Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

References [46], [48] and [50] are ambiguous. These references should be changed to the following:

K. Robbins. Profiles in Power: Churchill. Longman Group United Kingdom, 1992, pp. x-y.

Obviously, x and y should be replaced with the page numbers associated with each reference. JoshHandleman (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There's only one Robbins cited. There's only one "Robbins (1992)" given as a ref? How is that "ambiguous"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I guess we should be using the later (2000) edition of Robbins anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bath

change ((Bath)) to ((Bath, Somerset|Bath))

  • Done, thank you for spotting this error. Bath is a disambiguation page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. While we're at it, can anything be done with North West Frontier? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not with the articles we have at the moment. Fancy writing an article on the historical term? DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds terribly, terribly exciting. But I'll let you know. Would Military history of the North-West Frontier be any better for now? Well done with the clean up, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That looks like a reasonable link to make, as it includes both the Tribal Areas and the formal Provinces. That article itself could do with expansion, and has lots of redlinks which deserve being made blue. The North West Frontier, like the Balkans, has always produced more history than it can consume. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference problems

I have just fixed one duff reference, but have found a couple more 306 "Johnson 2014, pp. 306–10" and 312 "Johnson 2014, p. 304". No work by a "Johnson" dated to 2014 is listed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • There are several refs to "Soames" with a page number but no work cited. There are two works by Mary Soames listed, so impossible to know which work is intended. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • References to "Picknett, et al." with no work listed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • References to "James" but as two works by Robert Rhodes James are listed as well as an article by him in another book, it is not clear which is referred to. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • References to "Charmley 1995" but no 1995 work by Charmley listed DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "See Dyson and Maharatna (1991)" but again no work cited. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose demoting this article to C class as there are clearly extensive problems with the referencing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnson 2014 is presumably Boris' recent work on Churchill, "The Churchill Factor". James 1970 is Robert Rhodes James' "Churchill: A Study in Failure", one of the first non-hagiographic scholarly works written about WSC although it only goes up to 1939. The Charmley book would be his study of Anglo-American relations 1940-56 ("Churchill's Grand Alliance") which came out in 1995 (I remember reading it when it came out and that's still the edition I have) but somebody appears to have put 1996 in the book list, the year of the paperback edition.Paulturtle (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Chemical weapons

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is his use of chemical weapons in Russia not mentioned? https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons (2A00:23C4:6386:400:2017:470F:736:C966 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC))

How's things in Bury St Edmund's? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh? I'm from Kent. (2A00:23C4:6386:400:2017:470F:736:C966 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC))
Of course you are. Give my love to BT. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Why are chemical weapons not mentioned? (2A00:23C4:6386:400:2017:470F:736:C966 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC))

Winston Churchill was born at Blenheim, but it wasn't his parental home.

"Winston Churchill was born in 1874 at his grandfather's home, Blenheim Palace"

WikiReader3 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed this for you. It's a fairly well-known fact (at least I'd heard it before), but there's a website here if anyone doubt's it. Dbfirs 20:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Careful use of “Time” Terminology

As the article described his run for Parliament in 1900, it made this claim: After winning the seat, he went on a speaking tour throughout Britain and the United States, raising £10,000 for himself (about £990,000 today). People could still be reading this many years later. Words like "today" should be avoided, not only in Wikipedia, but any writing except maybe periodicals with specific dates. After reviewing the sentence's reference, I decide to change it to ... about £990,000 in 2016 pounds.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to do that, the conversion is handled by Template:Inflation which will update to the latest available conversion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
".. in 2016 pounds" is not a very natural sounding Br Eng phrase. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. Okay, I changed it back. Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to change things! —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Never knew that template existed, but - to be awkward/pedantic - there are accompanying health warnings. I see on its talk page somebody stressing that the CPI tracks costs for an 'average' household, and it isn't really applicable to the capital assets and income of the rich. Back in 2000 the The Economist had a short light-hearted survey of how prices changed in real terms over the 20th century, from which it would appear that by 2000 it took twice the weight of potatoes to pay a butler than it had in 1900. The tale is similar for a stay in a five-star hotel, The real cost of a bicycle had dropped massively, but that is unlikely to have benefitted WSC Rjccumbria (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The butler was William Greenshields, wasn't it? But I never knew Winnie had a bike! Could he even ride one? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
He is said to have sold his bike to finance the purchase of a bulldog when he was 17; more certainly (and certainly to my surprise) in My African Journey (1908) he enthused about the bicycle as a means of getting about Uganda (apparently it was death for ponies) , and seems to have used them himself; he writes (p 150) of freewheeling down a 4-mile gentle descent into Masindi Rjccumbria (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@MiguelMunoz: no worries - you were bold and acting in good faith, never be scared of doing that! Rjccumbria makes a good point - it is incredibly difficult to come up with meaningful comparisons. Should the money from his lectures be treated as income? As Capital? As money to be spent on living? Which we see it as will significantly alter any equivalent value for today. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The first question is always "Why is the amount of money being mentioned?"; the second surely should be "is then adjusting it for inflation the best way to deliver on that aim?" In this case; is the aim
  • (a) to show that the lecture fees could have kept him in vintage Pol Roger (advertised on p2 of the Evening Standard of 4 May 1900 at 84s a dozen) at a bottle a day for 80 years? : (the CPI is applicable (but a 'champagne and cigars' index would be more applicable)
  • (b) to show how much better off he was than the broad toiling masses ? - (according to an item on p8 of the Glasgow Herald of 6 Jan 1900 Scots miners were getting 6s3d a day but threatening to strike for more - and over their entire working life therefore would have been paid no more than half what WSC raised from his lecture tour ): (the 'GDP per capita' index is more relevant) or
but in either case would it not be more sensible to be explicit about the point being made by making the comparison in 1900 money/facts rather than index-linking the fee according to the intended comparison without saying what that is meant to be, leaving it to the reader to make the right comparison? That would certainly seem the sensible way forward if the aim is
  • (c) to show how big a draw he was on the lecture circuit (it would surely be more useful to compare with contemporaries like Mark Twain than to index-link and compare the modern-money value with the lecture fees paid to Gordon Brown) Rjccumbria (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
To round this off: I haven't been able to find any explicit statement of Twain's lecture fees,* but St James's Gazette (22 November 1900 (p12)) noted that he had begun a world lecture tour in 1895 to pay off debts of about £40,000 (like Walter Scott he had lent his name to a firm that went bust) and had now returned to the US having paid the money in full; that would suggest WSC was a lecturer of similar standing (ie A-list) to Twain (who actually chaired WSC's first lecture in New York) Rjccumbria (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
* I can't have tried hard enough: further searching in BNA shows that the same week the Pall Mall Gazette (26 November 1900 (p8)) reported that Twain had been offered £10,000 for 100 lectures and rejected the offer because he wanted a bit of a rest. Again, that's unverfied newspaper gossip, but would point to a similar tariff --Rjccumbria (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

In the text about Churchill's nanny, there is a spelling mistake. Please change "Mlle." to "Mlle" as there is no period in the abbreviation of the French word Mademoiselle. I have copied the text below; it is in the section on marriage and children. French abbreviations that contain the last letter of the word do not take a period. "a French nursery governess in Kent, Mlle. Rose. Clementine travelled to Eaton Hall to play tennis with Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster, and his family. While still under the care of Mlle. Rose, Marigold had a cold" 100.34.219.126 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Typo

"... before spending time at Escourt before heading for Colenso." Should be "Estcourt". [1]

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


Winston Churchill → Sir Winston Churchill – The Pathé News funeral video is labeled him as a Sir and when a news story is written about him, they include the Sir. And, telling people at first glance that he has a knighthood is beneficial. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:HON precludes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but a good faith nomination. Happily the 'Sir' is well used in both the infobox title and first mention, so readers will be quickly made aware of the honorific. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good faith certainly. And a sensible suggestion. I guess he might still confused with this one, who was also knighted, but probably not for long. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy oppose I'm less convinced of the good faith of this nomination. The nominator previously opened an RM to move Dante Alighieri to Dante with the same wording and is getting trounced, so he opens up a completely nonsensical one with identical wording claiming this is "better known" and offering absolutely zero proof as to that assertion. At least come up with some references and comparisons between uses of two names before opening up a new RM. Close and WP:TROUT. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close WP:HON also @Memoriam A.H.H.: please see above. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose There is no page for "Sir Cliff Richard" or "Sir Ringo Starr" or "Sir Rod Stewart" or "Sir Ray Davies" or "Sir Barry Gibb" so it makes no sense to do it here. The honorary title is stated in bold as the very first word of the article so it will already be clearly identifiable to anyone at first glance. --Nicholas0 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per all of the above. See also WP:TITLESINTITLES. -- Begoon 08:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have read WP:HON and want to withdraw from this renaming request. Apologies. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 09:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I don't understand the decision above. The final comment, "The Karsh photo of Churchill is PD in Canada and the US since it was published in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. URAA affects images published or taken after 1945 in Canada. --Leoboudv ([[User talk:Leoboudv|[Template:M used with invalid code 'int:Talkpagelinktext'. See documentation.]]]) 09:44, 21 August 2017 " is wrong. It was, indeed, the cover of Life in 1945. That issue of Life had its copyright renewed, so the image will be under copyright in the USA until 2040. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Naval officer

Winston Churchill was a Naval Officer not an army officer, they are separate branches of the UK armed forces, it is inaccurate to protray him as an army officer. MaccaSys (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure, do you have a reliable source that he was a Naval Officer, certainly no mention at Honours of Winston Churchill that he was. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this has come up before, and that it was due to confusion between the political post of First Lord of the Admiralty and the naval post of First Sea Lord. Churchill was the former, a civilian post, but not the latter. DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Churchill was (eventually) a perfectly genuine colonel in the Army, and a honorary Air Commodore in the RAF, and wore both uniforms at various times in WW2. He was never a naval officer. It might be interesting to investigate why he was never offered an honorary naval rank - it may be because he had a somewhat spiky relationship with the Senior Service at the best of times, but that's just my guess.Paulturtle (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
WSC may have been excluded from honorary rank in the Navy by his humble origins. The Navy List of 1944 gives (p802) a full list of 'Honorary Officers in His Majesty's Fleet'. There are 6 and all are foreign royals: three reigning monarchs (Norway, Sweden & Denmark)are admirals; three foreign Royal Highnesses are lieutenants. Rjccumbria (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
WSC was an Elder Brother of Trinity House (see wikipedia article on Trinity House, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_House) by virtue of his position as 1st Lord of the Admiralty, and he would have and did retain his "Elder Brothership" even after leaving the Admiralty the first time. (See William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, Kindle version, loc 9327). This is the uniform he wore during the siege of Antwerp and in World War II as 1st Lord and PM when he was aboard ships, most famously meeting in the North Atlantic with FDR. I think Princess Anne has a similar uniform as "Elder Lady"(?) of Trinity House. JMvanDijk (talk)

Painting

Churchill's lifelong love for painting was examined by Andrew Marr (also a keen amateur painter) in the 2015 BBC documentary Andrew Marr on Churchill: Blood, Sweat and Oil Paint: [2], [3]. Apparently he became friends with Walter Sickert and William Nicholson. The documentary also covered the contribution of his personal protection officer Edmund Murray and looked at The Goldfish Pool at Chartwell: [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018

In the 'relations to the US section' there is a photograph of Churchill, Roosevelt, & Stalin. In the Caption: 'Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, with a frail Roosevelt and Stalin beside him.'

There should be an Oxford comma put in place after Roosevelt to make it clear that Stalin is not also frail. So it should be: 'Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, with a frail Roosevelt, and Stalin beside him.' Stellatois (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done hiàn 01:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Churchill's position of tear gas.

The page states: ""In 1919, Churchill sanctioned the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq.[194] Though the British did consider the use of non-lethal poison gas in putting down Kurdish rebellions, it was not used, as conventional bombing was considered more effective.[194]""

The current phrasing is ambiguous as to whether Churchill himself was in favour of poison gas. In my opinion this should be rephrased to show that (as the linked page states) Winston Churchill spoke positively of poison gas. As, in his own words:

""I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.""

To leave this part out, or to shunt it to a separate page, is disingenuous about Churchill's character. To leave the worst parts of one's character out while giving most time to the positive attributes is to be biased in favour of that person, and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, when considering it (As many do these days) as a source of Truth.

Nuzznz (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your search for "truth" at Wikipedia may be misguided. But you are suggesting that Churchill's support for bringing tears to a man's eyes, instead of trying to "lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell" is in some way biased? And recognising Churchill's desire to "reduce loss of life to a minimum" in some way shows the "worst parts" of his character?? I'd certainly support addition of that quote, if you can provide the proper source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Quote appears in Alleged British use of chemical weapons in Mesopotamia in 1920, attributed there to 'a War Office minute of 12 May 1919'. The reference given is <ref>[[Martin Gilbert]], ''Winston S. Churchill'', (London: Heinemann, 1976), companion volume 4, part 1</ref>; I haven't checked that. Quite what the quote goes to show is unclear, though: I would have thought that defenders of Churchill could quite plausibly argue that nothing in it obviously goes much beyond arguing for retaining the right to use 'riot control agents' (whatever the precursors of CS gas were) to disperse/deter the bulk of hostile tribes; the remaining hard-core opponents could then be dealt with by more lethal means with minimum loss of life Rjccumbria (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Then I can't see it would make a particularly useful addition, after all. Thanks for providing the alleged source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

The phrase is "... try to ..." not " ... try and ..." Major pet peeve.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.23.20 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2018‎

The other phrase is "... get himself posted to ..." not "... get him posted to ..."? :| Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

“However, his strongly outspoken views on race and British imperialism have often been criticized.”

Yesterday’s opinion piece in the Washington Post by Indian politician Shashi Tharoor is worth reading:

We cover much of this in the body of the article. However, the lead statement (quoted as the title of this section) doesn’t do it justice.

I would like to add something into this sentence:

...or similar.

A second point is adding a reference to the Bengal famine of 1943 in the lead (this is also well covered in the article). It’s worth noting that the lead section of Mao Zedong describes the Great Chinese Famine, whilst Joseph Stalin’s lead mentions both the Soviet famine of 1932–33 and the Soviet famine of 1946–47. The debate around Churchill’s responsibility for Bengal is no different to the debates around Stalin and Mao’s famine responsibility.

It should go without saying that presiding over the starvation of millions of civilians is equivalent whether you are English, Russian, or Chinese, whether you were a capitalist or a communist, and whether the victims are next door to your home or in a far flung corner of your empire.

I recognise this is a sensitive subject, so I thought I would bring it here for comment here first. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile. It doesn't make sense to put it in the lead if it doesn't even have its own subsection. So I made its own subsection. Full support.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The Bengal Famine occurred in the middle of the greatest war in history. The other's didn't. I should also point out that there had always been famines in the area of Bengal, and there have also been some since - Bangladesh famine of 1974.
Bengal was one of the recruiting grounds of the Indian Army and no British or Indian leader would jeopardize the supply of men - ALL volunteers - for that army IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR by knowingly or willingly allowing a famine to occur.
BTW, a food developed by the British for treating victims of the 1943 famine - "Bengal famine mixture" - was also used for the recently-liberated inmates of Bergen-Belsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.134 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the Bangladesh Famine was basically an extension of Pakistan's genocide. What's your point?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have that would have been fairly obvious, but here on Wikipedia perhaps I may have been too trusting to make that assumption. Perhaps someone else will be kind enough to explain it for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the idea that Winston Churchill was a war criminal controversial? Yes, deeply so. Specifically it requires you to accuse him of intentionally creating a famine in Bengal, when much evidence points to this being the effect of the Japanese conquest of Burma, where Bengal receive most of its food from. We already cover this in the body of the text of the article, no sense in having it in the lead as it gives undue prominence to a peripheral controversy. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Winston Churchill Castlerosse

Most historians disagree with those two wonderful historians Richard Toye and Warren Dockter about the Castlerosse relationship: your entry on Churchill should reflect that theirs is a sincerely held but strictly minority position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widge1955 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to say that. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Racist Side of Churchill

DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When the Bengal famine erupted as a result of all the wheat in India being transported to England, Churchill had this to say “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” So as is apparent, this man was a ruthless, insensitive, evil and cruel man.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:980:2090:1C74:9956:597E:EB9E (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hasnt this already been covered and discussed apart from the slight error in facts refer Bengal famine of 1943. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
He actually said this? Where, and to whom? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

Invasion of Borkum?

As it seems, there is something horrible wrong with the mention of Borkum. The island was or is neither Danish, nor is it located in the Baltics (In fact it's nearly Dutch). Is there perhaps a confusion with the island of Bornholm? 84.175.172.253 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's got mangled somewhere, I don't have Malcolm Gilbert's book (which is used as the citation) to see if the mangling was done by Gilbert or here on Wikipedia. The proposal was to capture Borkum to draw the High Seas Fleet out into the North Sea, this would leave the Baltic clear for Denmark and possibly Sweden to come in with the Allies, and give Russia an opening to attack the northern coast of Germany. The island could also then have been used as a base for further ops in the North Sea. Churchill writes about it in The World Crisis, and there's an online article about it here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete Article to promote Gender Equality on Wikipedia

DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I saw this tweet[1] on Twitter and it make me wonder.

Wouldn't a good way to make the proportion of articles about women greater than 19%, be to completely erase some articles about men? Adding articles about woman can only potentially raise it to about 30% at most. If half of all biographical articles about men (like Churchill) were erased, Wikipedia would be a more equal place. 78.144.188.147 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't troll Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's about the worst argument, purportedly in favour of gender equality, that I've ever seen. What will you suggest next, a WikiManopedia and a WikiWomanopedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
A WikiManopedia sounds like a men's only club which would be inherently sexitst. A WikiWomanopedia does seem like a very Feminist idea though a site by women, for women, about women. I'm hard pressed as to why you'd assume an attempt to create a more gender equal environment would be trolling, Midnightblueowl. Do you hate women? I think there's an article for people like you. 78.144.188.147 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I actually think two separate genderpedias might be preferable to deleting Winston Churchill just to redress the historical unbalance. But why pick on Winny, exactly? Surely you'd want to set your sights on the real misogynists through history? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1006916401142140928
Now then, is that a woman's hat or a man's? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Change the description of Churchill's portrait at the top of the page from "seated, holding a cane and his suit" to "standing, holding a chair and his suit" as that is clearly what the photo depicts. 2001:56A:F340:3F00:C049:500F:D0CC:F19D (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- The Voidwalker Whispers 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
He's holding onto the back of a chair, not a "cane" (or even a walking stick\). So I've adjusted to: "Churchill wearing a suit, standing and holding a chair". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

Change in Office date from 26 October 1951 to 26 October 1941 69.158.111.203 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Parental Home

Re: Churchill was born at his parental home, Blenheim Palace, this is misleading at best. His parents did not own Blenheim - the usual story is that they were visiting and he was born unexpectedly prematurely. I would not vouch for the certainty of that tale, but certainly they were (relatively) poor relations of the 'Marlboroughs'. Implying that they owned Blenheim, or they lived there permanently is misleading. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially as "ancestral" is used in the image. Have made the change. There was also a double link to his grandad which this has resolved. Thanks very much. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Under Secondary sources are Charmley, John (1993) and Charmley, John (1996). The Notes refer to Charmley 1993, Charmley 1995 and Charmley 1996. It would appear that Charmley, John (1995) needs to be added to Secondary sources.
Other references might need looking at for the same reason.
I don't see a full reference to "The Gathering Storm" anywhere.
--Brenont (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I raised the "Charmley 1995" issue back in October. I also raised "See Dyson and Maharatna (1991) for a review of the data and the various estimates made", "Picknett, et al", numerous "Soames" with no date, "James" with no date, and "Johnson 2014" (which might be the 2013 work by Boris Johnson). See Talk:Winston_Churchill/Archive 15#Reference problems. I propose replacing all these useless pseudo-references with "citation needed" tags. DuncanHill (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged the duff "references" with Template:Incomplete short citation for now. These short references often create this kind of trouble, I do not know why anybody thinks they are acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
And I've just found some more - "Gilbert" with no date. There are (at a quick count) at least four works by Gilbert cited in addition to the various volumes of the big Randolph-started biography. DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So far I've identified 53 of the 437 references as being incomplete. That's 12% or 1 in 8. And I haven't checked them all yet. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
And some more, "Churchill, Randolph" with no indication of which work. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Charmley 1993 would be "The End of Glory", his critical (but scholarly and thoroughly reliable) biog of WSC. Charmley 1995 would be "Churchill's Grand Alliance", his study of Anglo-American relations 1940-57. No idea about Charmley 1996 - he did publish a brief history of the Tory Party 1902-96 that year, but more likely an error.Paulturtle (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We've got Charmley 1993 (Churchill, The End of Glory) and Charmley 1996 (Churchill's Grand Alliance), it's Charmley 1995 we haven't got. Anyway, we shouldn't play "let's guess and call it a citation". DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
"Churchill's Grand Alliance" was first published in 1995, and it appears that there was second edition in 1996. I have a copy of the 1995 edition easily to hand.Paulturtle (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you be up for checking all the Charmley 1995 and Charmley 1996, and fixing them? If so that would be a great step forward for the article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest listing both 1st edition and 2nd edition since there could be differences in the page numbers and changes to the book text. Unless someone can readily compare both editions. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-sign to prevent archiving. Still unresolved. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Still unresolved. DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Still unresolved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Spinout Winston_Churchill#Personal_life

I think Winston_Churchill#Personal_life should be spunout. This article is large. Winston's personal life does not fit will in any single place, it lasting from the beginning to the end of his life.

I also think the first paragraph from Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Later_life, on alcohol, is out of place there and should be woven into this personal life, after the second paragraph of Winston_Churchill#Personal_life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with both of these suggestions. Maybe the first two paragraphs of Winston_Churchill#Personal_life could be retained and retitled as 'Personality' or something; they're basically just third-party comments on his character, not describing his personal life per se. Perhaps this could be followed by a shorter, more chronological section summarising his personal life, with most of the material being transferred to the new spun-out article. While we're at it, maybe the stub article Winston Churchill's pets could be incorporated as well. jxm (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, sensible suggestions. U-Mos (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarify the sentence about Britain and the Second World War

I have a proposal: the part of the sentence 'Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War.' could be read as if Britain were the only victorious state in the Second World War, which is not correct. The part of the sentence could be 'Churchill led Britain as part of the allies to victory in the Second World War.' Abogers (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Antoon Bogers

" .... could be read as if Britain were the only victorious state in the Second World War, which is not correct... " - it could only be understood that way by people with a poor command of written English. The current text is accurate, Churchill led Britain from 1940-45, and Britain was victorious. If anything, the text should state he also led the British Empire, which currently it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"present-day"?

For some time now, the fourth paragraph of the article lead has discussed competing views of Churchill and his legacy, and in doing so mirrors FA-rated 20th century political biography articles like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela. In the past week, there has been much activity in this paragraph, with one new editor arriving to expand it, only for it to be trimmed back down again. Amid all this, two words have been left in: "considerable controversy" has become "considerable present-day controversy." Such wording implies that these criticisms of Churchill are intrinsically recent, and that no-one before the past few years expressed them. This is simply untrue. Moreover, one could argue that the inclusion of "present day" here serves to try and delegitimise such criticisms, which would potentially be a breach of POV. I tried to remove the addition (here) but it has been restored by Thewolfchild. As per Wikipedia policy, the onus is on those who support the new (and controversial) addition to gain consensus first, so it should be removed in the short term, but more broadly I think that editors active at this page should discuss how to best phrase this final sentence in the lead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems like solid reasoning to me. I don't object the removal of the words "present day". - wolf 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo in First Paragraph

The first paragraph has a typo, it says "ontroversy instead of "controversy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Talrynf (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for reporting. I have fixed this now. Keith D (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Talrynf: Why not just fix it? Surely it would simpler to just add a missing letter, than create an entire talk page post and expect someone else to do it? - wolf 02:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thewolfchild: unfortunately my wikipedia power level is too low and I don't have the permissions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talrynf (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Talrynf: Oh...that. I never had that problem so it didn't occur to me, (especially since your account has been around since 2013). That certainly makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying. Now get those numbers up! - wolf 18:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

He has a monument built in January 2019, near the Piccadilly Circus. CAPTCHA ogre (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? Where is that exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor detail error in "Early Life" section

It was not the Empire Theatre, but rather its promenade, that faced closure in 1894. The distinction is relevant in that Churchill was taking a side against a social worker who sued the London County Council to close down the promenade because she believed that it facilitated prostitution and that women who saw other women making money there might be corrupted. The theatre continued to operate, but the protests against the closure of the promenade were ultimately unsuccessful.

See paras. 65-73 here: https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/churchillws-myearlylife/churchillws-myearlylife-00-h-dir/churchillws-myearlylife-00-h.html

Transcript of the hearing: http://catsmeatshop.blogspot.com/2016/03/mrs-ormiston-chant-and-music-hall.html

I'd change it myself, but I can't be bothered making an account and waiting four days just for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F6E6:8000:9C23:F848:B506:CAE3 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Presentism

Hello, my recent edits were reverted citing OR as the reason, I am at a loss to understand why the OR tag was applied as the edits were all sourced, maybe I’m missing something? Please advise. Roland Of Yew (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: Your initial edits were reverted as unsourced (aka WP:OR), as confirmed by your own admission that you neglected to add any sources because you "fell asleep". This has since been addressed on your talk page and meanwhile, you have re-added your edits, along with refs this time, and so far no one appears to be reverting you again. This matter seems to be resolved, so... I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with this post. - wolf 12:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Roland Of Yew: I should add that I've just edited the section as well - but I'm not trying to start an edit war! I just found the phrasing clunky so I rephrased it, kept the "presentism" part included, and separated the sources that describe the controversy and describe the controversy as presentism - hopefully this will all make the issue clearer to readers. @Thewolfchild: I'm curious what you think as well, as it's an important topic for an important page in the lead, and I think we need to collectively reach consensus and get the wording right. Let me know. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's just it; this is a high profile article and the recently added content, boldly added to the lead no less, by a new editor, is somewhat controversial. There are enough eyes on this page, along with invested contributors, that I think I'll just watch for now, and see what, if anything, unfolds. Cheers - wolf 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the patient understanding @Ganesha811: @Thewolfchild: I've taken your points on board. Finally, I have altered the 'reputation and legacy' section to just 'Legacy' in case of any misunderstanding using Lenin's article as a template. In case I've broken another rule please go ahead and revert the edit accordingly. Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency

As of now, the article is about a significant historical figure and has been the target of IPs. Increase in attention required and it seems to lose its neutrality. A peer review is inevitable. I will work on it for the next few days and decide if it requires third party comments. Disclaimer: I hated history as a school subject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Thewolfchild: Please explain why the recent reverts to my copy editing? If you have clear reasons, I'd appreciate it if you could explain them rather than resorting to a mass revert? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Some, such as removing his post-nomials I don't agree with, I believe you should seek consensus for that.
The Image was moved to the wrong section, I've since corrected that.
You removed a space, but I since addressed that as well.
"Present-day"...? The source is the BBC, titled; "The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career", fron Oct 2018, that is pretty current.
Changing "indigenous" to "black" for African tribes...? Seriously?
And to quote your edit summary; "unclear if this (recent addition) is in the citations given." - if you're "unclear", then why make changes?
Am I missing anything? - wolf 17:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the situations of the post-nominals, fine; I can see why some readers see that act as a little rash and would rather I discuss it first. As for the image removal, it has now been moved to a place where it is scrunched up with two other images, creating an aesthetic mess. It would fit far more nicely in the section below, even if the photograph happened to be taken the year before that discussed in the text. As for "present-day", I think that the wording is not only unnecessary but it perhaps also misleading; it strongly implies that Churchill has only been criticised in recent years, which is not the case. As for "indigenous", this is an issue of considerable debate in Southern Africa. Bantu-speaking groups like the Zulu moved into the region several centuries ago, supplanting the Khoisan hunter-gatherers. It has often been argued that the Khoisan are therefore the only "indigenous" population in that region. And on the final point, the reference to Brno has been recently added; it wasn't in the longstanding text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I went back to the Reliable Sources cited and can confirm that Brno is not mentioned in either of them. I'm sure you'll agree that such unreferenced information (particularly such unimportant information) should be promptly removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If you're interested in reading up more about the status of "indigeneity" in South Africa, there's this (somewhat basic) website: https://www.iwgia.org/en/south-africa/722-indigenous-peoples-in-south-africa . Essentially, it is potentially misleading to refer to the Zulu as "indigenous" in this context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:; you have criticised me for being bold and making changes to the article but with this edit you are doing exactly the same thing, making bold changes to established parts of the article and then edit warring to prevent them being reverted. That image has been located in the "Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies: 1905–1908" section since the latter was written (by me, incidentally) in April 2018. By moving it into another section (which already has two images in it) the resulting appearance is bunched and messy. It is a clearly controversial edit, you really should revert and discuss. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You should've checked the source before changing the content.
The image is no where near any other images, so why you're claiming its "scrunched up and making a mess" is quite frankly... bizarre. It should be placed in the paragraph that actually discusses the same time period. If you disagree, take it to DR.
The "present-day" comment, in the context of the attached source, certainly seems correct. If you feel that strongly about it, propose a re-write for that sentence here.
Your comments about the indigenous peoples of Africa are your OR opinion. If you feel that strongly about it, post an RfC, with your supporting sources and seek consensus.
And stop changing disputed edits during a discussion. Again, surely you know better. - wolf 18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(and 4 consecutive comments since my last, including an utterly needless ping, no wonder I keep getting edit conflicts. Slow down and take a breath ffs. - wolf 18:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC))
And please stop posting disingenuous summaries such as this. That is not where the image has been "since April 2018", it's where you attempted to move it only today (for the 2nd time). And commentary such as "this is an aesthetic mess" is solely your opinion and a misleading one at that. Again, when placed in the previous paragraph, the image is no where near any other images (and certainly not "bunched up" with any) so there is no placement issue. I'm not sure what article you were looking at when you wrote that, but it wasn't this one. - wolf 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC))
Honestly, if you look back through the page history, you will see that the image was positioned at that place since April 2018: for instance here on 12 April 2018. At some point it got aligned above the text in the paragraph, rather than in alignment it, which today I simply reverted as it looked messy and certainly isn't standard practice. I really was only restoring it to its longstanding place after it had been slightly misaligned; you then moved it to a whole other section, which isn't warranted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, the photo is dated 1904, so why would we add it to a section titled "1905-1908", instead of in the paragraph that discusses him during the years 1903 and 1904, in the preceding section, titled "1900-1905"? Is this really a debatable issue? You've made a good case for the "present day" edit below (which I really don't care about either way) and should be able to remove the wording, but why are you making such a issue about this image and its placement, even to the point of edit-warring and lying? (which seems rather silly as such lies never hold up on this site). You should pick your battles... run with the "present day" edit, let the image placement go, and give greater thought and care to your edits, and especially your edit summaries, in the future. - wolf 20:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you are accusing me of lying when everything I have said is not only true but demonstrably true. Honestly, look through the article's history. You'll see that since April 2018 the image has been aligned along the right-hand side of the "Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies: 1905–1908" sub-section. Originally it was placed just below the sub-title but someone later aligned it just above the title to squash in a further image (since deleted) beneath it. Either way, it certainly wasn't positioned in between paragraphs of text in the "Early years in Parliament: 1900–1904" section, which is where you have placed it. There are now three images bunched up in that section, a section which contains only four paragraphs of text. The images now overlap, squeezing the paragraphs of text (at least in my standard-sized browser). Surely you can see that it looks much cleaner and neater to restore the image to where it originally was? Your only reason for the unilateral change seems to be that you think an image of Churchill taken in 1904 has to be directly aligned with text discussing 1904, which seems a bit strange as aligning it with text discussing 1905 is hardly going to cause the reader any problems, is it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
How about this arrangement as a compromise? It stops the bunching and messiness that concerns me, yet keeps the 1904 image aligned with 1904 text, which concerns you? Revert me if you don't like it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I really have no idea what you're talking about with regard to "images overlapping and squeezing text in between"... they are no where near each other and the text looks perfectly fine. And, given that it ddoesn't appear to be causing any issues, why wouldn't a specifically dated image be placed in specifically dated section of the article? Would it "cause the readers problems" in the next section"? I'm sure you believe it wouldn't, but that doesn't make it look any less silly or out of place. - wolf 20:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer you self-revert. I see no need make continued edits to disputed content when you could've just as easily suggested; "how about we remove an image?", to which I would reply "why?". Why are we now removing images? Are you now also going to be removing images from the previous section which contains more images than the one in question? I noticed you didn't mention that. I suppose that section looks perfectly fine to you, yet the somehow this one, with less images, looked "scrunched and messy". I suggest you restore the deleted image and we wait until some other editors comment. - wolf 21:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

An edit by Rodericksilly had been reverted by Walk Like an Egyptian thewolfchild per WP:BRD. I would like to initiate a conversation here and hopefully bring consensus. The content that's controversial is the following:

In 2019, Daniel Finkelstein wrote in The Times that Churchill "was a racist but still a great man". He argued: "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses."[1]

Now I don't know how much this article weighs WP:NPOV. I will come back to this later after I have checked the source reliability. Meanwhile, feel free to drop your comments. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Finkelstein, Daniel (12 February 2019). "Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man". The Times. Retrieved 17 February 2019. (subscription required)
@ImmortalWizard: The edit was reverted by thewolfchild, not me. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Walk Like an Egyptian and ImmortalWizard: Yes, it was me. So let's all stop pinging me now. (it's safe to say this page is already on my watchlist as it is... ) - wolf 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Article size

This page is now 300kB, which is 3x the size that the WP:SIZERULE guideline states the article should be split. Thoughts? - wolf 00:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Added note; this page is slow to load at times which makes editing difficult. It definitely needs a split. I'll wait a few days to see if there is any feedback here. If not, then I might just boldly start splitting up the page myself. - wolf 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
There are already articles on his political career pre 1939 and his later career from 1945, to which as much material as possible could be moved. There is also a detailed chronology of his comings and goings during WW2. Plenty of scope for hiving off other material into theme-based articles.Paulturtle (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Some ideas for theme-based articles, in no particular order:
Churchill and European Unity (more to be said about his postwar speeches and the supposed endorsement of EEC entry issued by his secretary in his name in 1962, about which inaccurate claims were made in 2016 - if Andrew Roberts ever reads this I am the guy who picked his brains about that topic at a book signing at the Savile Club last October).
Churchill and India (not just the 1935 Act but also WW2 and setting the record straight about the Bengal Famine)
Churchill and the USSR
Churchill and the USA
Churchill and Ireland (have just read Paul Bew's short study on that topic)
Churchill and Appeasement (it's a bit more complicated than popular myth would have it...)
Churchill and Strategic Bombing
Churchill and the Royal Navy (not just 1911-15 and 1939-40 but the rest of WW2)
Churchill as a painter (a topic about which I know almost nothing)
there are already articles on Churchill's books, to some of which I may add material one of these days.
I'm sure others will have other ideas.Paulturtle (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It's probably worth comparing the article size of this one with the size of FA-rated articles like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela, given the similar place that all three of them have in the 'pantheon' of prominent 20th century political figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Those pages are 190kB and 196kB respectively, both also in need of attention, but not as bad as this page. - wolf 16:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Owning Responsibility for The Great Bengal Famine

Despite there being indisputable evidence (Mishra, V., Tiwari, A. D., Aadhar, S., Shah, R., Xiao, M., Pai, D. S., & Lettenmaier, D. ( 2019). Drought and famine in India, 1870–2016. Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 2075– 2083. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081477) that Churchill implemented detrimental policies that took the lives of over 3 million Bengalis in the famine of 1943, even while being warned against it and informed of the dire consequences -- why do we not explicitly and officially hold him accountable for genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgodjustsomethingalready (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 22:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference problems outstanding for over a year.

Since October 2017 I have been raising concerns on this page about inadequate and incomplete references in the article (see Talk:Winston_Churchill/Archive_15#Reference_problems and Talk:Winston_Churchill/Archive_15#Sources). There appear today to still be 37 tagged as "incomplete short citation", and 5 "citation needed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right, there are still these outstanding problems. They're mostly in the second two thirds of the article, which is a terrible mess anyway. Those whole portions need a complete revamp. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The Great Bengal Famine of 1943

During his time as British India's Prime Minister in 1943, Churchill was warned about looming drought in the Bengal province that could've caused wide-spread famine.[1] In spite of this warning, Churchill didn't adopt previously (and successfully) instated measures by Sir Richard Temple in the late 1800s to combat potential famine and instead deliberately diverted food resources grown locally to other colonies of the empire. The Great Bengal Famine of 1943 caused by Churchill's willful negligence ended up killing over 3 million Indians, with Churchill blaming it on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive. [2]

A recently conducted soil study revealed that while droughts and famines that occurred before 1943 were inevitable, this one specifically was entirely avoidable and did not occur due to natural causes. “There have been no major famines since independence,” Vimal Mishra, the lead researcher and an associate professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, told CNN, “And so we started our research thinking the famines would have been caused by drought due to factors such as lack of irrigation.” [3]

While the South Asian peninsula has been demanding that England recognize and take responsibility for this heinous act that took millions of lives, even as early as the 1980's when Nobel Prize-winning Bengali economist Amartya Sen posited that this famine was entirely man-made the global audience is yet to recognize this act and accordingly revisit historical narratives. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgodjustsomethingalready (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Wire Staff. "Study Says Winston Churchill's Policies Caused the 1943 Bengal Famine". The Wire India.
  2. ^ Scroll Staff. "New soil study confirms 1943 Bengal famine was caused by Winston Churchill's policies, not drought". The Scroll India.
  3. ^ Mishra, Vimal (2019). "Drought and famine in India". Geophysical Research Letters (46): 2075. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081477. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  4. ^ Sen, Amartya (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 had a number of causes, none of which was Winston Churchill, nor was there much he could have done about it. Given the failure of the December 1942 Bengal rice crop and the unavailability of the usual Burmese imports due to enemy occupation, the principal cause of the famine was the refusal of neighbouring Hindu-led provincial state governments to drop their tariff barriers and allow relief supplies. This happened for the obvious reason that the famine victims were Muslims. India was already largely self-governing since 1935 and it would not have been practical for London to reassign desperately needed shipping to the Bay of Bengal which was infested with enemy submarines; it would also have meant reassigning desperately needed naval and air units to the area to secure the convoys. Local relief supplies were readily to hand within India itself, but were deliberately withheld by the Hindu-led state governments. Nothing to do with Churchill. The attempt to blame him for the famine is an Indian-nationalist trope which has only been drummed up in very recent years. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a really interesting perspective, Khamba Tendal, and I for one feel that, if it can be adequately sourced, should be quickly added...--BushelCandle (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Earl Mountbatten, then head of SEAC, reallocated 10% of his shipping space (in linked interview here at 17:30) to help with alleviating the famine. [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.103 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
First, note that this ahistorical claim attributing all blame to Churchill comes from supporters of Hindu nationalist leader Modi, himself implicated in the mass murder of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/narendra-modi-massacre-next-prime-minister-india
Next, refer to the Famine Inquiry Commission of May 1945, pp.22-24, and p.69 and p.75, already cited multiple times in the Wiki article on the famine itself, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.206311/2015.206311.Famine-Inquiry#page/n31/mode/2up, and Paul R. Greenough, Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944, Oxford University Press, 1982, ISBN 978-0-19-503082-2. Although inter-state trade barriers were dropped in May 1943, halfway through the famine, this simply led to a catastrophic price increase for rice, and price controls were re-established in August. None of this chaos had to do with the London government and there wasn't really anything London could do about it. It is no doubt true that imperial policy over the previous century or so, leading to de-industrialisation and the usual resulting over-population that goes with extreme rural poverty (as in Ireland in the 1840s) created the pre-conditions for the famine, but that is not the same thing. London didn't want the famine, didn't create it and couldn't have done much about it. The necessary supplies were close to hand, but the state governments and the markets wouldn't provide them. As in Ireland, it wasn't a matter of a shortage of food, it was just that many people could not afford to buy food when their own crops failed and their neighbours wouldn't help them. London could have done a lot more to help with the Irish famine, if the Liberal government hadn't had a laissez-faire fixation, but in 1943 there was not much that London could practicably do for Bengal. The serious failure was at the level of Indian provincial government. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Positioning of honorific 'Sir' in infobox

Is there any reason why "Sir" forms part of Winston Churchill's name in his infobox, instead of it being listed alongside "The Right Honourable" as an honorific prefix? I note that "Sir" is listed in the honorific prefix field in articles for Paul McCartney and Andy Murray, but not Bobby Robson nor John Major (all featured articles). Looking at Template:Infobox officeholder, no guidance is given as to what constitutes a person's name – however Template:Infobox person#Usage does give guidance for the name parameter: "use common name/article title". Domeditrix (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not part of the name, it shouldn't be displayed as part of the name, and I have removed it from the name field. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It is fairly normal practice to use Sir in the infobox as it is part of the common name, perhaps need to get a more global consensus on this. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is common practice, and I think that it should stay with the 'Sir' being part of the name. Also, there are a huge number of similar articles with 'Sir' as part of the name. 149.254.57.122 (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1915 resignation from government - October or November?

I noted at talk:November 15 that the claim there that Churchill's resignation from the Government in 1915 was on that date contradicted other articles, including this one, and it has now been removed. However as I noted in that discussion this article seems to contradict itself on the issue. The info box here indicates that he served as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster until 25 November 1915, when he was succeeded by Herbert Samuel, whose article also gives the same date. The Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster list also indicates the change took place on that day. However in the main text of the article it states that "In October 1915 Churchill resigned from government, although remained an MP" citing Martin Gilbert's Churchill: A Life from 1991. Obviously however this would seem to contradict what is said elsewhere. This would seem to leave three options 1) The October date is a mistake (either made by an editor or by Gilbert 2) the other articles are wrong about 25 November 3) Churchill announced his resignation in October, but it did not come into effect until 25 November. I wonder if anyone could clear this up. If option 3 is correct then I think it would be good to edit the text to clearly reflect this. Dunarc (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Have just checked Gilbert, Churchill offered his resignation on the 30th, then on the 11th November "he sent Asquith a second and final letter of resignation". He made his resignation statement to the House on the 15th November. Jenkins has Churchill writing unsent letters of resignation on 22 and 29 October, and sending a definitive letter on the 11th November, which he quotes in full. DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - that makes sense. I have done a quick bit of digging and Newspaper reports seem to suggest his resignation was made public on 13th November. Thereafter there was speculation that Samuel would be appointed with his official appointment being on 25 November. Dunarc (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Churchill's racist ideologies and other controversies

Shouldn't Churchill's racist ideologies and other controversies be mentioned in the article? For example in 1937 he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." (Source: BBC). –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 15:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is already covered in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
At what point, exactly? The quote isn't there, for sure. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 02:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lede, and dealt with in greater depth in the "Imperialism" sub-section of the "Political ideology" section. There are also various quotes scattered throughout the article reflecting the various prejudicial opinions that he voiced throughout his life. Having an additional section called "Racism" or "Controversies" would probably be unnecessary. I appreciate that Churchill's views on race have become a particular area of contention over the last five to ten years, in large part due to the growing attention paid by the British Left to the historical and ongoing impact of colonialism, but we must be cautious not to over-emphasize these facets of his personality or ideology. That would be WP:UNDUE. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
People's views need to be placed in their historical context, and such views were not uncommon at the time, not just in Britain, and whatever people might accuse Churchill of, one may at least say that his alleged 'racism' pales in comparison with someone like Hitler's. It might also be as well to remember that under Churchill's leadership the-then British Empire fought six years of hard war very-little-of-which was in aid of white Anglo-Saxon peoples, and what is more, they did so voluntarily.
Winston Churchill's racist views have come back because they are one of the underpinning factors of the Windrush scandal. So they are indeed relevant in a modern context, as well as a historical context, as he was a leading factor for pushing for amendments to the British Nationality Act 1948 which allowed black Commonwealth citizens to freely enter the UK without special documentation. I was surprised not to find at least a subsection on race...or a Controversies section listing race and other things, like his opposition for women getting the vote. There are mentions of bad things, but they are very played down. Looking just at the headings and subheadings make it look like the article is bordering on not showing a neutral point of view. The article should really show that he opposed Hitler...but also opposed votes for women and the rights of black Commonwealth citizens. Big Mac (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly "In 1954, Churchill's Cabinet invited the Home Secretary (Lloyd-George) and the Colonial Secretary (Lennox-Boyd) to prepare a draft bill restricting immigration, and Eden seriously considered placing it before Parliament." See this 1999 paper by Randall Hansen. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a "Controversies" section because they are generally avoided at Wikipedia (see here). I would point out that the article already states that Churchill initially opposed votes for women - although later came to support the measure, so this fact certainly hasn't been omitted from the article. It's in there. We don't dwell on it excessively because that would be WP:UNDUE. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What about Churchill's article "Zionism versus Bolshevism", which some have called anti-Semitic? (86.157.94.254 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC))

Do you have a link to that article and can you provide sources for your claim? Again, however, be aware of WP:UNDUE. I would say that this whole matter is adequately covered in the Imperialism section and that you need to understand the difference in attitudes that prevailed in Churchill's lifetime when imperialism was in vogue. Churchill was undeniably an imperialist. To label him a racist is to try and impose modern ideals onto historical conditions. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Churchill was a self-described "white supremacist" who admitted he hated Indians: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html (Sebdul12 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC))

Baffling prose

I don't have the knowledge of the subject to get stuck into this myself, but this article contains some baffling prose, with long, unnecessarily complicated sentences. Some examples, from the Health section:

Since the appearance in 1966 of Lord Moran's memoir of his years as Churchill's doctor, with its claim that "Black Dog" was the name Churchill gave to "the prolonged fits of depression from which he suffered",[413] many authors have suggested that throughout his life Churchill suffered with clinical depression. Formulated in this way, Churchill's mental health history contains similarities to the interpretation of Lord Moran's Black Dog revelations made by Dr Anthony Storr.

Despite the difficulties with Moran's book, the many illustrations it provides of a Churchill placed in a low mood by military defeats and other severely adverse developments constitute a compelling portrait of a great man reacting to, but not significantly impeded by, worry and overstrain, a compelling portrait that is entirely consistent with the portraits of others who worked closely with Churchill.

Impenetrable. Popcornduff (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I find both of those paragraphs entirely clear and informative. Sorry if that's just me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
OK - let's get a bit more specific.
Since the appearance in 1966 of Lord Moran's memoir of his years as Churchill's doctor, with its claim that "Black Dog" was the name Churchill gave to "the prolonged fits of depression from which he suffered",...
This is the first mention of Moran in the article, and this is not a clear introduction. The sentence is frontloaded with information before we get to the main clause, which is:
many authors have suggested that throughout his life Churchill suffered with clinical depression.
You could write the same thing in plain English like this (for example):
In his 1966 memoir, Churchill's doctor Lord Menron wrote that Churchill suffered from "prolonged fits of depression" that Churchill called the "black dog".
And then specify which other authors have supported this claim, if that's important.
Next:
Formulated this way, Churchill's mental health history contains similarities to the interpretation of Lord Moran's Black Dog revelations made by Dr Anthony Storr.
I have read this sentence several times and I can't decode it. What does "formulated this way" mean? What does it mean for someone's mental health history to "contain" similarities? Contain seems an odd verb here. What are these "Black Dog revelations"? I assume the "Black Dog" here is Churchill's depression, but why is it capitalised like a proper noun? Was it the title of Moran's memoir perhaps? Why are Moran's memoirs revelations exactly? That's a dramatic noun. Above all, who is Anthony Storr, what is his interpretation of Moran's "revelations", and how does this interpretation resemble Churchill's mental health history?
Despite the difficulties with Moran's book, the many illustrations it provides of a Churchill placed in a low mood by military defeats and other severely adverse developments constitute a compelling portrait of a great man reacting to, but not significantly impeded by, worry and overstrain, a compelling portrait that is entirely consistent with the portraits of others who worked closely with Churchill.
This violates WP:NOV. Wikipedia is not in a position to tell readers that books offer "compelling portraits" - certainly not twice. "Difficulties" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. There's a ton of adverbs - severely, entirely, significantly, entirely, closely. It's incredibly long. As far as I can tell, the actual information in this paragraph can be reduced to:
Moran's account of Churchill's depression is consistent with those of others who worked with him.
One more thing to consider. Running the prose I cited through the Hemingway app produces the result: "3 of 3 sentences are hard to read". The WebFX readability test tool, which measures text using several indexes, produces a red (very poor readability) score for three of the five indexes and orange (poor readability) for the other two. I realise that these are simply computer programs - not to be relied on as an objective measure of something fundamentally subjective - but they're often useful as rough indicators. Popcornduff (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I came here to raise similar objections, particularly to the tone. It is not fit for Wikipedia in any way. We're not here to laud (or condemn) Churchill, or the works made about him. I'm not sure how this particular issue isn't blindingly obvious. WP Ludicer (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gaol

@DuncanHill: Per prison, "gaol" is a dated British and Australian spelling. It's not present in American English, but I'm told "jail" is recognized worldwide, and per MOS:COMMONALITY the internationally recognized variant should be used on Wikipedia. Certainly as an American, when I first encountered this spelling in a Wikipedia article, I was very confused. It looks like a misspelling of "goal" or maybe a proper noun that's mistakenly lowercase, and it looks like it should sound like "goal" or "joel". It's impenetrable and I had to look it up in the dictionary. A simple gloss for younger readers and Americans clears it right up. -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to gloss college in the same quotation to explain it means university? Those of our readers who have access to the internet can type gaol into the search box on Wikipedia, or indeed the address bar of most browsers, and get a definition instantly. The use here is in a direct quote, and we really shouldn't bugger about with direct quotes. On the whole I'm in favour of linking or explaining in a footnote obscure foreign terms ("sophomore", "summa cum laude", and the like), but I'm surprised you found gaol to be quite so confusing. I think the most elegant way of dealing with this would be to link gaol. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
No, both "college" and "university" are understood in both US and UK English; "I went to university" might sound odd to American ears but it's perfectly understandable. Linking is an interesting idea...it doesn't really help readers of print versions of Wikipedia, and clicking through is certainly a much bigger speedbump to comprehension. Does "gaol" occur in your local dialect? I thought "sophomore" was a universal term, but apparently it's only North American. -- Beland (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no reason to use "gaol" anymore than there would be reason, for example, to use "WC" when "toilet" is understood by practically everyone yet the former is unknown to many others. Just use "jail". This should not even be an issue. WP Ludicer (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't change direct quotations. If the source uses gaol then we use gaol. DuncanHill (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
MOS:SIC says that small clarifying additions are fine if they are enclosed in brackets to indicate they were not present in the original, which is what I did. -- Beland (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an article written in English not American so I dont see any reason why it needs to be changed or explained, a link is all that is required if the term is not understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, the link wouldn't help print readers, and reading an inline clarification is faster and easier. What's the downside for British readers if it is helping Americans? -MOS:COMMONALITY seems to be endorsing the idea that we should be actively accommodating readers not familiar with the dialect of the article. We use dual terminology in a lot of places, like when we talk about soccer/football. -- Beland (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesnt have a set language (hence eng-var) so I see no reason why we should be educating American readers in an articles with British English or the way around. The alternate would be to add a note to every mention of jail in the encyclopedia to mention gaol for non-American readers, it is something we dont do. This encyclopedia is not here to help Americans who cant click on a link or use a search engine. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne. Gaol is not an obscure or archaic usage. We don't write "harbor [harbour]" or "theater [theatre]" or "gotten [got]" or "dove [dived]" or "meter [metre]" (even though a meter and a metre are very different things in unAmerican English, and dove is something that flies), I don't believe that gaol will confuse more than one or two people, and this article is not the place for explaining every piddling difference between American and unAmerican English. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Concur with MilborneOne that "gaol" is not an obscure or archaic usage in British English even today. Obviously was wholly current in 1910. The quote also has the immediately following context of "police and prison services". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Prison says that "gaol" is "dated". Is that incorrect, or are you making a distinction between "archaic" and "dated"?
  • wikt:theatre says that spelling is used in American English, though it is not the dominant spelling.
  • harbour follows a general American-to-British rule changing "o" to "ou" and can be sounded out.
  • wikt:gotten says that word is used in British English, though it is not dominant.
  • I'd feel comfortable changing all instances of "dove" to "dived" per MOS:COMMONALITY; according to Wikitionary, wikt:dove is present in North American English but also some dialects in England, but wikt:dived says that's universal.
  • MOS:CONVERSIONS actually does require conversion from meters to feet in most articles outside of science, because many American's don't know how long a meter is.
  • MOS:COMMONALITY actually does say that providing glosses of dialect-specific terms to reduce confusion is fine, using the example "the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car".
  • wikt:jail says this spelling is used in all varieties of English, whereas "gaol" is specific to the UK, Australia, and Ireland. Based on the consensus at MOS:COMMONALITY, I'm actually converting all article text instances of "gaol" to "jail", outside of direct quotes and proper nouns and the article prison itself.
-- Beland (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Though to this question, it doesn't really matter if "gaol" is still used in British English, it only matters whether or not it appears to any substantial degree in American English, which it definitely doesn't. -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Why does it matter when it's in a 1910 quotation from a British politician? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with MilborneOne on this the status quo should remain. Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Quotations should be comprehensible to speakers of all modern English dialects, no matter the source era and no matter the language or dialect used. -- Beland (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I hope Beland doesn't discover Shakespeare. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
"Then am I the prisoner, and his encyclopedia my gaol... " Goneril Evans 123 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've actually done a lot of cleanup around quotations in Old and Middle English, where we generally provide a modern English translation. Early Modern English like Shakespeare is very hard to read with the original spelling and typography. I randomly picked Sonnet 44 to see if Wikipedia handles that in a user-friendly way. In that article, you'll see we have a picture with the original typography, and a complete second copy that's a transliteration into modern spelling and typography. It seems for large differences in language we put in large annotations, so it makes sense to me that for this small difference we'd put in a small annotation. -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you point that bit out at MOS:QUOTE? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Which point do you want referenced to policy? That quotes should be comprehensible to readers? To readers regardless of dialect? Regardless of the source era? Regardless of the language or dialect used? -- Beland (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
let's stay close to the actual words of a world-famous orator and writer. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
But all of Churchill's original words are still there after this explanatory note is added? -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
All of them. I was seeking confirmation that each of those demands are written as over-riding explicit requirements at MOS:QUOTE, i.e. that they over-ride the guidelines to preserve the original quotation as closely as possible, which in most cases would seem to be the verbatim quote. It's not as if that single word "goal" is from a foreign language, is it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
For Americans, "gaol" (not "goal", though I'm constantly mistyping it as well) is indeed from a foreign dialect. Given the radically different spelling that follows no familiar pattern, it was harder for me to decode than many cognates in French or Spanish. As I said above, MOS:SIC (which is a section of MOS:QUOTE) says that small clarifying additions are fine if they are enclosed in brackets to indicate they were not present in the original. It does not go into detail as to what constitutes advisable clarification, but MOS:COMMONALITY does, though it does not address direct quotations specifically. -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beland:, looking at your contributions it seems you are on a one-man crusade to eliminate "gaol" from articles, even to the extent of using "jail" in article with "gaol" in the title, with no regard to the history of the article and no attempt to gain consensus for your changes. You don't have any consensus for this, simply your personal interpretation of a guideline. I think you need to step back from this area - not just this article. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that the guideline has consensus, so it did not make any sense to try to get consensus to adjust articles that were apparently out of compliance. I'm not sure what needs to be taken into account about the history of the article? If your objection is to seeing "Gaol" in a proper noun next to "jail" when speaking in Wikipedia's voice, well, that sort of variation happens all the time with proper nouns and direct quotes, especially with old-fashioned language. Given that "jail" is also used in British English, what encyclopedic purpose would be served by ignoring MOS:COMMONALITY and making these instances more confusing for American readers? I'm comfortable with being bold but taking it slow and seeing what the watchers of the other articles think before changing all ~4,000 affected articles. If you want to start a broader discussion to clarify what the exceptions to MOS:COMMONALITY should be, I think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style would be the place. -- Beland (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure what gives the impression that I'm male. -- Beland (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
"As per WP:Manual of Style § Quotations, archaic glyphs should be modernized, including within quotations and titles (e.g., æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the). Archaic spellings (including capitalization, punctuation, and emphasis that would be non-standard today) are retained in quotations, and we rarely need to provide any translations into Modern English if the source material is Elizabethan or later. For Middle English, treat it on a case-by-case basis, but always provide translation for Old English.". DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting guideline for direct quotations of archaic language. If we extend this from archaic words to dialect-specific words, it seems to be saying that the original spelling should be retained (which I agree with) and that an explanation may need to be given to readers depending on how easy it is for speakers of the modern language to understand (with older variants being more likely to be harder to understand). That also makes sense; for the Churchill quote, an inline gloss seems like the most explanation that's needed, and only because the dialect-specific word is particularly troublesome. This doesn't really address the issue of "gaol" outside of direct quotes. -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
And as for your last point, I neither know nor care if you're male, and do not know why you should raise the issue here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You said I was on a "one-man crusade". -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a stock, or fossilised, phrase, widely used in English. No, what I quoted does not say an explanation is needed. It's post-Elizabethan, so does not need translation. I don't think it's anything like as obscure as you claim to find it, I don't recall anyone turning up here before to say they don't know what it means, and as I said before, anyone with access to the internet, or a dictionary, or other people, can work it out for themselves. Sometimes you do have to look a word up - that's not a problem, not something to resent, and not grounds for forcing Wikipedia to adopt your own vocabulary. Anyway, as I said a couple of miles of text above, I would have no objection to linking gaol in the quotation. I suspect, however, that you will never accept anything other than your own preferred solution. DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, the generic he. It says "we rarely need" to translate post-Elizabethan text into Modern English. What differentiates the rare cases that do need translation? Wouldn't the rare cases be the words and structures that were used in Early Modern English that are not used in Modern English or have different meaning? -- Beland (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
And I'm not "forcing Wikipedia to adopt" "my" vocabulary. MOS:COMMONALITY sometimes constrains the vocabulary used within a dialect in order to prevent readers from being avoidably confused or having to do avoidable dictionary lookups. If American English-speaking editors generally find that "gaol" is common enough in the dialect not to warrant a clarification, then sure, I'd say it was just me not knowing a word I probably should have known, but otherwise I usually assume that for every person complaining about such things there are probably a thousand readers who had the same issue and didn't complain. -- Beland (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is already too long and this discussion is threatening to match it. My solution would be to link gaol and otherwise leave the quotation alone. Gaol is a common English word, familiar to just about everyone in Great Britain, and the article is about a British subject. If someone used gaol in an article about an American subject, I'd happily change it myself as it wouldn't be appropriate. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of choosing whether to use "gaol" or "jail", at least in regular text, what matters to MOS:COMMONALITY is not whether a spelling is clear to speakers of that dialect, but whether it is clear to speakers of other dialects. The fact that this is an article with UK ties means that it's written in British English, but both "gaol" and "jail" are British spellings. But aaaanyway, I've made the link, since that seems to be the only thing we can agree on. I'd still be interested in what other Americans think, since this will no doubt come up on other articles. -- Beland (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec)"I usually assume that for every person complaining about such things there are probably a thousand readers who had the same issue and didn't complain", well more of us are complaining about what you wanted to do, so there must be even more thousands agreeing with us! No, you can't use that sort of ludicrous appeal to the "silent majority", it is based on nothing better than wishful thinking. Those who say nothing say nothing, and you have neither the ability to read their minds nor the right to speak for them. It has no place in any Wikipedia discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are millions of British English speakers who have no problem understanding "gaol", and I'm not disputing that. The idea that if one person is complaining about a legitimate problem, lots of other people also probably have the same complaint is simply a matter of mathematics. Not everyone who encounters a problem reports it, especially if it's a minor one like spelling. Whether it's a 30% complaint rate or 3% or .1% depends on how important it is (Money involved? Much higher ratio.), how easy it is to complain, and a bunch of other technological and social and psychological factors. It looks like about 3 million people per year are reading this article alone, and given I went to college and generally do a lot of reading, I'd be quite shocked if among whatever fraction of readers speak American English, at least a thousand didn't have trouble understanding "gaol". Yeah, sometimes people occasionally make crazy complaints ("Why doesn't the Wikipedia article on Winston Churchill have purple unicorns!!") that should just be ignored. If you think my experience is not representative for some reason I can't imagine and falls into this category, you don't have to take my word for it — you could survey American English speakers to see how much exposure they have to this word.
I've worked in web and voice development and consumer products, and when we actually watch users trying to use our products, we actually find a lot of problems (some easy, some hard to fix) that no one has complained about and are making the experience slightly more difficult. In some cases we find a lone QA engineer or developer or VP of something has filed an issue about one of these problems in the bug tracking system, which was ignored because it wasn't seen as a priority. So in my experience, "no one is complaining about it, therefore it's not affecting anyone" is generally an unreliable inference, unless one is actively gathering reasonable represntative data on real user experiences. Likewise, in my experience "only one person is complaining about it, so it must only be affecting one person" is an unreliable inference, and if that's taken further to conclude "there must be something wrong with that person" I'd advise anyone wanting to make a quality product that such an attitude is probably overly dismissive. This doesn't mean everything that someone imagines might be a problem for someone else actually will be, and of course it doesn't mean one should prioritize single complaints ahead of issues with a hundred complaints, or ahead of issues that users can't articulate but are clearly affecting sales or reading comprehension or whatever. Does that make any sense? -- Beland (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You are the only American I have ever heard express incomprehension over the word "gaol". I've often heard amusement, incredulity, good- (and occasionally bad-) natured digs about it, alongside other differences in spelling, but never, until you came along, incomprehension. Now I will here go off on a little tangent. When British books are published in America, they are usually respelt (and repunctuated) in American English (there was an interesting thread about the Harry Potter books on one of the RefDesks a few years ago on this very subject). That could explain your ignorance of this common word. When American books are published in Britain the original spelling is retained. Should Wikipedia follow that "dumbing down"? That patronising attitude to Americans, that they cannot cope with difference? Now, to return to our sheep, you have produced no evidence that "gaol" is a problem to anyone but you. If you can produce evidence that it is a widespread problem, then I would suggest you open a centralised discussion about its use across Wikipedia. It is up to you to do that. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that Wikipedia should provide an American English translation of all British English article or vice versa, and that's not what the MOS guidelines say that articles should do. -- Beland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
And your claim that you are not forcing Wikipedia to adopt your preferred vocabulary is patently untrue, as a glance at your contributions shews. You are going ahead, knowing you do not have support, changing it willy-nilly all over the place, and adding it to a semi-automated tool designed for typos, not changing EngVar - and then ignoring WP:BRD when reverted there. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind if you object to a particular spelling if you have a particular reason to do so, but I don't think changing "gaol" to "jail" is a change of English variety if both spellings appear in that variety of English. My changes are not willy-nilly; I'm systematically changing all instances, but as promised taking it slow to see how other editors feel about this question outside of direct quotations. I don't know of any instance where I've undone a revert without discussing, so I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring WP:BRD. Are you referring to what you said above about not having consensus to change this in articles with "Gaol" in the title and something about the history of the article? I started avoiding articles with "Gaol" in the title, even though I don't think that should make a difference, but it seems you have further objections on which I am unclear. Why don't I put up a list of clarification questions and we can figure out what is and isn't supported by consensus. -- Beland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gaol vs. jail. -- Beland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Link target

@DuncanHill: Regarding this change, I agree that links should normally be unpiped or have the name of the target article in them if there's not a redirect. In this case, I chose "jail" as the link target so that readers who don't know what "gaol" means can find out without having to load a different page and wait for it to load and start reading it and interrupt the flow of reading the original quote and the Churchill article. I suppose rigidly following standard practice we could make the link target "prison", though I though "jail" would be more educational — I'm hoping a light bulb will go off and the confused reader would realize that "gaol" is actually pronounced the same as "jail" for ...reasons. Do you have a preference between those? -- Beland (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

My preference is to link gaol, the word used in the source and which is a valid redirect. It is not standard practice to make the link target "prison". I know you have repeatedly been told about WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Duncan, especially as it is a valid redirect. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, but it seems like these are unusual circumstances, and we're just going out of our way to be unhelpful to readers. -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've raised this specifically for affirmation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gaol vs. jail. -- Beland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference problems

There are about 30 citations which are either tagged as "incomplete short citation" or "page needed". I have raised these multiple times in the past (see talk page archives). Any help in fixing them would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if I can help with any but I do think any that can't be resolved should be replaced with a citation needed tag. There's another problem in the further reading section which is divided into primary (supposedly) and secondary. It looks as if some at least of the further reading, such as the Boris Johnson book, should be in the bibliography. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The citation and source issues have been a lot easier to resolve than I expected. I still need to verify certain sources that were listed as further reading and then make sure everything that has been cited is in the bibliography. I've added several citation needed tags where the source was so incomplete, dubious or plain wrong that I think it is best to just get shut and ask for another one. I've done quite a lot of GA reviews and I've been keeping the GA criteria in mind while reading this article, given that it is a delisted GA. If it is ever to recover its GA status, a concentrated effort will be needed on verification throughout to ensure that the sources are valid and that they are correctly cited. A lot of the prose needs attention because there have been far too many occasional or one-off contributors. The big problem, however, is just that – big, far too big, and content must be reduced by means of both summary and transfer to sub-articles. Well, that's what I think and I'll be glad to read other points of view. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Structure and undue weight

While I have been working on the article's citations, I've increasingly noticed other issues of which the worst are poor structure and WP:UNDUE. Examples of poor structure are:

  • The span of his early political career all the way to 1929 when it should be from 1900 to 1908 only when he first became a cabinet minister.
  • Inclusion of sub-section 6.1 (prime minister) in section 6 (opposition).
  • Sections 3 & 4 are out of synch and make little sense in terms of narrative structure: he was out of office till 1939, not 1931; German rearmament was not confined to the year 1936; first three paragraphs of 4 belong in 3; etc.
  • Coverage of his SWW premiership is disjointed with no mention of the Norway Debate, without which he might never have become premier. There is little mention of the crucial year 1942 and other major events including D-Day are forgotten or effectively glossed over.

Following on from the last point which emphasises lack of coverage there is the question of undue weight applied to certain other subject areas which really should be incorporated into broader sub-sections. Examples of these are 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8 which should not be entire sub-sections.

I propose that the structure is amended as follows but I'd like to see comments and feedback before I go ahead. I'll leave this open till next Friday. The headings here should speak for themselves:

1 Early life
1.1 Childhood and schooling: 1874–1895
1.2 Cuba, India, and Sudan: 1895–1899
1.3 Attempts at a parliamentary career and South Africa: 1899–1900
2 Early political career: 1900–1908
2.1 Early years in Parliament: 1900–1905
2.2 Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies: 1905–1908
3 Asquith government: 1908–1915
3.1 President of the Board of Trade: 1908–1910
3.2 Home Secretary: 1910–1911
3.3 First Lord of the Admiralty: 1911–1915
4 Military service, 1915–1916
5 Lloyd George government: 1916–1922
5.1 Minister of Munitions: 1917–1919
5.2 Secretary of State for War and Air: 1919–1921
5.3 Secretary of State for the Colonies: 1921–1922
6 Out of Parliament: 1922–1924
7 Chancellor of the Exchequer: 1924–1929
8 The "Wilderness Years": 1929–1939
8.1 Status of India
8.2 Campaign for rearmament
8.3 Abdication crisis
8.4 Anti-appeasement
9 First Lord of the Admiralty: September 1939 to May 1940
10 Prime Minister: 1940–1945
10.1 The Norway Debate and Chamberlain's resignation
10.2 Dunkirk to Pearl Harbor: May 1940 to December 1941
10.3 Pearl Harbor to D-Day: December 1941 to June 1944
10.4 Final defeat of Germany: June 1944 to May 1945
10.5 Caretaker government: May 1945 to July 1945
10.6 Relations with the United States
10.7 Relations with the Soviet Union
11 Leader of the Opposition: 1945–1951
12 Prime Minister: 1951–1955
12.1 Return to government
12.2 Domestic policy
12.3 Colonial affairs
12.4 Relations with the US and the quest for a summit
12.5 Stroke and resignation
13 Later life: 1955–1965
13.1 Retirement: 1955–1964
13.2 Death and funeral, January 1965
14 Artist, historian, and writer
15 Political ideology
15.1 Conservatism and liberalism
15.2 Imperialism
15.3 Links to political parties
16 Personal life
16.1 Marriage and children
16.2 Ancestry
17 Legacy
18 Orders, decorations, monuments, and honours
19 See also
20 References
21 Bibliography
22 Further reading
23 External links

Thanks very much and I hope this provokes a useful discussion because the article is desperately needing attention. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a minor comment, but why have "prime minister" in lower-case in section titles; particularly as at the same time you capitalise "First Lord of the Admiralty"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: You're right. Two of those headings are already there and not consistent with others so I've amended them above. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, when it comes to the sections on Churchill's years as Prime Minister (and Leader of the Opposition), the current text is so full of trivia and so badly sourced that realistically it is going to require systematic, wholesale replacement. I wouldn't worry with tinkering about with it too much, as it will just be deleted and replaced with better material in due course. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely, it's awful, but a sound structure is necessary and I think it's worth establishing one that we can work with for the short to medium term at least, even though it may not all be permanent. I'm glad you removed that health section, by the way, as it was one example of undue weight when all that is needed is a sentence or two about his problems as and when they arose. I think time spent on getting the existing citations up to site standard (which I'm still learning, I admit) will be worthwhile – it has in any case been raised as an issue above. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did say I would leave this a week but I think that's unnecessary especially in the light of the excellent work done in the meantime by Midnightblueowl. I'm therefore being WP:BOLD and addressing the article structure accordingly. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In general it looks good, although I've made a few tweaks. The "Abdication Crisis" section, for example, is so small that it is better merged into the section above it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether one likes it or not - and I am, for what it's worth, very much in the "not" camp - there does need to be a short section on Churchill and the Bengal Famine, simply because it gets so much coverage nowadays. People are going to come here looking for answers and others are going to complain that the article is a racist coverup if it's not discussed. Andrew Roberts 2018 biog contains a few pages on the topic, largely exonerating Churchill as you'd expect. Not so sure about the bombing of Dresden or strategic bombing in general, as that's for some reason no longer such a matter of controversy and discussion as it was a few decades ago.Paulturtle (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again, Midnightblueowl. That's much better as I don't suppose the contents of those paragraphs will increase much. I can't see what else needs to be said about the abdication. @Paulturtle: I agree that those topics must be mentioned but I think paragraphs in the relevant chronological sections will do the job. The topics have their own articles as do all the other topics, issues and events of Churchill's life and they just need to be mentioned here with accurate linkage. For example, I've dealt with the Norway Debate in just one paragraph and that was a momentous event for Churchill because he unexpectedly became PM as a result of it. I won't take any immediate action on undue weight – the tags are there to sound out opinion, really. Thanks for your feedback. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

please change ((Sinn Fein)) to ((Sinn Féin)) 2601:541:4500:1760:30A4:EB87:A06D:4EAC (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Churchill backed Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and opposed Britain helping the Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.94.172 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • N.B.: entry struck out because the IP is banned User:HarveyCarter (retained because of good faith answers below).
In 1936, as he thought him better than a communist-leaning government under somebody like Largo Caballero. At that time lots of people thought Britain should stay friendly to Italy or that there should be a peaceful, negotiated readjustment of Central Europe to "appease" some of Germany's grievances. He had changed his mind by 1939, by which time the situation in Europe had moved on quite a bit.Paulturtle (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Spain is tricky. Even Capt W.E. Johns, in Biggles In Spain, supported the Republican side -- it really was that fashionable, and of course the Nazi Condor Legion were on Franco's side -- but Orwell's Homage To Catalonia makes clear that the Republican side was dominated by Stalinists who were in no way any better than the Nazis. And Orwell, himself wounded in action while fighting on the Republican side, was lucky to escape a Stalinist firing squad because he served with a militia that wasn't loyal to Moscow. The Republicans were not the good guys. There were no good guys. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

Resolved

Daniel A. Schachinger (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)The link to Simba is to the movie character and not to the place in Kenya.Daniel A. Schachinger (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel A. Schachinger: - Thank you for spotting this, I have changed the link to Simba, Kenya. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

It says he escaped with two prisoners From Pretoria. In the research, I have been doing the other two did not make it out. FaithfulDog1 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideautalk 15:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: the current content appears to be sourced by two major biographers. It seems very unlikely they would both be mistaken on that point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
They probably aren't, but the contributor who wrote that sentence may well have transcribed the information carelessly. The two other wannabe escapees were Aylmer Haldane (later an important diarist in WW1) and a Sergeant Brockie (?). They were both having cold feet. Churchill was first over the fence and, he later claimed, waited an hour and a half in the bushes at risk of recapture for them to join him, before legging it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The sergeant later rebuked him for his ungentlemanly conduct, but Churchill won a libel action on the issue circa 1912. Haldane later defended him in the early 1930s when My Early Life came out, on the grounds that it was an officer's duty to escape if he had the chance. It's in the recent Andrew Roberts biog.Paulturtle (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Relations with the United States

I just finished listening to the audio of the book "Churchill's War" by David Irving. It seems to paint a much less rosy picture of Churchill's relations with Roosevelt than the section of this article entitled "Relations with the United States", with Churchill trying to push his views on Roosevelt, and Roosevelt in the end seeming almost ignoring Churchill. I'm no historian, so I have no clue which view is closer to reality, but someone who does know more about this should perhaps look at Irving's view, then revisit this section and see whether it needs to be revised. Mcswell (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember David Irving was found to have twisted evidence to support his crackpot Holocaust Denial. I'm not saying that everything he writes is wrong, but he needs to be read with extreme caution - and fact-checked on the details. However, there are better historians out there who take a more critical view of Churchill's alleged subservience to the US, views which more widespread at the time than is now fashionable to remember. You could try the classic "Allies of a Kind" on the Pacific War, or "Churchill's Grand Alliance", John Charmley's history of Anglo-American relations from 1940 to Suez.Paulturtle (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Mr Justice Gray's 350-page ruling against David Irving in Irving v Penguin Books Ltd & Deborah Lipstadt (2000) means that people should really, seriously, stop citing Irving as a source. Looking only at the judge's final summary, rather than the comprehensive evidential demolition of all Irving's claims: 'Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism... therefore the defence of justification succeeds... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Roosevelt and the US wanted an invasion of Europe in 1942 - Operation Sledgehammer; they didn't get it. They then wanted an invasion of Europe in 1943, Operation Roundup, again they didn't get it; instead they acquiesced to Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily, then Operation Avalanche, Italy - Churchill's 'soft underbelly'. They also initially wanted to concentrate on fighting Japan, Churchill wanted them to help with Germany instead. The result? - the 'Germany First' policy.
Churchill got his way on the things that were important to winning the war in the shortest possible time and with the fewest Allied casualties. The other disputes were not important enough to fight over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.134 (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hello, all. Apollovvv has replaced the infobox image and, while I'm not saying he is wrong to do that, I think there should be a consensus as this is the highest profile image in the article and so I have undone the change. The long-standing image is the famous "roaring lion", taken in December 1941, and Apollovvv's preference is the full face portrait, taken in August 1944, which is used in Churchill war ministry.

I think the "roaring lion" symbolises Churchill's wartime defiance and is emblematic of the period of his life for which he is world-famous. Okay, I do know the true story of the photo – that he was pissed off because the photographer insisted he put his cigar down. The other one is full-face, which is good, and it was taken in happier days with the war all but won but it doesn't really signify anything. I think it should be used in the body of the article, though, probably in preference to one or two of the more mundane images there.

If consensus is for the replacement, I'll be happy to oblige. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this reversion of the same change by Apollovvv. Note the summary by TrailBlzr re no consensus. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020 (1)

Churchill was a devoted supporter of Eugenics. Winston Churchill told the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937: "For example, I do not admit that a big mistake has been made against the Red Indians in America or the black people in Australia, a higher race, a more worldly wise race to put it this way, has come in and taken its place. " 2A00:23C6:3E49:7100:D562:5233:2E9D:1053 (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The article already includes a piece about eugenics. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This perticular example may not have been included. Maby there is a reason to not make him a holy cow and let people take him down from his noble position in history. Was he really a racist, then it should not be hidden in a massive text. 2A00:23C6:3E49:7100:D562:5233:2E9D:1053 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Racial views of Winston Churchill is the repository for these controversies and is obviously where you are coming from. The biographical article is necessarily selective and, as stated above, it already includes a piece about eugenics which is more than adequate for the purposes of the article. If we tried to include every single quotation about every single topic in which at least one person has an interest, the article would soon breach WP:LENGTH (it is borderline as it is). Excessive coverage of alleged issues would lead us into WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Churchill's comments on race are deplorable in a 21st century context but he was essentially a Victorian. There is sufficient mention of his views in the lead and in the Other ideals and views section. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bengal Famine Pictures

In the Wikipedia articles of other leaders of the same time period (e.g. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler) when discussing atrocities occurring under their regime (the great purge, and the holocaust respectively), pictures of said atrocities are posted alongside the text discussing said atrocities, assumedly as to emphasise their awfullness. Ought a picture be added next to the Bengal famine discussion in this article as to emphasise how awful it was too? Thanks for any responses.

Mojotjejen (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming evidence which almost entirely clears Churchill of responsibility over this famine, It would not be appropriate to feature such content, would it not? EDJThurling840 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Churchill and officers of 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers at Ploegsteert in 1916

I have a better scan of the entire photograph of Churchill and regiment at Ploegsteert in 1916. I scanned it from an original photograph in my grandfather's possession. His father, my great-grandfather, Francis Graham is in the photograph at the top left. He was a second lieutenant. Samleighton87 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Your image doesn't materially add anything to the article. The current image is centered on Churchill (as it should be), this one is not. Perhaps if you crop it the image might be of some value. Don Spencertalk-to-me? 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with the former, publishing the full photo shows who Churchill knew and served with, as long as we label at the bottom which one is Churchill, even though everyone’s presumption is probably the man in the center. Nate Rybner 13:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Don as far as this article goes but I think Sam's image of the entire regiment would be appropriate at Royal Scots Fusiliers. I'll be happy to support you at Talk:Royal Scots Fusiliers if you make the request. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Amendments to lead

The lead was previously amended to resolve various issues:

1. Churchill called for rearmament to counter the threat posed by German militarism, not a threat posed by appeasement. The "growing threat" link is wrong.

2. The sentence which begins with "His wartime leadership was widely praised....." is a legacy matter. The final paragraph of the lead deals with that and is provisionally titled "Reception and legacy".

3. It is wrong to assert that he sanctioned human rights abuses without specifying what the abuses were and providing verification. I would add that the purpose of the lead is to summarise the narrative and there is nothing in the narrative about human rights abuses. The UDHR was not ratified until December 1948. The fact that he held strong imperialist views pre-supposes his opposition to anti-imperialist movements. It is sufficient to say that he was an imperialist and, fair enough, has been criticised for that, though I think the lead should mention his comments on race in addition to his imperialism.

4. I don't believe the lead should mention specific controversies unless it is certain he had direct responsibility. Dresden is fair enough because he ordered area bombing, but all this stuff about him being to blame for the Bengal famine is point-making by a handful of writers and that should not be in the lead.

I've changed the lead to reflect these points. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bengal Famine happened because India was under British occupation and Churchill was exporting its food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.94.219 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Consensus among sources is that responsibility lay with the Japanese and there is plenty of evidence to confirm that Churchill did what he could to help, bearing in mind that the war was by no means won in 1943. After an inadequate effort by the Indian authorities, he appointed Wavell as Viceroy and they mobilised a military response. This coupled with the winter rice harvest alleviated the famine but, obviously, it was not an overnight solution. It is known that there wasn't a drought and, if the Japanese hadn't invaded Burma and prevented vital imports, the famine wouldn't have happened.
The famine was a major event in 1943 and it would be absolutely wrong to remove all coverage of it from this article, but the article is a biography in which multiple events deserve mention. Coverage must be balanced to avoid undue weight. So, while Madhusree Mukerjee's views certainly deserve mention, they must not outweigh the views of other writers and I'm confident that the revised sub-section is an adequate summary of the disaster for the purposes of this article. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Churchill continued to steal India's food throughout the famine. The Bengal Famine is by far the greatest controversy he was involved in, far more than the bombing of Dresden, so there is no way it can be left out of the lede. (86.157.94.219 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC))
Clearly not true if you read the archive of this talk page will explain. MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • N.B.: entries struck out because the IP is banned User:HarveyCarter (retained because of good faith answers).
All due respect, the Bengal Famine was caused by a plethora of events and circumstances which aligned perfectly to bring about the famine.
- Japanese advance and occupation of Burma.
- IJN presence in the Indian Ocean.
- Britain was hard-pressed on several fighting fronts.
- Precursor natural events.
- Mudslides causing ruined rail links preventing the British Indian Government's plan to deliver 350,000 tons of food aid from other parts of India.
- Bitter disputes between the two main ethnic groups in India, Princely states refused to work alongside one another. This consequently saw bans on domestic exports. Inter-provincial trade barriers introduced by regional governments - preventing the exportation of grain and rice.
- Exports of rice and grain from Rangoon now no longer in existence.
- Adoption of denial policies in Eastern and Coastal Bengal.
- Air raids conducted by the Japanese on Calcutta which led to the destruction of several storage warehouses and contributed heavily to the further displacement of people.
- The Damodar river flooded leading to outbreaks of malaria, dysentery, smallpox, and cholera.
- A reluctance with the Marwari Supporters of Congress (Gandhi's former group - remained close) in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal. EDJThurling840 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

I am writing about the page on the section on the Bengal Famine. First of all, not only did Churchill stop sending food to India, he also wouldn't let any other countries help them, and I feel like there needs to be a bigger section on the famine, as it was one of Churchill's most horrible crimes. But since the article is semi-protected, so could you ask someone else to edit it? Thank You very much! Nealkolhatkar (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealkolhatkar (talk • contribs)

 Not done: unless you can produce significant reliable sources which not only support your point of view but also outweigh the consensus view among sources which is currently expressed in the article, we can't help you. Thanks for your interest in the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. I am writing about the Section 'Imperialism and Monarchism'. Specifically the last 2 sentences in the 2nd paragraph. The second Paragraph refers to 'racialism'. The last two sentences are referenced by citation Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#cite_note-606 and Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#cite_note-607 respectively. Citation 606 is to a BBC article which itself refers to many other articles and sources. The cited BBC article does not prove the sentence 'his negative views of Indian people in the 1930s were seen as extreme by political contemporaries', it refers to Gandhi and Indian home rule. The sentence also suggests 'ALL' political contemporaries rather than 'some' or 'many'. The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, refers to 'forced sterilisation' and refers to a quote about 'race danger'. Citation 607 clearly shows this is used in the context of treatment of mentally ill individuals in the first decade of the 20th century, and eugenics. It is NOT to do with any form of view of other races or imperialism and monarchism, as the paragraph purports to be about. These two sentences together provide a completely distorted view of the referenced material, and the second sentence should probably not be in that section at all. Thank you for your consideration and hard work. Eustacehplimsol (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)eustacehplimsolEustacehplimsol (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020 (2)

Winston Churchill contributed to Freemasonry all his life. Along with being a twice British Prime Minister and Honorary Citizen of the United States, Churchill was a member of Studholme Mason Lodge No. 1591 in England. 2A00:23C6:3E49:7100:D562:5233:2E9D:1053 (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The article already specifies his involvement with the Studholme lodge. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. This item was in the article on 13 May but, subsequently, as part of the major review/revision/rewrite under way, it was removed. The article is borderline WP:LENGTH and there is simply no room for WP:TRIVIA or for anything which amounts to WP:POINT. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:LENGTH

In my opinion, there is little chance of this article ever getting back to GA standard, let alone FA, unless something drastic is done about its size. Currently, it has 136 kB (22,533 words) of readable prose size (RPS) against the WP:SIZERULE recommendation that > 100 kB should "almost certainly" be divided into two or more articles. Even > 60 kB should "probably" be divided, though that is subject to scope and I don't think it is applicable in this case. As a comparison, Elizabeth II could easily be excessively long too, but has an RPS of 42 kB (6,919 words) and is an FA. The most famous PM at FA seems to be Benjamin Disraeli with an RPS of 89 kB (14,754 words) and that ought to be a feasible target for Churchill.

There have till now been two main sub-articles: Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939 and Later life of Winston Churchill (from 1945). Yesterday, I created Early life of Winston Churchill (to 1900) using the text in Winston Churchill#Early life so that nothing of value is lost and so that the section can be converted into summary form, as is recommended by the WP:GACR, for example. User:Midnightblueowl has suggested that the transfer of nearly 10kb from this article into a sub-article should be discussed here first and, apologies to all, he is right. I was being a little too WP:BOLD.

I also propose to create a new sub-article for Churchill in WWII covering the period from September 1939 to July 1945, using the content of this article (which is now substantial for that period) and then converting the relevant sections here into summary form. In addition, there is much here for 1900–1939 and later life that could be transferred too, especially the former which is far too long.

I'll step aside for now and let others have their say, but I am going to insist on seven days as a limit for discussion as I would like to move forward with this article, whichever sizerule has consensus. I'll continue to work with existing content in the meantime. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, No Great Shaker. You make a very fair point that this article needs to be chopped down a bit in places. I personally thought that your recent pruning might have gone a little too far, especially on the early life, but I would agree that some stuff should be left for the more focused sub-articles (Early life of Winston Churchill etc). Would you object to use having a bit of a discussion here about which bits to cut and which to keep? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Midnightblueowl, I'm fine with that. Do you have any areas specially in mind? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I just think that we could include a little more detail here and there; for instance in "Childhood and schooling: 1874–1895" we could still mention the year in which Churchill's parents were married and include the Haffner quote without the paragraph getting excessively long. I'm thinking of the sort of length used over at several political biography articles that I've pulled up to FA status before, such as Vladimir Lenin, Jomo Kenyatta, and Nelson Mandela, which I think would serve as useful models here in terms of length and structure. Unless you have any objections, over the next few days I'll restore some of your recent cut-backs, but with a little extra information. Would that be okay with you? I can do "Childhood and schooling: 1874–1895" now to give you an impression of what I was thinking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that looks fine. I'm happy to go with that. Do you think I should create Winston Churchill in the Second World War (or whatever title) as I suggested above, because the WWII content now is quite substantial? It has grown considerably of late because a lot of key topics were missing or barely touched previously. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that that sounds like a very good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll get on with that soon. Something has cropped up and I'll be a little short of time for a day or two but will get back to it. Thanks again and take good care. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've created Winston Churchill in the Second World War by copying everything from September 1939 to VE Day plus a bit about his election defeat. The new page has an RPS of 41kB (6,899 words) so, in due course, we should make a considerable saving in the parent article coverage of WWII. I'm leaving it alone for the time being as I would like to see if there are any other contributions, either here or at the articles. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be willing to assist. Keen Churchill historian, work with Dr Warran Dockter at the University of Aberystwyth EDJThurling840 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Unlock please. So the rancid leftist hit piece on a Nobel prize winning writer can be moved back to something neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.25 (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. That is out of the question. The article is protected because of persistent vandalism. If you feel that the article fails WP:NPOV or if you think there is content that contravenes WP:UNDUE, could you please outline your points on this page and they will be considered. Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

The article is missing Winston Churchill's support of the Eugenics movement and forced sterilisation to address poverty. This request encourages the addition of the Eugenics movement.

Some sources of information include:

Foster, John Bellamy, The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology (New York: NYU Press, 2020).

Desmond King and Randell Hansen, Experts at Work: State Autonomy, Social Learning and Eugenic Sterilization in 1930s Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Paul Addison, Winston Churchill (New York; Oxford: OUP, 2007).

Professor Ralph Ruebner, The Evolving Nature of the Crime of Genocide, J. Marshall L. Rev. 38 (2004).

Walmsley, Jan, "Healthy Minds and Intellectual Disability." Healthy Minds in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Charm, 2020.

Teo Thomas, "Subhumanism: The re-emergence of an affective-symbolic ontology in the migration debate and beyond." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour (2020). 80.3.94.152 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 15:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Please re instate his photo. Please can you terminate immediately whoever removed it.

Many thanks England 2A02:C7D:AF9D:9100:E890:B3BB:13CC:5CDD (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thst request seems pretty clear to me. Richard75 (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Please reinstate his photo. 2A02:C7D:3238:3100:1C3:963C:5B93:4E1F (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Jack Frost (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Churchill's involvement in Bengal Famine

his office's inadequate response to Bengal Famine wasn't the only concern, it is his direct actions such as asking the ship carrying grains from Australia to not anchor in Bengal and to goto Europe directly for a secondary stock.

Cassianto says the following edit is a POV, uninteresting and badly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cassianto

-While it may be badly written and I'm open to suggestions for writing it better. -It isn't a POV as much as it is a fact. A POV would be that he is an awful person. He did this and this is the proof is not so much a POV. -You finding a genocidal act performed by Churchill uninteresting is irrelevant to whether this should go on the page or not, This I'm afraid is a POV on the content

Original Line: He has been widely criticised for some wartime events, notably the 1945 bombing of Dresden and the perceived inadequacy of his government's response to the Bengal Famine of 1943.

Edit: He has been widely criticised for some wartime events, notably the 1945 bombing of Dresden and his wartime policies which directly contributed to Bengal Famine of 1943 killing 4.3 Million Indians. When conscience-stricken British officials in Calcutta wrote to him about his policies that was causing needless loss of life, he peevishly wrote in the margins of the file "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" – see this site.

This article is not a blow by blow account of his wrong doings or perceived political judgements.

War is terrible, but in some situations, inevitable, so there will be times where leaders do something that others may object to. Also, is your source reliable? "his office's inadequate response" is POV and not in neutral voice. CassiantoTalk 05:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


Hi Navudt But you're suggested edits and reason for this talk section are wildly misinformed. I'd like to address a few of the points you've raised.
Firstly, you state "it is his direct actions such as asking the ship carrying grains from Australia to not anchor in Bengal and to go to Europe directly for secondary stock." - This isn't true. The Cabinet Conclusions 61/41(and 42), as well as 43, show that shipments from Australia were told by a conglomerate not to head to Bengal given the Japanese air and naval presence in the Indian Ocean and the inadequate support available to escort the shipments. A Board oversaw these decisions which included, overwhelming US officials, and acted on evidence and testimony given to them by the United States Navy, the Royal Air Force, and the Royal Navy (not mentioning Australia and New Zealand's airforces and navies).
FYI: Churchill never said 'Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?' instead, as shown in Telegram, L/PO/10/25 IMPORTANT July 5th, 1944 SECRET 584 (can be found in Transfer of Power 1942-1947’) that Churchill actually wrote "Following personal and top secret from Prime Minister. Surely Mr Gandhi has made a most remarkable recovery as he is already able to take an active part in politics. How does this square with medical reports upon which his release on grounds of ill-health was agreed to by us? In one of these we were told that he would not be able to take any part in politics again."
Churchill himself in numerous dispatches and telegrams to various officials notably the Secretary of State for India Leo Amery, and Field Marshall Archibald Wavell, insisting that it was 'top priority', that he had 'surrounded himself with reports and documents alike'. Nevermind that countless records showing state of mind/personal opinion on the matter in the 'Churchill Document Volumes', the CAB Conclusions, the Cabinet Papers, and War Cabinet minutes. - Usually found under "Indian Grain Requirements"
For instance:
"...most anxious that we should do everything possible."
"...the best possible standard of living for the largest number of people."
"that famine, and food difficulties were dealt with. To that task I must now devote myself"
What you've stated is POV and distanced from fact. The Bengal Famine was by no means a 'genocidal act' performed by Churchill, nor is a genocidal act by any means. It wasn't a genocide. Also, you'd be doing a great service if you referred to the references section and dive into the words citied both on the Winston Churchill page and the Famines page itself. EDJT840 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Size

This article is 129kB, 29kB over the point where it should "almost certainly be divided" per WP:TOOBIG. This is a factor that should be taken into account by any GAN reviewer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Peacemaker67. I think the nomination is too soon given the discussion above under WP:LENGTH and the incomplete work on reduction of content since the creation of the new sub-articles. Our intention when we discussed this previously was to get the RPS down to perhaps 80kB, certainly to much less than 100kB. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the nomination is certainly premature. I would encourage whomever initiated it to reverse this action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reduced

Before the GAN was withdrawn, I started reducing the content and have managed to bring the RPS down to 95 kB (15,635 words) with a full filesize of 202 kB. With some careful editing, I reckon we could take out perhaps another 5 kB of RPS if desired. The expanded content remains in the sub-articles and anyone who wants to make a substantial content addition should do so at sub-article level with no more than a summary sentence here if necessary. Some copyediting might now be needed but, if the article is okay in a few days, I'll renew the GAN. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've done what I can and I think the best thing now is to await another pair of eyes via a formal review. Renominated at GAN. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Might be a little bit premature, in my opinion. I'd recommend withdrawal again. There's still quite a lot to be done here, in my view. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The review has already been started so we should wait and see what the reviewer says, especially as Pi is the fresh pair of eyes which this article needs right now. An article like this will always need something doing but we now have a hierarchical structure so that anything substantial can be done in the relevant sub-article. This article could still use some reduction, as I've said above, but I think a review now, whether a GAR or a PR, will be very useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it is important to consider the development of this article in light of other (FA-rated) political biography articles that cover individuals of a similar international stature. I've been involved in getting several similar articles to FA (Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta etc) and would strongly recommend the sort of structure employed there as a model for here. To my mind, the main place for reductions is probably in the sections discussing World War II. I've flitted in and out of this article over the past few years, engaging in periods of intense work followed by others of comparative neglect (for which I apologise) but I now intend to make this my main Wikipedia priority, so that we might get it to a point when it really would warrant GA status and might thence by in a position to move towards FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry Section?

I'm wondering if we really need the "Ancestry" sub-section. We don't tend to have anything like this in other FA-rated political biography articles (Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela etc) and I'm really not sure if we need it here, especially when there are already concerns about length. I don't want to remove it without getting a sense of other editors' views on this point, but from my perspective it feels a little superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have wondered about that myself, especially as there is much in the narrative about Clementine, his parents and the birth of each of his children. I'll move it to one of the sub-articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've copied the family and ancestry section into Descendants of Winston Churchill but will not rremove it from this article yet in case the GA reviewer wishes to comment. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

GAN version restored

The GA reviewer has had this article for a few days now and must be allowed to complete their review without undue interference (and disrespect) which will cause them to waste time and effort. The article is difficult enough to review without sudden wholesale changes which, in any event, have recreated the WP:LENGTH issue and have ridden roughshod over the work of other editors who are trying to improve what has always been, frankly, an appallingly bad article. I believe that these changes were done in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the GAR because the reviewer will now have no option but to declare the article unstable and, that being the case, fail the review. There is a definite WP:OWN concern here given such high-handed action by someone who had already stated their opposition to the review taking place. Furthermore, why have all the sub-articles and then pile everything into this – in fact, at least two of the current sub-articles will need to be split too.

One of the essential purposes of Wikipedia is to provide readable, accurate information for the general reader. We are not here to satisfy academics who will read Gilbert, Jenkins, etc. and not even look at WP. An article that is too long, complicated by pseudo-highbrow claptrap and embellished with bells and whistles is no use whatsoever to the general reader – academics dismiss it too (and they do).

A point worth considering is that the equivalent article on Britannica has an RPS of 45 kB. It is just as informative as this thing (though, to be fair, it contains noticeable errors) and it is infinitely more readable. And readable is the key word when writing an article for the public at large. In other words, keep it short, keep it simple and stop trying to be clever.

The point of seeking a GAR (I'd be equally happy with a PR) at the present time is because the RPS < 100 milestone has been reached and it is desirable that an independent editor should review it now and point out what else needs to be done to improve quality and create an article that is useful to that all-important general reader.

This discussion can serve the purposes of WP:BRD, although I as the reverting (R) editor am not bound to commence it. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously frustrating to see my recent restorations and edits reverted (particularly as I spent a lot of time on them) but I don't want to get into an edit war here, No Great Shaker, and I hope that we are able to go forward in a constructive spirit. I know that you're a constructive editor and so am I, so we can figure this out. I'm sorry if I have given the impression of OWN but I would point out that I have been the lead author on this article and have contributed a considerable amount to it over recent years, adding citations from a wide range of biographies and journal articles. I also have considerable experience in getting political biography articles to FAC (Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Steve Biko etc) so I think it fair to say that I am very familiar with what is needed when it comes to getting an article to FA quality. You have made a great deal of recent alterations to the prose in the past few months and while I really appreciate your work in helping to trim down the LENGTH, I don't think all the changes have been warranted. Much text from the later sections has been moved to sections where they don't really fit in. Established text has been changed in ways that don't necessarily state what the Original Sources say. There's now too much material on Churchill in World War II at the expense of detail on his personal life and ideology.
In recent days you have pushed for a GAN despite concerns I have voiced here at the Talk Page that this would be too soon. You have also made considerable recent changes (without consensus) which really do need discussion. I will wait for the GAN to be completed if that is the will of the reviewer @Pi: although in my opinion the review should be cancelled or postponed while work on the article can continue. I would also very much like to see my recent edits restored - especially given that most of them were simply a partial reversion to the longstanding status quo. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on your condescension. I am a published author in real life so I have considerable experience in getting various kinds of written material to publication standard (and even, sometimes, being paid for it).
While you may think that Lenin & Co. have established some kind of FAC standard, there are countless other FAs which don't comply. In any event, trying to raise this article to FAC level now is like trying to run before you can crawl, let alone walk. The first stage of recovery has been resolution of the RPS limit issue by editing out the unnecessary. In doing this, while some whole paragraphs could be safely removed, it has for the most part been a case of revising paragraphs and, often, individual sentences because it would otherwise be an impossible task. At the same time, drastic change of this nature always necessitates some restructuring and so certain pieces of useful information which find themselves in isolation need to be bedded in elsewhere.
Now that the RPS is down to 95 kB (still far too high, in my opinion), the wise approach is to take a step back and have the whole thing reviewed by someone who is uninvolved in drafting (as I say, I'd be happy with either a PR or a GAR). This is what does happen in the real world with controversial material.
To be quite honest, I don't think this article would pass a GAR at present unless the reviewer's anticipated points could be fully addressed in reasonable time, but a failure at this time doesn't matter as long as the review is done and its findings are recorded. From there, the article can move forward and one day, perhaps, it may be ready for FAC consideration. Personally, however, I think the ceiling for this article is GA. The subject is way too contentious for it to go any further and it will only reach GA if it can entirely satisfy GACR#1a – well written and "understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; GACR#3b; GACR#4 – due weight; and GACR#5. The sub-articles and some of the associated articles have much greater potential in terms of GA/FA.
I suggest that the reviewer is given some time and space in which to complete their task. There is no hurry and I look forward to seeing what Pi can put forward because it is bound to be useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I apologise if I came across at condescending. That wasn't my intention at all. I agree that we can wait and see what Pi has to think about the article; you are right, there is no hurry. I still have my concerns, and would like to see some of the recent alterations reverted to something closer to what was the longstanding status quo, but there is no rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winston_Churchill/Archive_15&oldid=1142783202"