Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 16

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hyphen in surname

Although the surname was originally Spencer-Churchill, his father dropped the hyphen and just went by Churchill. (Previously discussed at Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 2#Surname and a few other times since.) Source: Winston Churchill: War Leader (2009) Bill Price, p. 12. I propose amending or removing the hatnote. Richard75 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, Richard75. Go ahead. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Churchill a statesman?

Is there any reason why Churchill is not described as a statesman in the lead? This article described him as such at one time. Arcturus (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No comments, so amended article accordingly. Arcturus (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mau Mau Length Query

The section 'Foreign Affairs' had some information added recently which I don't believe should feature for length purposes, I believe it should merely redirect to the Mau Mau Uprising. The section was previously removed after I raised concerns regarding the reference supplied, however, it has since been added back - I'd be keen to know why? EDJT840 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, EDJT840. I was looking at the article via two tabs and updated both with the result that the first edit was superseded by the second – mustn't do that. Thanks again for your help with the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winston Churchill/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi (talk · contribs) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Beginning review, this is quite an article Pi (Talk to me!) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pi, and thank you for taking this on. I should mention that the article has recently been the subject of a WP:LENGTH improvement drive and we have created several sub-articles so that the bulk of the content could be relocated with the sections here reduced to summaries. We've reduced the readable prose size from nearly 130 kB (far too big) to a manageable 94kB. Do please let me know when you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just finished tying up some loose ends and I promise I will not touch the article again now till you have finished your initial review. I realised over the weekend that the endpieces were oddments that should be consolidated into a single legacy section as is standard for political biographies. I apologise for not spotting that sooner and hope it hasn't inconvenienced you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"In the autumn of 1895, he and Reginald Barnes went to Cuba to report on the war of independence" - This sentence isn't sufficiently explained. Since he was a commissioned army officer, it should be explained why he was reporting rather than fighting. Especially since he later had a career as a civilian writer.

Amended. Use of "reporting" was an error – Churchill and Barnes went to Cuba as military observers, not as reporters. The circumstances are clear in Jenkins.

Politics and South Africa: 1899–1901: It's not clear exactly when he left the army. When it talks about him standing for parliament and writing for the Morning Post the reader would assume that his was after he left the army, but later on he was appointed a lieutenant in the South African Light Horse regiment. Did he re-join the army? Or were his other activities done while he was a serving officer? This needs some clarity.

Additional content re final visit to India. You're absolutely right. He was in the 4th Hussars for nearly three years till the spring of 1899 but he was temporarily attached to the 21st Lancers for the Nile campaign. After Omdurman, he decided to quit the army but he had to return to India and settle everything with the Hussars. As soon as he returned to England, he plunged into politics. I added a bit more about his brief South African commission – until January 1900, he had been only a journalist in South Africa.

Asquith's government presented the reforms within a People's Budget.[114] This was rejected by the Conservative peers who dominated the House of Lords.: This could so with clarification what the People's Budget was, and why it was rejected.

Yes, needs explanation. This was Lloyd George's famous budget. I've made some additions to summarise DLG's purpose and method of raising funds. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Pi, I really must apologise. I'd somehow knocked this off my watchlist and I've only just found your comments. I'll get straight onto it. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Pi. I've addressed the points which you rightly raised above. Please let me know if there is anything further needed on these. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm promoting this now. Great article, sorry it took a while Pi (Talk to me!) 19:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pi, and thank you ever so much for doing the review. You took quite a task on. There's no doubt it can be further improved but whether it can ever get to FAC level is anyone's guess. Thanks again, all the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Romania

Dear Wikipedia , the commune knowledge in Romania is that Sir Winston Churchill gave to Stalin Romania , at Yalta conference , on a piece of napkin,.Is this true ?Or was it at another conference ?., at the end of WW2.2003:CF:BF29:8655:6537:26E6:A3C4:7198 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Razu

Hello, the story is true but it was at the Moscow Conference in October 1944, not Yalta. There is a sub-section in the article which describes what happened. It became known as the percentages agreement. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:LENGTH

Back to this. Although the article has recovered its GA status, it is still far too long and needs to be reduced in size to become an effective summary with most of the detail transferred to the six main sub-articles. The RPS is 95 kB (15,740 words) which does not technically breach WP:SIZERULE but its advice is that an article with RPS > 60 kB probably should be divided (subject to scope). The equivalent article at Britannica has an RPS of 43 kB (7,131 words). That may be a bit drastic but their article is nevertheless quite comprehensive. Certainly, if our article were being submitted to a commercial publisher, there would be an immediate demand for a substantial reduction to less than 10,000 words. The answer is simply to make use of the sub-articles – that is what they are there for. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ireland and Iraq

Despite its GA and supposedly semi-protected status, the article is still being vandalised, quelle surprise. Under 'Secretary of State for War and Air', the article now alleges:- 'In the Irish War of Independence, he supported the use of the para-military Black and Tans to combat Irish revolutionaries.' This is a fiction derived from anti-historical Irish-nationalist mythology. The Black and Tans did not exist as a separate force. The term was a nickname for the mostly British emergency recruits to the Royal Irish Constabulary because for the first few months they wore mismatched uniforms, part RIC dark green ('black') and part Army khaki ('tan'). They were not grouped in their own units. They all served as reinforcements for existing RIC units and they were no more 'para-military' (that hyphen is distinctly odd) than the rest of the RIC. Churchill, as a member of the Cabinet and bound by collective responsibility, presumably did support the reinforcement of the RIC during the emergency, but the article is claiming that he supported the formation of special paramilitary units called the Black and Tans, a thing that did not happen. And the RIC did not report to Churchill at the War Office. They reported to their own Inspector General, who reported to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

The article then makes the even more fictitious claim that:- 'After British troops in Iraq clashed with Kurdish rebels, Churchill authorised two squadrons to the area, proposing that they be equipped with mustard gas to use against the rebels.' This is just a lie, and it's not there in the sources. As is by now well known, Churchill actually proposed the use of tear gas, because it might disperse rebels without casualties. His War Office minute of 12 May 1919, reproduced in Martin Gilbert's Companion Volume IV Part 1, reads: '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. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.' Note that he is talking about 'lachrymatory gas' -- tear gas -- and specifically rules out 'the most deadly gases'. Mustard gas never came into it, and, in the event, the armed forces never did care to procure any tear-gas munitions for use in Iraq. Everybody with even half a clue knows this, so the article shouldn't be spamming that foolish lie. A GA article really ought to be better than that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khamba Tendal, I've changed the title of this discussion because there hasn't been any vandalism. All of your venom is focused on a single paragraph, hence my choice of title. I don't know who wrote that paragraph – I didn't – but everything they have written there is reliably sourced (having said that, I will check the Gilbert book when I can and I have a low opinion of Rhodes James). If you have reliable sources which support your contentions, then please amend the article accordingly with the necessary citations so that both points of view are evident. This is so that one point of view does not carry WP:UNDUE.

Given that you have been warned and blocked in recent months for over-reacting to content you don't like, perhaps you should raise your arguments in a calmer vein as that will give you a better chance of making friends and influencing people. If you leap in like that with all guns blazing, you just get people's backs up, even those who agree with you. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with Gandhi

My last edit was reverted by No Great Shaker with the following comment: "More of the same POV stuff as earlier today – take it to the talk page and gain consensus". The edit in question elaborated on Churchill's relationship with Gandhi. I've outlined the changes in bold below:

He was particularly opposed to Mohandas Gandhi, whom he considered "a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir", and once suggested that "the Viceroy [of India] sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample the Mahatma into the dirt" to the astonishment of guests at a dinner party.[238][239]

I'm not aware of any previous discussion on the topic so could No Great Shaker or anyone please bring me up to speed? I cited a book (Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann) so I don't see how the question of an opinion or a point of view comes into the picture. Norcaes (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Past discussions on alleged racism are in the talk page archives and it is always been held that the point should be made, and it is, but without unnecessary elaboration that would breach WP:UNDUE.

Your intended edit is a variation on the same contentious WP:POINT made repeatedly by members of the User:HarveyCarter stable. Yes, Churchill did hold strong imperialist views which in turn were racist in context because that was the worldview held by virtually all people of European origin in Churchill's lifetime, much more so by Americans and Germans than by the British. It was not until the 1960s, the decade of Churchill's death, that the world began to change. You and your fellow bandwagon jumpers need to study social history to acquire some perspective so that you can place ideas, events and personalities into the context of their times.

The article has been written to comply with site standards and one of those, a very important one, is WP:UNDUE. The questions of imperialism and racism have been adequately addressed – they are even mentioned in the lead, quite rightly – but labouring the point over and over again is a breach of UNDUE.

In addition, how can we be sure that the book you have cited is a reliable source? The quotation you are trying to add doesn't appear in Gilbert, Jenkins or the other reputable sources. Also, you added the quote in a way that makes it seem as if Gilbert is a source for it, but he is not. The reprehensible remark about Gandhi posing as a fakir is more than sufficient to make the point about Churchill's questionable opinion of Gandhi's campaign for Indian independence. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you would be best served by assuming good faith (WP:AFG). That was my first edit on the article, and I certainly had no intention of "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point" about a policy (WP:POINT) or jumping on any bandwagon.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that Churchill's beliefs were nothing but the norm when the sentence following my edit states "His views enraged Labour and Liberal opinion." and the section on imperialism states "Churchill's views on race as a whole were judged by his contemporaries within the Conservative Party to be extreme". Nevertheless, I don't mean to contest Churchill's morality, and I don't see why my edit was construed to be an attack.

If past consensus has held that such an edit is a breach of WP:UNDUE, then I won't contest it. I would be happy to learn what constitutes a good or bad source in your view, but without the presumption that my knowledge of history is lacking. Norcaes (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation problem needing correction

Hello, I don't currently have access to Churchill: A Life (1991) by Martin Gilbert and I wonder if someone could check some page numbers because I don't believe the ones given in the following citations can possibly be correct. The events concerned (1945–1950) must be covered by pages in the 700-800 region. It's possible that someone has cited the wrong book, of course.

383. Gilbert 1991, pp. 22–23, 27.

390. Gilbert 1991, p. 108.

392. Gilbert 1991, p. 109.

393. Gilbert 1991, pp. 57, 107–109.

395. Gilbert 1991, p. 113.

401. Gilbert 1991, pp. 265–266, 321.

403. Gilbert 1991, pp. 250, 441.

Thanks to anyone who can assist. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I should be getting my copy of the book back soon (it's out on loan) so I can take care of this then. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is complete. Several "Gilbert" citations were false or incorrect. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I suspect this is a result of the horrible sfn citation method used, and errors introduced by editors changing from one ref system to another. For example, one of the refs removed here {{sfn|Gilbert|1988|pp=814–815, 817}} at some point was a perfectly valid ref to Gilbert's Never Despair. Likewise, {{sfn|Gilbert|1991|pp=846–857}} is also a reference to Never Despair. Here again the reference is to Never Despair. I haven't checked the others you listed, or all of your removals, but I suspect they are all Never Despair. Now if you like I can go back, undo all your removals, and re-do the refs correctly (but NOT using sfn) - I have Never Despair beside me. Then at some point some well-meaning person will change them all to sfn perhaps introducing a typo or two), and someone else will change an edition in the sources section, and they'll all get buggered up again. Or I could give up and recognise that the drive for homogenised "Good Article" status prevents good referencing. I have been trying for years to fix the refs in this article and am sick and tired of people's "good intentions" screwing things up. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Sorry that last post was so bad tempered - it was not directed at you, you were quite right to note the problems with the citations. I have now restored the ones you removed with the correction so they point at Never Despair. I've left in the additional citations you provided, thank you for finding them. There are templates that can be used in the text to flag individual problem citations - see Category:Inline citation cleanup templates for most of them. I just wish we could get away from sfn altogether, it always leads to trouble. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Duncan, because I can understand your frustration. You've mentioned your distaste for sfn before and I'm coming around to your way of thinking. I don't like its dependency on year as with "Gilbert 1991, p. 777." If the author has just one book, like Jenkins, then "Jenkins, p. 680." is sufficient. If, like Gilbert, there is more than one, then I would prefer to see the book's title used to disambiguate as in "Gilbert, Churchill: A Life, p. 777." Thanks very much for resolving the problem and for the other improvements you've done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Even a "Jenkins, p. 680" is storing up trouble for the future - as well as his biography of Churchill, Roy Jenkins wrote at least seven other books that could easily be used in this article, Mr Balfour's Poodle, The Chancellors, Asquith, Baldwin, Truman, Mr Attlee, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Someone comes along and adds a ref to one of those and confusion returns! DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It would always be best to anticipate that. I'm thinking the safest and easiest method would be to use author's surname (subject to namesakes), title (summarised if lengthy – e.g., Jenkins, Roosevelt, p. 88) and page number(s) in all cases. As you say, sfn actively lends itself to confusion and then makes things difficult when there is a clash of names/years. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Not done

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Include Royal Navy in his military service, in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.158.68 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This has come up before. Churchill was never in the Royal Navy. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks.

Weasel words in the lead

My emphasis:

Conversely, he has been widely criticised for some wartime events, notably the 1945 bombing of Dresden, and in recent years his imperialist views and certain comments on race have led many to question his legacy.

I know it's the lead, but many readers only go to the lead. We should do better than this. At the very least, I suggest widely is removed. And what exactly does question his legacy mean? His legacy is what it is. Arcturus (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Arcturus. You are right. The use of "widely" is POV and the last bit, a recent edit, is a gross exaggeration. I've removed both as per your request. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker. Thanks for that. It reads better now. Of course there is another "widely"; the paragraph in question starts with it. However, taken as a whole with the statement it introduces, the assertion is so obvious that I think it's beyond challenge. Arcturus (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The 1945 bombing of Dresden was a result of general bombing policy formulated by the War Cabinet and the Imperial General Staff and whilst Churchill was a member of the War Cabinet he had no more direct involvement in the bombing of that city than any of the other members. And it is a curious fact that few of the critics of Britain's bombing policy ever have a harsh word to say about the Nazi, Italian and Japanese bombing policies.

Whilst Churchill's views may have appeared racist he had at least travelled the world and had contact with various peoples, which is more than some of his critics had. Such views were held by many people at the time, of all races. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: just a friendly ping to let you know what I made some further adjustments to this sentence to try and remove remaining weasel words. Jr8825 • Talk 17:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jr8825, that's fine. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

car accident

On 13 December, he was crossing Fifth Avenue in New York City when he was knocked down by a car, suffering a head wound from which he developed neuritis.

That's a very terse description, given the volume of sources discussing the incident:

CapnZapp (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The next two sentences talk about his convalescence and the impact on his recurring depression. There are a lot of newspaper sources because it was a big story at the time, but we have to put it into perspective as one event in a very long and highly eventful lifetime without venturing into WP:UNDUE and with regard to the WP:LENGTH constraint which this article has laboured under. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

There are RS that connect Churchill's policies with the Bengal famine of 1943. There is no mention on this page. Shouldn't it be mentioned here? LK (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times (see also the talk page archives) and consensus is that the article adequately deals with his imperialist views and his comments on race. The article has undergone a formal review and no changes were recommended in that area. You say there are RS which support your view but the fact is that the vast majority of RS do not even mention a connection with the famine while others point out, as the article itself does: Efforts were hampered by disordered conditions in Bengal and Bihar, not least the severe cyclone which devastated the region in October 1942 and, with vital rice imports from Burma curtailed by the Japanese, led ultimately to the Bengal famine of 1943. The issue has not been ignored and the coverage is sufficient – more than that goes into WP:UNDUE territory. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What about this 2019 article in the Guardian: "Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study" LK (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what about it? A newspaper seeking readers. The article relies on authoritative sources like Jenkins, Gilbert, Addison and several others. The topic has not been ignored and several editors have agreed in past discussions that the coverage is adequate and in compliance with the majority of sources. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The text in this article does seem a bit out of sync with the lead of Bengal famine of 1943, which describes British policies, a lack of action by the Churchill cabinet (refusal of food imports) and natural disasters, then notes that "the relative impact of each of these factors on the death toll is a matter of controversy", whereas the current wording here seems to imply the cyclone was solely responsible: "the severe cyclone which devastated the region in October 1942 ... led ultimately to the Bengal famine of 1943." I don't see an issue with adding an extra clause or short sentence to the end of the existing paragraph, perhaps something along the lines of "British wartime policies, and the restriction of food imports by Churchill's cabinet, exacerbated the famine, although their relative impact on the death toll is a matter of controversy." There are a plenty of academic references in that article that could be used to support such a sentence. I think the response of the Churchill government is noteworthy (as the famine is often cited as being one of the worst failings of the British Empire) and in this context seems to be a pretty major event within his premiership. I haven't looked through previous discussions on this talk page about this, however. Do you still think this would be UNDUE No Great Shaker? Jr8825 • Talk 20:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jr8825. Personally, I think a sentence along the lines you have suggested would be fine. Given that it is, as you say, a matter of controversy, it is important to strike the right balance because we have seen before that certain people (including known block evaders) are seeking to blow the thing out of all prooportion. Please go ahead with your proposed change. Thanks and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. I've included the suggestion I offered above pretty much verbatim. Perhaps better wording can be found. Jr8825 • Talk 00:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Jr8825. I think your wording is fine, especially as it expressly states "wartime policies" because that is the key point here, and you have added that it is a matter of controversy. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Total number of biographies

Hello, all. Does anyone know of a definitive list of Churchill biographies which are books about his whole life rather than works on specific aspects, essays, articles and the like. The blurb for the 2018 book by Andrew Roberts says there have been over 1,000 "studies" but the ICS accounts for only 62 "biographies" to the end of 2000 – obviously there have been more since then including Jenkins and Roberts. I don't think we can accept a figure of 1,009 without access to a full list and without a clear definition of what Allen Lane meant by "studies" as it is termed here by "The Spectator". Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Gas in Mesopotamia

Currently, in relation to the controversial issue of chemical warfare in Mesopotamia, the article states that: "After British troops in Iraq clashed with Kurdish rebels, Churchill authorised two squadrons to the area, proposing that they be equipped with mustard gas to use against the rebels". The two references given are Martin Gilbert's Churchill: A Life and R.M. Douglas's journal article 'Did Britain Use Chemical Weapons in Mandatory Iraq?' in The Journal of Modern History Vol. 81, No. 4 (December 2009). I don't have Gilbert's book to hand but I do have Douglas's article and I believe that the current wording, in placing emphasis on mustard gas is misleading. On page 861 Douglas makes only one mention to mustard gas:'Gilbert [in the 4th vol. of his multi-volume biography] briefly noted Churchill's desire that the RAF experiment with mustard gas bombs to find out whether these could 'inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury on them'.'.

Later on (p.874) Douglas writes that Churchill was literally just pressing Trenchard to continue experiments work on bombs containing mustard gas. He wasn't authorising their use per se although depending on how the experimental works went it might have been authorised at a later date. In fact at the time of the 1920 insurgency the weapons Churchill was referring to did not yet exist. This is a bit different to how the article currently phrases it, which implies Churchill sent RAF squadrons with mustard gas so that they could use it against rebels.

Douglas is actually clear that the only gas Churchill authorised for use in Iraq during the 1920 insurgency was SK tear gas. To quote: 'The use of gas shells in Iraq albeit containing tear gas rather than poison gas, was indeed sanctioned by the War Office [i.e. Churchill’s ministry] during the emergency of 1920. The decision to do so was taken by Churchill alone, who neither consulted nor even in formed his ministerial colleagues – no doubt in view of the certainty that they would have strongly opposed it [emphasis added].' (p.874).

I'd like to edit the article to make this clearer, although I appreciate that it is a controversial issue so I thought I'd make a comment here.

--CaledonianinSurrey (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaledonianinSurrey: I have Gilbert's Churchill: A Life to hand. It says "On August 29 he suggested they [the two air squadrons] should be equipped with mustard-gas bombs 'which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them'". At the very least I think we should include the quotation, as you say the current wording is somewhat misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Fair enough, happy for the quote to be included along with a clarification of R.M. Douglas's article. Given that we are only adding a sentence or two max I don't think the greater clarification would weigh the article down with too much detail. I would also add that the bombs were at that stage experimental and had not been developed. I can't edit the article yet but happy to do so in a few days when my account is old enough/has made the requisite number of edits. CaledonianinSurrey (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaledonianinSurrey: I'll add the quotation now - I don't have the Douglas article, and it sounds like you've got a good understanding of it so if you could add a bit about that when you can that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Explain why Randolph objected to Churchill receiving the dukeship in more depth

Does not explain properly, confusing the reader to why he would turn down a dukeship. Under Later Years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.146.5.113 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You should refer this point to Randolph's article. It is sufficient here to give Winston's reason for declining the title, which was Randolph's objection. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Churchill's smoking and cigar habit

Churchill is one of the famous persons who have been associated with cigar smoking, and cigar is one of the well known accessories of his public image. But there is not even a single word about his habit of smoking, which brand of cigars was his favorites, how long he was smoked is he quit from this habit or so. It's really interesting and awkward --Baris365 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. Note also that Churchill had red hair but that's not so well known because he lost most of it when he was young. And he was a notable wearer of a variety of distinctive clothes and accessories such as hats, the siren suit, dressing gown or even nothing at all. But we'll have trouble getting this into the article here because it is already too big and other editors tend to be stuffy about such details. I have already got my hands full with Winston Churchill as painter but will try to give this some attention too. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I Don't think this is just a "detail" about Churchill by the way.--Baris365 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Winston Churchill as cigar-smoker beckons I feel Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the famous "Roaring Lion" image in the infobox, the reason why Churchill looks so pissed off is because Yousuf Karsh took his cigar from him before taking the photo. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

True story."By the time I got back to my camera, he looked so belligerent he could have devoured me. It was at that instant that I took the photograph." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We also need Winston Churchill as bricklayer. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And not forgetting... Churchill the pig lover. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are pigs indispensable and iconic part of his lifestyle and his public image? --Baris365 (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of his dogs. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Eugenicists category

@Leitmotiv: Once again I'm finding your edit summary somewhat cryptic. Allow me to expand on mine: what makes a defining characteristic for categorisation purposes isn't always clear, but I'd suggest a characteristic is not defining if isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body, or for that matter in a sub-article dealing specifically with that topic. Even if the Charmley quote were in the article body rather than in a footnote, it would be insufficient; in order to include the category we'd need to state he was a eugenicist in Wikipedia's voice rather than atributing it to Charmley. I don't object to the category per se, but if it's going to be included it needs to reflect what's in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. No doubt eugenics has been discussed at length on this talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Winston Churchill as painter into Winston Churchill

This topic appears to be notable (see here); but is a pretty short article (only one paragraph long), and I can't really see how it could be expanded to be a fully-fledged standalone article (reason #3 at WP:MERGEREASON). The information in this current article can be easily merged to Winston Churchill#Artist, historian, and writer, where the one paragraph here could simply be inserted there. Seagull123 Φ 23:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The main article, Winston Churchill, is too big as it has about 100K of prose and so should be split rather than being the target of merger. There are separate articles for Winston Churchill as writer and Winston Churchill as historian and so this one completes the set. Books have been written about the topic and he even wrote a book himself – Painting as a Pastime. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Support There is nothing to merge really, the page has no information at all. Chhandama (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has seven subarticles spanning periods of his life, and it is possibly the worst attempt at splitting and summary style I have ever seen on wikipedia. Each subarticle has essentially the same headers and paragraphs as the main article, except the paragraphs in the main article are a bit shorter as details have been trimmed but many sentences are still identical. A reader looking at both the main article and subarticles would be frustrated by the duplication. If the concern is that the main article is too long, the splits already attempted should be done properly. This was likewise done poorly, as a subarticle should not be a mere three sentences. I support a merge since a separate page is not warranted here at this point. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If there's "nothing to merge" then a merger cannot be done. Obviously what we have here is a stub – a foundation for further expansion. As the parent article is already too large, expansion is best done at the child article, where there is plenty of room for growth. I shall be starting such expansion shortly, to demonstrate. This !vote will then be obsolete. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose and Require @Reywas92: to stop jumping the gun. I oppose as the main article is too long. I particularly oppose the action of @Reywas92: in going ahead with undoing all the splits while the discussion about one of them is ongoing. That action does not demonstrate collegiality and should be undone. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
First, the Churchill as painter page was created five years ago, and is not connected to the poorly performed splits of this summer. Second, I only undid one of them with examination of the level of duplication, the shortest and easiest one with the least of a length issue, so go away with your "all the splits" crap. Edit summaries like this one are false. This edit did not "summarise this section", rather it just trimmed it, leaving significant overlap and duplication. The May 2020 size of the main article was 267k, and post-"split" was 201k, yet the six new subarticles created total 171k, showing just how much redundancy there is. Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So not undoing all the splits, only one that hadn't been discussed here? If you think the splits could be done better, then do them better. If you think the main article is not too long, then you are simply wrong. The excessive length of the article has been discussed before. It is profoundly unhelpful for you simply to ignore that. DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There already existed Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939, so why tf were three new pages Winston Churchill's Liberal Party years, 1904–1924, Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1924–1929, Winston Churchill's "Wilderness" years, 1929–1939 created rather than the content being split to that? Now there's triple duplication. Never did I say the article was not too long, but making six heavily duplicative pages was not the right way to do it. Churchill war ministry would also have been a good place to move content instead of a new Winston Churchill in the Second World War. If you're going to tell me "then do them better", perhaps undoing the original mess is how to start doing so??? Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have restored Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer and added {{section sizes}} to this talk page, above, to assist in further analysis. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Andrew and Duncan. The parent article is far too big and that is why we agreed on the subsets. The painting article is currently a stub but it has enormous potential for expansion, especially if anyone utilises the excellent book by Mary Soames. I've not seen the other two works mentioned but I gather they are both very good sources and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the article will be a stub indefinitely.

Also, I entirely agree with Duncan that Reywas92 needs to get a grip and stop shouting the odds. Most tiresomely, I have already seen this behaviour elsewhere, when someone has corrected him or pointed out that he has misunderstood something. His actions in regard to Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer were completely out of order and a waste of Andrew's time, but thanks are due to Andrew for resolving the problem (and the sensible change of title). The subsets last summer were created after discussion here and, while the method may not have been the ideal one, it was the practical one at the time as the initial content in each subset needed to be the same as in the parent article, because we were not seeking to delete the content, only to relocate it. Some editors have already amended the subsets and they will in time become more fully developed as, like the painting article, they all have plenty of scope for expansion.

I might point out that Churchill war ministry is about the National Government in WWII, not about Churchill himself, as should be obvious after only a cursory glance at the content. Winston Churchill in the Second World War is biographical and, subject to some inevitable cross-reference, entirely different in scope. In a similar vein, the scope and focus of Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939 is political, not biographical. I fail to understand how such simple concepts could be the cause of so much difficulty. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I proposed this merger, and I just wanted to elaborate on a few things mentioned by other editors here. Some people have suggested that the Winston Churchill page is already very long - I agree - but the article "...as painter" isn't long at all - merging the two would probably end up with about 3 more sentences in the main article (plus references), which I don't think is adding much at all to the main article. Others have suggested that the "painter" article could be expanded, which if it could be/someone were willing to do so, would of course be great! I just don't know if it could be or not, as it's been in its current state for 5 years since it was created, and I don't know if much more could be written on the subject (maybe someone could enlighten me?) If it's not going to be expanded imminently, perhaps it could be merged into the main article until it can be properly expanded? Also, I have no clue what's been happening with other merges/redirects/splits to Churchill-related articles: so I just want to state that my proposal here was not informed by/related to what people have been discussing here. Seagull123 Φ 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Seagull123. I don't think anyone has a problem with your proposal which is fair enough, even though three of us are opposing it, and you certainly had nothing at all to do with the other sub-articles. The painting article could be expanded significantly, especially using the Soames book that I have seen (but don't possess) while I understand the other two books named in the article are good accounts. It would be interesting to see what Andrew and Duncan think about a temporary merger. Thanks and all the best. Stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've kick-started an expansion of Winston Churchill as painter which is still a stub, to be honest, and with no real structure as yet, but the additional biographical sources (e.g., Gilbert, Jenkins) have much more to say about the subject and so far the specialist sources have barely been touched. There is definitely potential for substantial expansion and I'll add bits as and when I can. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a start on expansion too but didn't reach the point of saving. I'll integrate my additions now. I have more ideas but will implement them in small chunks to minimise conflict.

What was especially interesting was to review the edits that had been made since I started the page. These were mostly useless or quite wrong – changing the date 1915 to 1955, for example.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not have one article for Churchill as writer, historian and painter? None of those articles are very long and clearly the writers of the main article here think there is a thematic link since we have this section 'Artist, historian, and writer'. LastDodo (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea but I think I would prefer to keep them separate because all three have expansion potential. Also, I think Churchill as a historian should be treated in isolation because the subject-matter of his general writings was very broad (and included fiction), whereas his historical works have major importance in their own right. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bad idea because that's not how the main sources treat the topic. Combining some elements would then encourage improper synthesis. And, in any case, it would be significant effort without any obvious benefit. There is no necessity or need to reduce the number of pages because, per WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover ... Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic...". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Weak support there isn't much on the page, I think a typical page of this size related to a person isn't justifiable enough to remain independent. Having said that, the Russian language article is incredibly well structured and detailed. If volunteers are willing to translate it to the English then I will strongly support an Oppose to merge. --Jf81 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose and close, the page has been rewritten, added to, and is now a full article (thanks to this nomination, yet now the page is fine). Per discussion, per art and painting articles, and per other pages pertaining to Churchill interests (books, history, etc.). When a painter has a notable body of work as large as Churchill has, and has had as many stand-alone books written about his artistic work, then there is no question that they should have a Wikipedia article - and Churchill, no matter his other pursuits in life, is no different. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose “as painter” may be small now but has potential to become much larger, like the brilliant Russian version that Jf81 mentioned, once some passionate editor get to work on it. Aeengath (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as Winston Churchill as painter has been substantially expanded, rendering moot most of the above arguments for merging, I've removed the merge tag. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening line - could we add artist?

Given the extensive collection of paintings Churchill created, could we include in the opening paragraph list of what he was (statesman, writer etc) that he was also an artist? 550 finished paintings according to this source. What are the pros and cons of including artist in the list? Would he have to have been professionally selling then in order for him to be considered a painter? https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-making-history-winston-churchill-made-paintings. DrMel (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

oh my - just saw the extensive comments above. Request withdrawn! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMel (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, DrMel, it seems a wonderful idea. The portion "was a British politician, statesman, army officer, writer, and painter." works well, and suggest adding "painter" last because he had more success as a writer during his lifetime. The discussion above actually highlights Churchill's descriptor as "painter", and is a point in favor of including it in the first sentence (and for preferring 'painter' to 'artist'). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. His paintings are notable and noteworthy. I agree that "painter" should be the last of his occupations, per Randy. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Agreed. I’d not known about his paintings until today - joined my mom while she was watching the Crown. I love seeing historical videos and looking at related wikipedia articles to learn more - I think a lot of people do. Similarly - I’d had no idea the portrait Parliment had commissioned for his 80th was so offensive to him that his wife had it burned.DrMel (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt if this is controversial. DrMel, a great idea, please add it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

See Sutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill. Should probably be mentioned and linked, although it does appear, is in the Churchill template at the bottom, under "Legacy and depictions". He does look a bit like a bulldog with toothache. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right, Martin. That should be mentioned. Must have been an oversight. Thanks very much, again. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would Oppose putting it in the lead sentence as it would violate MOS:ROLEBIO. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I think we should mention statesman in the opening sentence and put his other attributes in a subsequent sentence. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs in the lead paragraph either. Remember the opening paragraph is for (The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; Why the person is notable.). He is not notable for his side hobby of being a painter, he most noted for his premiership particularly during WWII and his other political activities. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the piped link to Winston Churchill as painter, in the final paragraph of the lead section, has sufficient prominence. We now have duplication with the first paragraph in any case, so it needs to be trimmed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So I've removed the duplication, but in so doing I have promoted the painting to the end of the first paragraph. This may give it more prominence than it deserves, as it was just a hobby, unlike his writing, which earned him a Nobel prize. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

This edit request to Winston Churchill has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

78.32.144.128 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2021 (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. User3749 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

First/opening sentence discussion

Which one is the best output for opening biographical sentence?

Option #1: was a British military officer and statesman
Option #2: was an English statesman and politician
Option #3: was a British statesman/politician (for simpler choice)

So what do you choose, then. --Frontman830 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with the opening sentence as is – it was amended recently by another editor. Every prime minister can, I suppose, be described as a statesperson while the use of politician is entirely superfluous in this context. Churchill's military career is incidental and, in fact, he had more distinction as a writer and historian than as a soldier. So, my choice is no change. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I preferred to choose English politician instead. --Frontman830 (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. His nationality and role are pretty obvious when it opens with PM of the UK. WildComet (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I would change to the current lead sentence is to add military officer (i.e. was a British statesman and military officer was was ...). I do not really get the need to change from British to English here unless there are good source on the contrary. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 09:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't think English should replace British. There is the sentence Churchill was also well known for his military career and as a historian, painter and writer. later in the first paragraph of the lead. I think that if "military officer" is required in the opening sentence, then "writer and historian" must go there too, though perhaps not "painter". Btw, I think the last sentence of the opening paragraph should be reworded to Among the many awards received by Churchill was the Nobel Prize in Literature. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Skjölker has answered the question with the new second sentence and other amendments. The lead paragraph is greatly improved. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree the lead paragraph looks better. The only possible adjustments I could think of: 1) is "prolific" the correct way of describing his painting (is that well-sourced?) and 2) is there a better possible link location for "career soldier" rather than just the generic "Military career". Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 12:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't actually a career soldier because he never stayed in the army very long and always had pressing reasons to move on. Even when he served in the Boer War, his main consideration was journalism. He probably should be called a prolific painter as he produced about 500 over a fifty-year period, though only one during WWII. I can't think of a good synonym, though. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks for clearing that up. I have removed the link to soldier MOS:OL. Also what do you think about making a more specific link in the lead --> "a British statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, during the Second World War, and again from 1951 to 1955." to "a British statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, during the Second World War, and again from 1951 to 1955." per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 05:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Much better. Do you want to make the change or shall I? Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made the change. I have also considered adding another link in the lead sentence (..., and again from 1951 to 1955 to ..., and again from 1951 to 1955) but am torn about it as may be bombarding readers with too many links in the lead sentence. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 06:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A link to his third ministry definitely should be somewhere in there, but it wouldn't look too good for the reader right in the first sentence... for now I added it later on: "Re-elected Prime Minister in 1951, his second term was preoccupied with foreign affairs..." How's that? --Skjölker (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Spy-cicle and Skjölker, all seems fine to me. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Great yeah that makes sense it link it further down. On rereading the lead again this phrase could be misleading for readers Out of office during the 1930s, ... should it not say Out of ministerial office during the 1930s, ... (or similar; possible link as well) since he was still an MP at the time? Also on a related note I tried looking for an article on his electoral history but could not find one (I know there is not enough space to have it on this article) unless I have missed something (example article). Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, it would be clearer to add ministerial but in Britain it is commonly understood that being in office means being a minister. MPs out of office are backbenchers though, as Churchill proved in the thirties, a backbencher can wield enormous influence. Opposition MPs are either shadow ministers/spokespeople or backbenchers. I don't think there is an article on Churchill's electoral history unless it's hidden away somewhere – I know a couple of by-election articles are in his main category. Hope this helps. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle No Great Shaker "Out of government" perhaps? That doesn't leave much room for confusion, and I think it sounds more natural than "ministerial office". "Out of government in the 1930s, in his so-called "wilderness years"..."
And yeah, Churchill is easily at least as worthy of an electoral history article as Thatcher is, and I suppose it can be convenient to compile the election results scattered in all the constituency articles into one place. --Skjölker (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker Skjölker Either "Out of government" or "Out of ministerial office" (I know you mentioned the latter is implied for the context of the UK but I suppose it it usually better to ease on the side to clarity for non-UK readers as well). Out of the two I think the former is more concise whilst the latter is slightly more precise but either should be fine. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle:~~I'll look into creating the Winston electoral history article.~~ Done. I'll do it on a user sub page at first, and if everything works right, I'll make it into an article. I'll try to get at least his parliamentary elections into the list today. --Skjölker (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see yes that would be great, I'll see if I can lend you hand in making it if I have the time. Looking at others it is mostly tranclusions from the other articles. (Looking at Category:Electoral history of British prime ministers (just made that sub cat) suprisingly not many PMs have electoral history articles only from Thatcher to current-Johnson). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah great thank you very much for doing that. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done, guys. Great work. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Mussolini

It is misleading to say Churchill opposed the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, as he continued to praise Mussolini during the war. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

@Westerhaley: from the same Hansard volume you quoted in the article: I share the feeling common throughout the country of sympathy for this primitive, feudal people who are fighting for their hearths and homes and for the ancient freedom of their mountains against a scientific invader. The native independence of Abyssinia cannot be made a matter for compromise or barter. While Churchill's opposition was certainly qualified (in the same speech he also called it a "small matter" and further disparaged Abyssinia's "uncivilised" nature), he's still quite clearly expressing his opposition. Jr8825 • Talk 18:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments: extraneous detail & racism

Extraneous detail

I skimmed through bits of the article today and have two comments. Firstly, is the chronological narrative charting the progress of the Second World War overly detailed? I felt that large chunks of text relate more to operational developments rather than Churchill's actual input, actions or comments. For example, detail such as:

Extended content

"The Luftwaffe altered its strategy from 7 September 1940 and began to bomb London, at first in daylight raids and then, after their losses became unacceptably high, at night. The raids were soon extended to provincial cities such as the notorious attack on Coventry on 14 November.[312] The Blitz was especially intensive through October and November. It can be said to have continued for eight months, by which time Hitler was ready to launch Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR. The Luftwaffe failed its objective of reducing British war production, which actually increased.[313]"

or

"Meanwhile, Japanese operations in Burma had begun in December 1941. Rangoon fell in March 1942 and the Japanese advance gathered pace until they had occupied most of the country by the end of April. Campaigning was effectively halted through the May to December monsoon season and the Allies then mounted the first of several offensives from India.[332] Efforts were hampered by disordered conditions in Bengal and Bihar, as well as a severe cyclone which devastated the region in October 1942."

all seems irrelevant to Churchill himself. The organisational structure at Franklin D. Roosevelt#Third and fourth terms (1941–1945) seems more logical, and it manages to condense the narrative on the course of the war to a succinct three-paragraph section. @No Great Shaker: seeing as you've done a lot of work on the article, do you have any particular thoughts on this? I'd be happy to work together to cut down some of the extraneous detail if others share my concern. Jr8825 • Talk 15:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that those pieces should be trimmed or better summarised. We need to tread carefully with the second one, however, because of all the controversy about the famine and the latter part of that paragraph was reconstructed following considerable discussion. I've made some reductions but feel free to edit further. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments on race vs. racist comments

The other issue is more controversial. Is our article outdated in its treatment of criticisms of Churchill's views on race, and as a consequence too weasel-y on the issue? In particular, we currently have a paragraph rebutting the description of Churchill as racist based solely on one (rather old) source, Addison 1980. This is presented before the paragraph arguing the opposite view, which is much more broadly sourced. I can't help feeling that this could be a case of undue weight, simply because scholarship may have moved on in the meantime. The lead mentions criticism of Churchill for "comments on race" – is this unnecessarily tiptoeing around simply saying "racist views"? It strikes me that his comments on the hierarchy of races can easily be termed racist in a technical sense, relatively free from subjective judgement. Scholars of post-colonial studies appear unambiguous in their labelling of Churchill as racist. Priyamvada Gopal of Churchill College, University of Cambridge, recently wrote a column in the Guardian arguing that biographies of Churchill neglect his racist views. It's easy to dismiss these criticisms as less rigorous because they're being aired by the typically progressive Guardian, but Gopal also led a Cambridge panel discussion featuring a number of professors discussing this topic. The number of academics weighing in on the discussion gave me pause, and I do plan to watch it fully to form my own opinion. I'd also need to look into whether any of these scholars have produced academic papers or works that relate to Churchill that could be cited. I'll readily admit that I haven't read the main biographical works on Churchill myself, I just thought I'd share my impressions to see what regular editors' thoughts on this thorny issue are. Jr8825 • Talk 15:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Jr8825, and thanks for the ping. First, can I apologise for the delay in getting back to you but I have far too much going on in my life and have been ridiculously busy for the last week or so. I've only been able to get online a few times. I'm trying to catch up with WP today but, again, I've been diverted. I think your comments and suggestions are very well thought through and I agree we do need to work towards improving the article along the lines you recommend. Can you leave it with me just a little longer as I'm hoping to have some online time this afternoon? Thanks and all the best. Stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

On the racism issue, I have an open mind on inclusion except that anything written must be well sourced, must be presented in a scholarly way and must not breach WP:UNDUE. This is bearing in mind that the rebuttals are rightly based on the sea change that has taken place in British society over the last half-century. Racism was still institutionalised in the sixties but, largely due to the influence of people like Martin Luther King, Pele, Muhammad Ali, Chuck Berry and everyone at Tamla Motown, the younger generation railed against it. The issue was directly addressed by the Harold Wilson government in the Race Relations Act 1965 and subsequent legislation. As that younger generation became the older one, the times changed and now racism is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of British people.

Churchill was essentially a Victorian imperialist who never lost the mindset of a Victorian imperialist. He was a man of his time and he did hold and sometimes express views that today are unpalatable, but were generally acceptable throughout his lifetime because the majority of British people had the same mindset where the empire was concerned. This is a syndrome that is readily apparent in old movies which, if you watch them now with a 21st century focus, may seem to be discriminatory when they are in fact nothing more than a reflection of their own time, as is always so with movies. It must always be remembered that, although Churchill said some unpleasant things about non-white or non-European people, he (1) criticised Kitchener who really was a racist; (2) his opposition to the Aliens Act 1905 was one of his reasons for crossing the floor; and (3), of course, he was violently opposed to Hitler whose entire raison d'être was white supremacy.

I take the point that Addison's biography is forty years old and that more recent rebuttals should be cited, but we must avoid WP:UNDUE and provide a balance. At the same time, allegations of racism in a wide-ranging article like this must be limited to one short paragraph apart from possible brief mentions in other contexts. We cannot allow free rein to people who are trying to make a WP:POINT because they have jumped onto a bandwagon or because, as you say, they read the Guardian (though, to be fair, that's better than reading certain other, er, publications).

As for the main biographies like Gilbert and Jenkins, I have to say they are practically silent on the issue, which is disappointing because I think they must have chosen to deliberately ignore it. I would have thought that Jenkins as a Labour politician should have had something to say.

I think that any changes made must be restricted to the sub-section entitled "Imperialism", although that title could be altered, and that the matter should be discussed in general terms or we will once again have people coming in who try to present a long list of alleged incidents and claim that those are far more important than such things as the Atlantic Charter or Yalta. Also, the article is subject to a size constraint, per WP:LENGTH, which is the main reason for summarising the issue.

These are my initial thoughts and I hope they are useful. Apologies again for not reply sooner. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and apologies for the slow reply myself. I'm in complete agreement with you that "allegations of racism in a wide-ranging article like this must be limited to one short paragraph apart from possible brief mentions in other contexts". I agree it's disappointing that the biographies neglect this issue, but I think it also speaks to the fact that his biographers didn't consider his views on race to be a defining (or even notable) feature of his premiership or life. Modern readers may disagree and find the willingness of Churchill's contemporaries or near-contemporaries to overlook these views uncomfortable, but that's why the discussion is best contained to the legacy section of the article. I don't have much more to add until I've looked at whatever sources may exist regarding Churchill's views on race, and any reactions/rebuttals to these discussions. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment and it's not a particularly high priority. Hopefully I'll revisit this in the not-too-far future when I'm better read on the issue. Jr8825 • Talk 00:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping you, No Great Shaker. Jr8825 • Talk 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jr8825, always happy to hear from you when you have more time. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

From neutral point of view, it is good to include all aspects of a personalty. The controversy subsection in Legacy section which is generally included in many BLPs, should be added to the article. It will definitely give readers good idea about the character of Mr. Winston Churchill. I had already added section on article but No Great Shaker has removed it citing consensus issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that someone with only thirty-odd edits is so assertive about what things are generally included in biographical articles. Churchill's character, including the more controverial aspects, is more than adequately described in the article already. As you are a new and inexperienced editor, you may not have read the whole article thoroughly before trying to make your WP:POINT. By the way, this article is not a WP:BLP, which means biographies of living persons. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree mostly with what No Great Shaker is saying, seems a little UNDUE. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 09:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at ANI. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 12:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@256Drg: If you read the article, you will see that much of the content you added about Churchill and India is already in there, just not in a section called "Controversies". The other paragraph you added was copied from the New York Times, which means that it was a copyright violation. (Part of your addition was a blockquote from another source which was attributed. That is not a problem from a copyright point of view, but it might have been WP:UNDUE.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, No Great Shaker. I see you managed to dig up some more modern rebuttals of charges of racism and rewrote the paragraph, thanks for that, it does look better. I have three things I wanted to discuss with you. Firstly, is the statement describing Madhusree Mukerjee's work a "fringe theory" sourced? It seems like quite a bold statement to make in wikivoice, perhaps we can attribute that claim directly to the 2021 study, if it says as much? Even if academics and historians look down on it, it looks like the book received a mixed but generally warm reception among reviewers, judging by Churchill's Secret War#Reception. I might be reading between the lines here, but it sounds as if their criticisms were that it's a non-specialist popular history that isn't academically rigorous and tinted by Indian nationalism – I'm not sure that's equal to calling it a WP:FRINGE view, rather that it shouldn't be given the same weight as other studies? Also, is the sentence "for example, Mukerjee has claimed that Churchill discriminated against Indians but ignores his tribute at the end of the Second World War" a point taken from the 2021 report? If so, I think we should attribute it, as saying Mukerjee "ignores" something without attribution looks like OR. And finally, are the International Churchill Society and The Churchill Project at Hillsdale College reliably neutral sources, or do they exclusively portray Churchil in a positive light? If they have strong academic reputations for critical neutrality then I'd be reassured, I'm simply concerned that this could be a push back from more conservative academia. Is this a case of activists who don't know much about Churchill stirring up controversy while the historians are unanimous in their assessment, or is there a valid academic controversy underlying it? Jr8825 • Talk 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jr8825. You're right, it isn't a fringe theory and I agree that a better balance is needed. I've made a few changes to the wording to say that Roberts is seeking to discredit Mukerjee but not necessarily succeeding. The tribute is a definite quotation which Roberts himself has sourced to a book about the war and he makes the very good point that Mukerjee's allegations don't sit too well with a statement like that. The wording may still need a few tweaks and I'm happy for you to go ahead. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: While I think your changes are an improvement, my suspicion that the discipline of "Churchill studies" may be too deferential (dominated by conservative academics and insufficiently critical) remains – equally I suspect the adherents of post-colonial studies may be overly critical. I skim read the 2021 "report" from the Churchill Project (it's actually a review of the Cambridge panel I was discussing earlier) and I think it's a poor source. It reads more as a political essay written to rebut, point by point, the liberal/progressive viewpoints of the panel than as a proper review engaging faithfully with what was actually said (oh, the culture war times we live in...). I don't think it deserves the position we're currently granting it – effectively getting the last word and portraying opposing views as successfully rebuked. It appears both the authors are politically conservative (Andrew Roberts's views on empire seem to have garnered some controversy, see our article on him, Zewditu Gebreyohanes has written in ConservativeHome). Some of the statements in the report are far-fetched and inaccurate, such as "all three [panellists], and the moderator, agreed that ... the British Empire worse than the Third Reich". I watched the panel, it was confrontational, controversial, at times far-fetched and overall one-sided, but I did not at all get that impression: "Britain should be proud of its role, generally, in the war, generally it was a good thing" said one of the panellists at 1:25:32. The panel characterised themselves as attacking great man theory, imperialism and racial inequality (the institutions they argued he represents), rather than as attacking the man himself. Some of the panellists wandered into speculative alternative outcomes by asserting that the outcome of the war would've been the same without Churchill, but the Churchill report does exactly the same by arguing that it certainly wouldn't have ended the same way without Churchill. I don't think either the panel or the report belong in an encyclopedia, to be honest with you. It's also made me more concerned that these various Churchill-named institutions may not be reliable secondary sources. Jr8825 • Talk 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That last paragraph (now removed) was really added as a counter-argument to all the isolated POV examples of "Churchill once said this" and "Churchill once said that", which breach UNDUE. I think the second paragraph of the imperialism section is sufficient to address the issue of alleged racism. It acknowledges that the issue exists and it presents different points of view to provide a balance. I really do think this matter should be closed now and that future racism inputs should be removed immediately in the interests of WP:LENGTH, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement with you. I doubt the matter can be closed given Churchill's outsized legacy and fame – I'm sure more books will continue to be written on him. I do agree that cutting the section down to two paragraphs is an improvement on the previous version's borderline-SYNTH statements and list of unflattering quotes. I made a couple of tweaks to the first sentence of the section today to avoid the specific wording "great man" (I was originally going to wikilink Great man theory, but figured that this was inappropriate). Feel free to change my wording. Jr8825 • Talk 20:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Churchill and the Greek resistance

Found this interesting footnote in a reliable source in case it is helpful for anyone working on Churchill-related articles:

The National Archives, London. Since EAM and ELAS, in contrast to their rank and fi le, had a predominantly communist leadership, their connection with the still wealthy Jewish factor annoyed the always vigilant British government, which even considered intervening in order to prevent Jewish money from falling into the hands of the leftist movement. Churchill himself, using however a rather macabre logic, stopped such schemes, which anyhow were unlikely to have been realized. On July 14, 1944, the prime minister warned Eden: “This requires careful handling. It is quite possible that rich Jews will pay large sums of money to escape being murdered by the Huns. It is tiresome that this money should get into the hands of ELAS but … we should take a great responsibility if we prevented the escape of Jews, even if they should be rich Jews. I know it is the modern view that all rich people should be put to death wherever found, but it is a pity that we should take up that attitude at the present time. After all, they have no doubt paid for their liberation so high that in future they will only be poor Jews, and therefore have the ordinary rights of human beings” (FO 371/ 43689, R 10779, The National Archives, London). In his draft, Churchill had originally started this letter with an even more astonishing sentence, subsequently struck out, almost certainly by one of his secretaries: “I suppose it would be much better for us to keep all the Greek Jews, whether rich or poor, in the grip of the Germans” (PREM 4/ 19/ 9, The National Archives, London). ^[1]

References

^ Chandrinos, Iason; Droumpouki, Anna Maria (2018). "The German Occupation and the Holocaust in Greece: A Survey". The Holocaust in Greece. Cambridge University Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-108-47467-2.

(t · c) buidhe 18:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Company directorships

I have just read that Churchill by own account was director of at least one company, P&O, from 1931, with one outcome being that he brought its chairman Frederick Leathers, into his WWII government as Minister of War Transport. His business involvement is sourced to The Grand Alliance volume of his history of the war but I wonder if there were other directorships he held revealed in the published domain? (Albeit they would have been part time positions in proportion to his overall activities.) I am inclined to draw this into the 'Wilderness Years' section of this page, when he was without ministerial salary, for chronological fit.Cloptonson (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

New section

On the main page, I would like to add a section called "Biographies", and list the most important set of 20 volumes written by Randolph Churchill and Gilbert Martin. It will look like this:

Affectionately, Lord Milner (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The volumes are included in the further reading section. None of them are actually cited so they can't go in the bibliography. I think the list of 20 is too much detail for a work that isn't used in the article and it is also exclusive because other biographies, especially Jenkins, carry equal or greater weight. We have cited Gilbert's A Life and Never Despair, of course. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bengal Famine Of 1943 - A Man-Made Holocaust

Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does. Particularly the decisions that he personally signed off during the Bengal Famine when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed. Not only did the British pursue its own policy of not helping the victims of this famine which was created by their policies. Churchill persisted in exporting grain to Europe, not to feed actual "Sturdy Tommies", to use his phrase, but add to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. Why hide the truth ?

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." Winston Churchill. This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy. --82.53.170.26 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that quote? And for the claim that the exported grain was added "to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia."? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India. Author Dr. Shashi Tharoor.

In this book the author talks of the the British Hero Winston Churchill Responsible for the Bengal Famine, of British colonialism and the devastating consequences India sustained from British's rule over its economy. In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. This Churchill is the man who the British insist on hailing as some apostle of freedom and democracy, when to my mind he is really one of the more evil rulers of the 20th century only fit to stand in the company of the likes of Hitler, Mao and Stalin. --82.53.170.26 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That quote appears in Inglorious Empire? There's a edition online here, but I am unable to locate the quote. I wonder do you have a page number? I think you might struggle to find any well-known historian who would claim that Churchill can realistically be compared to "Hitler, Mao and Stalin". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

In his book World Orders Old and New, Noam Chomsky claimed that Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment".

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued (...) It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror (...)" Churchill, the liberator of the world. --82.53.170.26 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Any page number for the quote? Are you suggesting change(s) to the article? Or is this just a general anti-Churchill rant? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that.

Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

Glancey, Jonathan (19 April 2003). "Our last occupation". The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

Chomsky, Noam (1996). World Orders Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press. --82.53.170.26 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You said the quote beginning ""I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion...." was containted in the book 'Inglorious Empire' by Shashi Tharoor? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II : Mukerjee, Madhusree. 2011, p. 116.

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Churchills_s_Secret_War/gkbRA6NLpc8C?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=Indians++are+a+beastly+people+with+a+beastly+religion+churchill&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover

Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were "breeding like rabbits", and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, "Mahatma Gandhi was still alive".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study --82.53.170.26 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Leo Amery likened Churchill's understanding of India's problems to King George III's apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries, Amery wrote "on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane" and that he did not "see much difference between [Churchill's] outlook and Hitler's."

Amery, Leonard (1987). barnes, John; Nicholson, David (eds.). The Empire at Bay. The Leo Amery Diaries. 1929–1945. Hutchinson.

Mishra, Pankaj (6 August 2007). "Exit Wounds:The legacy of Indian partition". The New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/13/exit-wounds --82.53.170.26 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So in fact it's in Mukerjee (2011), p. 116. But there's a footnote [56] for presumably that's to another earlier source? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." - Churchill

Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India, Shashi Tharoor, 2018

[1] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"'If the famine is so bad why hasn't Gandhi died yet."

Tripathi, Salil. The Colonel Who Would Not Repent: The Bangladesh War and Its Unquiet Legacy. 2016. p. 18

[2] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Churchill blamed the Indian for the famine on the fact that the Indians were “breeding like rabbits”. Do we get any similarity of behaviour and attitude of Mr. Churchill in comparison with Nazi premiere Adolf Hitler?"

Souren Bhattacharya, ‎Subhasree Pal. Hunger and Holocaust: Three Trembling Famine of Colonial Bengal. p. 192.

[3] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Martinevans123: Shashi Tharoor uses the quote in a Time review of Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War, perhaps this is the source of confusion. I recently rewrote the section on the Bengal Famine to more closely stick to the facts. I'm certain there's scope for improvement, but the paragraph is now relatively well sourced, and, I suspect, not far off the mark. While we could expand coverage of critical comments about Churchill from British administrators leading the relief efforts, I've already added the Wavell quote to this effect, so I think it's unnecessary. The callous remarks Churchill is reported to have made could also be included, but multiple high-quality sources would be needed to ensure they're verifiable (we may need to say which contemporary recorded the comment – Leopold Amery?) and, most importantly, to demonstrate the significance of the comment/due weight. It'd definitely require stronger sources than newspaper articles – books written by scholars, rather than journalists like Mukerjee. Although I note that Churchill's Secret War received generally positive reviews (e.g. [4]), it's a literary (not scholarly) work described as "controversial" even by those who praise it. Also, I'm concerned that the tone of the IP editor suggests they're more interested in pursuing their beliefs rather than reflecting the best sources – the famine may have been man-made, but to call it a holocaust/comparable with Hitler is not supported by mainstream sources (i.e. only by fringe Indian nationalist ones). Jr8825 • Talk 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hunger and Holocaust: Three Trembling Famine of Colonial Bengal is not a reliable source. Clever Fox Publishing probably falls under WP:SELFPUB as it's a hybrid publisher, and the book doesn't even seem to have an ISBN assigned. Jr8825 • Talk 21:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Leo Amery, in his private diaries, in a moment of exasperation, may have likened some of Churchill's views, on a given topic, to those of Hitler. But he was a politician and journalist, not a historian. And that's hardly a mainstream view. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"The Bengal famine of 1943 was a 'manmade famine' of British rule. More than 3 million people died during that calamity. Lord Wavell stressed the point in his strongly worded telegram to the Secretary of State for India and Prime Minister Churchill: 'Bengal famine was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule and dangerous to our reputation here both among Indians and foreigners in India is incalculable'."

India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat. Devendra Panigrahi, 2004. p. 251. [5] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe some or all of your material here is more relevant to Bengal famine of 1943? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain at a time when famine raged in India. In 1943 up to 4 million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said that he hated Indians, describing them as "beastly people with a beastly religion" and the famine as "their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

The Economics of War: Profiteering, Militarism and Imperialism. Imad A. Moosa, 2019. p. 80 [6] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. The second Bengal famine in 1943 which took the lives of 4 million people... the famine was caused by Churchill ... reading on wikipedia that he is a hero... --82.53.170.26 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

To whom are you apologising? And where do you see phrase "Churchill was a hero" on wikipedia? Thanks for all the quotations and sources about the Bengal famine of 1943, which you are starting to repeat now, but are you proposing a change or addition to this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Having read this, it seems to be yet another case of POV-pushing and probably by someone in the Harvey Carter stable as before. Jr8825 revised the relevant section some time ago, making good use of a variety of sources, and provided due balance in doing so. We have to bear in mind WP:SIZERULE and, more importantly, WP:UNDUE. Coverage of the famine in relation to Churchill is adequate and any more will breach UNDUE, especially if free rein is given to the likes of Mr Carter who have a WP:POINT to make, ad nauseum. The arguments presented are largely fatuous and take little or no account of the facts already given in the article and still less of contemporary circumstances – Britain was, after all, fighting a major war for survival. Personally, I think the British government didn't recognise the seriousness of the famine soon enough but, better late than never, they then did everything that could be reasonably expected given the war situation. I think that moreorless reflects what the article is currently saying and I see no need whatsoever to further amend that section. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We seem to have "an agenda in search of an article to change." The IP account seems to be very largely a WP:SPA, apparently geolocated in Rome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I live in Rome and I am the son of Bengali immigrants. It doesn't change anything. Churchill is a hero because of his leadership in World War 2, but his immense crimes, notably the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine in which Churchill murdered 4 million Indians, have been deleted from history. More than 4 million people have died...

His attitude towards Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." Winston Churchill loathed Indians and Arabs, and tried to kill as many of both as possible. Churchill considered Gandhi a charlatan.

"He [Churchill] hates India and everything to do with it", Wavell comments in his diaries. [7] --82.53.170.26 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So what were the other "immense crimes"? No, on second thoughts, you need not answer. I have given up asking if you are proposing a specific change to this article. I think you might need to create your own personal website for "Why Churchill was an evil murderer." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive my impetuousness. He killed 4 million of my fellow citizens. Can I consider him a benefactor ? There is no doubt Churchill had an animus against Indians, and there is no doubt that he played a role – particularly in blocking imports...

Now, I ask for more details on the encyclopedic article on this Holocaust. The truth. Thank you and goodbye. --82.53.170.26 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece" Curious claim. The Battle of Greece was over by June 1941, and the Axis occupation of Greece lasted until June 1945. Greece was not receiving British food supplies in 1943, and the Great Famine (Greece) was actually ongoing at the time. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The article for the Bengal famine of 1943 says "An estimated 2.1–3 million, out of a population of 60.3 million, died of starvation, malaria, and other diseases aggravated by malnutrition, population displacement, unsanitary conditions and lack of health care." Nowhere is a figure of 4 million suggested. In any case the famine was caused by a number of inter-related factors As the article lead section also says: "The relative impact of each of these factors on the death toll is a matter of controversy. The entire famine was not caused by one person. The claim that "Churchill killed 4 million of one's fellow citizens" is wholly misguided and undue. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

[1] Chandrinos, Iason; Droumpouki, Anna Maria (2018). "The German Occupation and the Holocaust in Greece: A Survey". The Holocaust in Greece. Cambridge University Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-108-47467-2.

[1]