.) This is, of course, a Nazi diplomat telling his superior what he thinks the superior wants to hear, but it is probably true, since there are so many accounts of Windsor's defeatism and Nazi sympathies at the time. He was a foolish person and he seems to have believed that Britain could not win, that the government would fall, his brother Bertie, George VI, would abdicate and he would be re-enthroned, to a rapturous public reception, as what his brother the Duke of Kent (among others) satirically called a 'Gauleiter'. The odd thing in the cable is the reference to 'continued heavy bombing', since the Germans were not doing much bombing of Britain at the time -- they started attacking Channel convoys on 10 July (a day on which the RAF lost only three Hurricanes, one of them due to an accident), but did not attack Fighter Command airfields till August, or London till September. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much easier if you could make your points in complete sentences. You've simply not added anything to the article but a redundant, poor-quality source as far as I can tell. Sorry. Remsense诉09:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor-quality source that doesn't add anything to the article, whose claims are already covered by a better-quality source. Remsense诉10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source clarifies the date of the interview as 19 December? But the article doesn't mention that anyway, so it's probably unnecessary detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not add ever more sources because we think they are interesting, they are meant to support specific claims made in the article. The relevant claims made in the article are already adequately cited. Remsense诉10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ease of access of a source is generally not a factor in whether it's considered reliable; the quality of a source usually trumps perceived ease of access. Remsense诉10:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a revert war for the sake of a comma as I don't find it productive, however with the comma included the sentence can be taken to mean all historians, not just historians such as the one cited. Therefore I felt removal of the comma appropriate to clear this ambiguity. Also, please only revert when necessary. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. WP:ONLYREVERT Itsziggyp (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]