Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 17

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Winston Churchill in December 1941

• ... that apart from two years between 1922 and 1924, Winston Churchill (pictured) was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1900 to 1964 and represented a total of five constituencies? Source: Roy Jenkins, Churchill (2001), pages 65, 89, 392, 911. London: Macmillan Press. 978-03-30488-05-1.
  • ALT1:... that Winston Churchill (pictured) was a keen amateur bricklayer? Source: Hubert Renfro Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow Hitler's? 200 Questions on the Battle of Mankind (1941), pages 178–179. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. 978-14-17992-77-5.
  • ALT2:... that Winston Churchill suffered from recurring attacks of depression, which he termed his "black dog"? Source: Roy Jenkins, Churchill (2001), page 819. London: Macmillan Press. 978-03-30488-05-1.
  • ALT3:... that Winston Churchill struck up a friendly correspondence with his namesake, the well-known American novelist? Source: "Mr Winston Churchill presents his compliments to Mr Winston Churchill, and begs to draw his attention to a matter which concerns them both" ([1])

• Reviewed: Maypole in the Strand

Improved to Good Article status by No Great Shaker (talk). Self-nominated at 20:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I am going for ALT 0; but if the promoting coordinator prefers, ALT 1 also meets all of the requirements and is, IMO, sufficiently hooky. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer Alt 0 by far, but while it is stated in the lead (uncited), I can't find a clear statement with a cite at the end of or within the sentence concerned within the article. (Or set of cited statements.) Could you lead me a little here? Or tweak the article? Great work on getting it to GA by the way. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gog. My apologies, I did just lift that fact from the lead where it had been stated as a summary of his parliamentary career. I think Gilbert does state the totals but I don't have that book at present (out on loan) so I've found relevant mentions in Jenkins' biography and added a summary statement in the narrative after Churchill stood down at the 1964 election (see Winston Churchill#Retirement: 1955–1964). Hope this is okay. If not, I'll withdraw ALT0 and promote one of the others. Thanks very much for doing the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I was happy about the sourcing, but needed the "immediately after the statement" bit. Now done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As an outsider, Alt 0 is incredibly dull. Everyone in the world who has ever of Churchill knows he was a politician. Big whoop. And all of these hooks are overly wordy. I think a the best of the lot would be for a shortened version of ALT1:... that Winston Churchill was a keen amateur bricklayer?. Short, simple, and unexpected. That is how you catch people's attention, which is the entire point of a "hook". And strike all the extraneous metadata from the caption: it's entirely sufficient for the sake of the hook just to say "Winston Churchill". --Animalparty! (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Very good points but, while the world knows he was a politician, do they know for how long? 62 years in the Commons is remarkable and five constituencies is possibly a record. I agree about the caption but have left the date and I'm shortening ALT1. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think ALT1 is a better hook too. I didn't even know about his non-political interests so learning about him having an interest in bricklaying is quite surprising. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, what's the status of this? @Narutolovehinata5 and No Great Shaker:?

@Gog the Mild: Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The status is that I have approved both ALT0 and ALT1 and left it for the promoting coordinator to choose the one they prefer/consider hookiest. (While expressing a personal preference for ALT0, for whatever that is worth.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: please add some kind of tick so the bot will move this to the Approved page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I can see one there on several of my devices! But I have added a couple more. Let me know if they don't show. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: yes, they show, but I meant adding one to the bottom of the thread since there were a lot of posts since your original tick. Thanks, this is definitely approved! Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I came by to promote ALT1 to a non-image slot because it is so bland, but now I see that No Great Shaker overwrote the hook, making it impossible to follow this discussion. (Please don't do that again. Just write your new hooks as alts.) Here is the original ALT1 hook, followed by the shortened version:

(Sorry about that, Yoninah. Didn't know the process. Will bear it in mind. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

• ALT1-1: ... that Winston Churchill (pictured) was a keen amateur bricklayer, constructing buildings and garden walls at his home, Chartwell?
• ALT1-2: ... that Winston Churchill (pictured) was a keen amateur bricklayer?
• Personally, I like knowing something different about Churchill. I prefer ALT1-1. @Gog the Mild:: did you approve the original hook or the edited one? What do you think of the original? Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why has ALT3 been struck? I had no idea there was also a novelist named Winston Churchill and found that very interesting, surely many others would not know that either and it gives the other Churchill some main page exposure. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

I would like to add the below text on the Bengal famine.

Bengal famine of 1943 was caused by British policy failure under Winston Churchill, not drought as was earlier believed. Here is the source: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bengal-famine-of-1943-caused-by-british-policy-failure-not-drought-study/articleshow/68495710.cms Mdfarooqiqbal (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, British administrative failures leading up to and during the famine are already mentioned in the text. This article is about Churchill, not the famine itself – you'd need to demonstrate there are multiple strong sources which indicate due weight for expanding on this further. Jr8825 • Talk 02:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The proposed "source" does not even mention Churchill and, with only eight edits, the perpetrator has already been warned for edit warring elsewhere. I have reported them to AIV as this is clearly a case of NOTHERE and likely block evasion. Will leave this request here for the moment but if the perpetrator is blocked I will remove it. If anyone else wishes to remove it immediately, please go ahead. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this article is about Churchill and not about the famine itself. But the loss of over 3 million Indian lives under his watch (since he was the Prime Minister when the famine happened) is part of his legacy and hence should also be mentioned on his page. And the source is a reliable source, i.e. Economic Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdfarooqiqbal (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Go into the article at Winston Churchill#Pearl Harbor to D-Day: December 1941 to June 1944, read the sub-section headed "Fall of Singapore, loss of Burma and the Bengal famine" and you will see what reputable sources say about the matter. Your source does not even mention Churchill by name and, like yourself on here, it is trying to push a POV to seek attention.

Would you please name the other accounts you have created and IP addresses you have used on Wikipedia so that we can tie this one to them? After all, we need to understand the full extent of your case and there may be points made in your past edits that we should consider in conjunction with this latest one. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively just go away and stop wasting everyone's time here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

May you please put a link to “Sir” in the top above the portrait. 64.237.85.136 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The hidden note says: "<-- Do not link "Sir" per MOS:SEAOFBLUE -->" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral view in the Lead?

"He is also praised as a social reformer. However, he has been criticised for some wartime events – notably the 1945 bombing of Dresden – and also for his imperialist views, including comments on race." - So the only two criticisms in the lead relate to Dresden specifically - an event that has been seized upon by modern fascists as a form of defence for their actions against minorities during WWII - yet Churchill's views on race are merely skimmed over in passing? What about the Bengal Famine? Ireland? The latter two are FAR more notable, especially considering how the ongoing "controversy" over Dresden is manufactured tripe.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5109:3E63:EB1B:1358 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5109:3E63:EB1B:1358 Yes, I think we need to elaborate it a bit more, rather than just make a passing comment. (I have also changed the title to be a bit more diplomatic)--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should replace "view on race" with "racist comments/views", as I think there's more than enough sourcing to support this and I think we're unnecessarily tiptoeing around the fact of the matter. However, I raised this on the talk page previously and No Great Shaker disagreed, so it didn't happen. If others agree with me perhaps we can revisit this. Jr8825 • Talk 15:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We could add the famine to the sentence as so: "However, he has been criticised for some wartime events – notably the 1945 bombing of Dresden and his government's response to the Bengal famine". I worked on the section of the article about the famine quite intensively, so I'm confident there's relative prominence among sources for a lead mention. I'm not sure Churchill's policies related to Ireland can be simplified in an adequate manner for the lead, and there's not much broader discussion in the article (which makes it unsuitable as things stand per MOS:LEADREL). If you believe this is wrong and more discussion is necessary, perhaps you have ideas on how to expand the article body coverage (with sources to demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT)? Otherwise I think the lead is pretty good (the Dresden bombing seems relevant, and there's a section of the body which discusses it). It's just those two niggling issues ("racist comments/view" vs. "views on race", and a Bengal mention) that I personally think could be improved. Jr8825 • Talk 15:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825I am fine but i would like to make it a bit more specific when it comes to the Dresden bombing, yes he was criticised, but most of those (or at least a substantial amount of them) criticisms comes from Nazi sympatisers, who were fuelled by inflated statistics released by the Germans Nazis. I also suggest we borrow few more content from the Imperealism subsection (in the legacy section). Here are few things i would like to be briefly included in the lead

Churchill reflected "anti-Semitic yet Zionist" duality, which was common at the time in Imperial Britain."

...saw British imperialism as a form of altruism that benefited its subject peoples because "by conquering and dominating other peoples, the British were also elevating and protecting them"

...advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Caribbean, the Americas and India...

ofcourse bengal famine

recent demonstration and statues defaced

To be frank, I was surprised we didn't mention his statues being spray painted last year and what not. I would have added them in the legacy section, but right now I got exams coming up next week :::(--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@LostCitrationHunter: I disagree that we need more specific details in the lead summary – it's already the ideal size and shouldn't get any longer per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Of the examples you highlight, most are details that fit the article body better, and are unnecessary/not important enough for the lead. Churchill's alleged Zionism and/or anti-semitism aren't crucial to his legacy or life (this is a biography, after all, and Churchill is famous for a lot of things) as demonstrated by the fact they only have a brief passing mention within the article. The more detailed explanation of the motivations behind his imperialism is best kept to the relevant section (the lead already says he was an "imperialist" twice, which is adequate). His opposition to self-rule again is probably covered by "imperialist views"; although there's scope to expand the recently added sentence on decolonisation, I need to be convinced that this was a defining feature of Churchill's second term (can you gather a collection of high-quality sources to show this is a crucial part of Churchill's legacy)? The recent defacing of his statue can be added to the legacy section of the article body briefly, but do consider WP:RECENTISM. I don't believe recent demonstrations deserve space in the lead of Churchill's biography, they may be notable in themselves but they're not directly relevant to Churchill's life and there are more important things to summarise. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue with area bombing isn't restricted to Dresden and the criticism is hardly restricted to Nazi sympathizers. In fact, one of the stated goals of area bombing was to destroy residential districts and terrorize civilians leading to a reduction in morale. Unlike the US daylight bombing, it was not aimed at military targets. Not only did such indiscriminate bombing violate international law at the time, it also did not succeed at undermining enemy morale. Churchill was a major supporter of area bombing, which caused 1 million civilian casualties. So I'd support changing Dresden to "area bombing" and keeping this in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the lead should mention more about WWII

Really, Churchill is literally one of the icons for fighting in the war. But other than the first paragraph of the lead, all there is is, "Churchill oversaw British involvement in the Allied war effort against the Axis powers, resulting in victory in 1945." I think there should be at least another sentence. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ak-eater06. It's a fair question but I'm not sure what else we could usefully add. The lead is a summary of the article and we have to be mindful of MOS:LEADLENGTH. In addition to the sentence you have quoted, there is more about his wartime leadership. The first sentence includes: ...was 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. Best known for his wartime leadership as Prime Minister, Churchill was also... which places a heavy emphasis on his WWII tenure. Later, the lead mentions him as a victorious wartime leader who played an important role in defending Europe's liberal democracy against the spread of fascism and, at the end, criticism of the area bombing campaign.

If you can suggest an additional sentence, we will review it here. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo

The article contains a typo: "bewtween"

Thanks. I found this typo using my browser's Find function and took care of it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sir Winston Churchill signature.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Imperialism?

Seems to me the intro could be slightly more nuanced instead of pushing a woke narrative. At least a source is needed. Unlock or correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.205.44 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's lead sections often don't include citations when the material is supported within the article body. In this case, the supporting sources can be found in the section Winston Churchill#Imperialism and racial views. Saying that Churchill had imperialist views is in no way controversial or a "woke narrative". Jr8825 • Talk 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that Winston wasn't an imperialist is almost like saying Johnson isn't a liar. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In Andrew Roberts' recent and sympathetic biography of Churchill, he says that the British Empire was Churchill's 'secular religion'. So I don't think there is much question about it. In his case, the term is not just a slur. My only question would be whether he actively sought the extension of the British Empire by force and against the will of those being conquered, or merely its maintenance. Anyone know? I ask because the former is what generally comes to mind when someone is said to be an 'imperialist'. Cecil Rhodes for example, was certainly an imperialist in that sense, but not everyone was. LastDodo (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Churchill was essentially concerned with preserving the empire, especially India. I don't recall reading anything that says he was ever expansionist. He often referred to it as "our Commonwealth and Empire" (as in the Finest Hour speech), which is revealing because he seems to have prioritised trade and strategy ahead of actual rule. As it says in the article, he was keenly aware of Britain's responsibility for the peoples of the empire – promoting and maintaining their welfare as opposed to (like Rhodes, as you say) subjugating them. I think it's difficult for 21st century people to understand Churchill's mindset on questions like race and the empire because he was a man of his time, and the times have changed. He was certainly pragmatic and had a genuine zeal for reform so, if he had lived a century later, I think he would have been a man of this time and would view the empire as little more than a part of British history.

I suppose the issue here is our definition of the word "imperialist". There are sources which confirm his imperialist views but one of them, given in the article, classifies him as a "liberal imperialist". Maybe we should try to dilute our use of imperialism in the article but I don't think we can substitute another word. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That is my understanding, but I'm certainly no expert. My concern is only not to mislead. The word 'imperialist' covers a range of dispositions, so when it is used it is necessary to clarify, especially if people naturally assume a meaning that does not apply to him. I'm also not sure it is a good idea to have one section on 'racism and imperialism' as if they are two kinds of the same thing. It seems a little confused, I mean the first paragraph of that section manages to end by saying he had a positive view of Queen Elizabeth II. Huh? LastDodo (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Family home

The article states he was born in "his family's ancestral home, Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire". This is untrue. Woodstock manor was a gift from the Queen to the 1st Duke of Marlborough and the palace was not complete for residence until 1733. The Spencer's ancestral homes were are Wormleighton and Althorpe. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:CCC7:5F32:97A0:A1FC (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's splitting hairs and we would need a reliable source to confirm it. You wouldn't be Mr Carter again, by any chance? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Leo Amery and the Imperialism and racial views section

In the Imperialism and racial views section it says Churchill said "Indians [were] breeding like rabbits", instead of saying 'allegedly said' which would be more accurate considering Leo's dislike of Churchill and being known to misquote and badly paraphrase him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Lee Charles (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Donnie. You're absolutely right. That section had alleged written right through it. I've meant to do something with it for a while now and finally done it. I've expanded your thread title above because I'd like this to be the place for a WP:BRD discussion if any of the POV-pushers wish to make an issue of it. Basically, we have a core policy called WP:NPOV which means everything in articles must be written objectively and some of the adjectives used in that section were anything but objective so I've removed them. We also have WP:UNDUE and I've taken out a load of extra baggage which had been put there to make a WP:POINT. Thanks very much for your question. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Knighted when?

Just in case the date of his having been knighted (and any other surrounding circumstances) is mentioned anywhere in the article, I was unable to find this information.

According to https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/churchill-knighted, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth on April 24, 1953.

(She would not be crowned until June 1953, but had "acceded to the throne" already by early February 1952.)

I propose this addition to the end of the introductory section:

Winston Churchill was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II on April 24, 1953. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D11F:7179:1752:EA4D (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and well spotted because we hadn't mentioned it at all. Curiously, neither did Roy Jenkins in his excellent biography. Martin Gilbert mentions the award but not the date so I got that from the NCM site. The fact needs to be in the narrative but I don't think it's significant enough for the lead, especially as he is introduced as Sir Winston. Thanks very much and all the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

This page purposefully ignores his strong racial views, even for his time... Atossa Cont (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2022 (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. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Melecie. We've seen these requests many times before, always raising the same tedious WP:POINT and always made by IPs or short-term userids who have never edited the site before and have nothing whatsoever to do with User:HarveyCarter. Best to just ignore them. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 30, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-30. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• 
  2 groschen
• 
  4 groschen
• 
  8 groschen

The siege of Kolberg took place from March to July 1807 during the War of the Fourth Coalition, part of the Napoleonic Wars. An army of the First French Empire and several foreign auxiliaries (including Polish insurgents) of France besieged the fortified town of Kolberg, the only remaining Prussian-held fortress in the Province of Pomerania. The siege was ultimately unsuccessful and was lifted upon the announcement of the peace of Tilsit. These three banknotes, in denominations of two, four and eight groschen, were issued by the Prussian authorities in Kolberg as emergency money during the siege. Each was handwritten on cardboard with multiple authorising signatures and was stamped with the seal of the local government. The banknotes are now part of the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution in the United States.

Banknote design credit: Kingdom of Prussia; scanned by Andrew Shiva

Recently featured:

• Louisa May Alcott
• Siege of Khartoum currency
• La reine de Chypre

No, thank you, Ahecht. That's great news. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Mustard Gas

Bothered by the article's continuing false claim that Churchill proposed bombing rebel tribesmen in Iraq with 'mustard gas'. Fairly sure that the relevant companion volume of the official biography reproduces the original memo in which Churchill specifies 'lachrymatory gas', that is tear gas, fairly sure that Andrew Roberts has mentioned this and fairly sure I've mentioned it myself on the comment page before now, yet the false claim is still there. It doesn't even make any sense when yoked to the quotation in the article which makes clear that Churchill had non-lethal gas in mind. Mustard gas was lethal. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Khamba Tendal: I've checked the sources provided, and our text is correct. There are two inline sources used to support that sentence. I'm unable to access the Gilbert source as I'm away from my university's library, but I could access the Douglas source online.

Douglas says: "Churchill again pressed Trenchard, as noted by Martin Gilbert in 1975, to "proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them."" Douglas has gained access to, and verified, the note to Air Marshal Trenchard himself: "August 29, 1920, AIR 5/490, Public Records Office, Kew" (Douglas p.861). Douglas also includes the full text of the memo written by Churchill (the one you refer to which is included in the biography companion volume). The memo refers at one point to "lachrymatory gas" as an example of how, in Churchill's view, gas was no more inhumane than shrapnel, but elsewhere, the memo discuses more generally his support for the use of non-specific "gas"/"poisoned gas". Douglas also quotes Clementine Churchill as warning that Churchill was earning notoriety as "a Mustard Gas fiend". Jr8825 • Talk 20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Gilbert 1991 pp424-425 as used in the article says mustard gas. The Companion Volume IV Part 2, page 1190, says "Winston Churchill to Sir Hugh Trenchard (Churchill papers: 16/52) 29 August 1920. I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them". DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Clementine did warn Churchill that he "was earning notoriety as "a Mustard Gas fiend"". What Douglas says, in commenting on reviews of Gilbert's biography and its companion volume (i.e. Volume IV 1917-1922 and its three-volume Companion) is "Joseph M. Hernon was alone in remarking upon Clementine Churchill's warning to her husband that his chemical enthusiasms were fast earning him notoriety as “a Mustard Gas fiend.”" The actual comment by Clementine was in a letter of 29 October 1918, in which she urges his to come home and find constructive work for the Munitions Workers once the fighting stops. "Even if the fighting is not over yet, your share of it must be & I would like you to be praised as a reconstructive genius, as well as for a Mustard Gas fiend, a Tank juggernaut & a flying Terror. Besides the credit for all these Bogey parts will be given to subordinates..." Gilbert Volume IV page 910. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Douglas' comment regarding Clementine, I was skim reading the paper and can now see I misread that line. Jr8825 • Talk 21:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad to be of service - I suppose I really should look up Hernon's reviews to see what exactly it was that he said! But that will have to wait for another day. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sir Henry Strakosch

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is it not mentioned that Churchill was given vast amounts of money in 1938-43 by Sir Henry Strakosch? ManvilleTranton (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Sources would need to indicate it's a notable aspect of its life. Extra caution is needed as this an antisemitic trope used by the Nazis and holocaust deniers. Jr8825 • Talk 16:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) References I thought the allegation by the Nazis was that Wall Street had financed the Russian Revolution? That was well before the 1930s. Either way, the fact that Churchill almost lost his home due to heavy debts is definitely worth mentioning. (ManvilleTranton (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC))

British education and media portrait of Churchill

British education and media's portrait of Churchill excuses his many acts against humanity, subdoly promoting racism and far right mindset to this in the UK & Europe 79.66.87.224 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Churchill-on-budget-day.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Churchill's legacy

I propose to add the following remarks to the final paragraph of the 'introduction' to Winston Churchill's page. There have been numerous reversions by users who dislike my contribution despite my contributions being consistent with historical fact. Please advise if there are any issues:

On the other his handling of events which occurred during his tenure in public office have drawn sharp criticism. These events include but are not limited to his Cabinet's involvement in the Bengal famine of 1943 in which millions perished, the incarceration of the leadership of the Indian National Congress in response to the Quit India Movement, the firebombing of Dresden in which thousands of German civilians died and the use of poison gas in the Middle East and India after World War I. Furthermore comments on the public record made by Churchill have subsequently been condemned for being imperialistic and racist in nature. CameUpStarvin' (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The lede should summarise what is stated later in the article and appropriately referenced in that later occurrence. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why 'should' it? Furthermore they are appropriately referenced in the other Wikipedia articles. CameUpStarvin' (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a terrible response and an indication that you've not actually read the Winston Churchill article. The Bengal famine is mentioned, the use of poison gas is mentioned, the firebombing of Dresden is already mentioned, that he was a 'stubborn' imperialist is mentioned, his comments on race are mentioned. The incarceration of Indian National Congress is not mentioned however it is mentioned in the Quit India article. Unless you are able to respond adequately please do not revert my contribution. CameUpStarvin' (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a terrible response, it's what a lead should be, as you would know if you had bothered to follow the link David gave. You would also I think benefit from reading WP:WEIGHT. I think it would be helpful if you could propose specific changes and your reasons for wanting them here, and then seeking consensus, rather than simply imposin them as you have been trying to do. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Responsibility for Bengal Famine

Some say that Churchill was directly responsible for the 1943 famine in Bengal, British India by deliberately moving food from Bengal for future use in Greece. This resulted in death of more than 3 million lives. 2601:151:C302:5B10:49CB:BA79:2ACC:743F (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Untitled section

A small point: There is a reference under the "Liberal MP 1904-1908" to the Orange Free State. During the period between the end of the Boer War and 1910 it was known as the Orange River Colony. 2600:1700:2EC4:580:F8F5:82AE:F075:3D9A (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it was, I have corrected the text and link accordingly. Thank you for spotting this. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Bribes

What about the allegations that Churchill received financial bribes? This should be mentioned. Ernest Severn (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It was publicly revealed before and during World War II. (Ernest Severn (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

Please provide reliable sources. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. This is likely a sockpuppet of User:HarveyCarter. If not, the behavior is the same kind of useless trolling. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Staying at the Regina Hotel in Munich, he met Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend of Hitler, who was then rising in prominence.

Although Churchill mistakenly said he stayed at the Regina Hotel in 1932, he and his family actually stayed at the Continental Hotel in Munich. 2A01:CB10:504:8600:7EF9:B28D:DCCC:6F20 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Douglas Cochrane, 12th Earl of Dundonald

Dear editors, I need help filling in a few information on Douglas Cochrane's involvement with Winston, in Douglas' autobiography; 'My Army Life' (publisher; Edward Arnold & Co, 1926), he explains how Winston galloped under his command, Douglas even mentioned that once he recommended to the war office that Winston be given an award, which was denied, in the book it reads:

"The South African Light Horse rejoined my Brigade on the evening of 26 February from Frere, having accomplished their mission. I walked over to see Colonel Byng at the bivouac of the S.A.L.H., and in course of conversation he laughed and said: "I must tell you what Winston said this evening.", Colonel Byng went on: "Winston said he wanted to get the D.S.O., as it would look so nice on the robes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He added: "I told him he must first get into Parliment, if he could get any constituency to have him!". As a matter of fact I did, when the war was over, recommend Lieutenant Winston Churchill for a reward, but he got nothing."

Later in the book he describes how after speaking with him about the same war tactics used by his grandfather (Naval officer Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald), Churchill realised the importance of using smoke-screens in battle which lead to it being used in WWI.

These information are fairly critical in the narration of Churchil's life. Hogyncymru (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Change the link for the word „Stettin“ in the quote in the „Leader of the opposition“ section to link to the correct article, titled „Szczecin“ instead of another Polish town. JustAnotherJavaProgrammer (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done DDMS123 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

"he argued that ruthless policies contradicted British values and international opinion" -> "he argued that ruthless policies contradicted British's values and international opinion." A possessive term is needed here. It's international opinion of British. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3CA7:A195:B058:E19A (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Current phrasing is grammatically correct.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Estar8806 Yes, British values are indeed correct, but the question is international opinion of whom? Ruthless policies would damage British's international opinion. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3CA7:A195:B058:E19A (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not understanding. You proposed changing "British" to "British's", which is grammatically incorrect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Estar8806 Same IP here. British's is technically correct because British is also a noun. How about changing it to "contradicted British values and its international reputation." 72.33.2.61 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Except, it's not. "British" is an adjective describing people, objects, etc. belonging to Britain. To say "Britain's values" would be correct, but "British values" is equally correct. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Estar8806 Cambridge Dictionary begs to differ. 72.33.2.61 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"the British" is a noun. "British" is just an adjective. I'm afraid there's no point in arguing this any further, the change you've asked for is not grammatically correct and therefore will not be made. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Estar8806 Your point is moot. British is also a noun whether in "the British", "a British" or "many British." I'll admit that I forgot to consider an article. 72.33.2.61 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

"he argued that ruthless policies contradicted British values and international opinion" -> "he argued that ruthless policies contradicted British values and its international reputation." The original sentence does not indicate whose international opinion are we talking about here. Hence, my sentence is better. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

But Wikipedia articles need to be based on what the cited sources support. I have read relevant passage in the cited source, which talks about alienating global opinion. Your change is not appropriate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 I thought Wikipedia wants paraphrase? It's implied that Churchill didn't want to alienate global opinion of Britain. Just because the source has bad writing (not all but one part) doesn't mean we can't paraphrase it to make it better. If you insist, how about this change, "contradicted British values and alienated its international opinion"? As its current state, international opinion of whom? Churchill, Britain or Europe? It's ambiguous. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

does not indicate whose international opinion we are talking about - Actually, it's very clear. We're talking about the international opinion, ie. the opinion of the international world. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It actually should be "international opinion of Britain", and that's currently not clear within the sentence. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not about international opinion of Britain. It's about international opinion of the policies. Churchill believed that ruthless policies contradicted "British values" and "international opinion". Nothing about this has anything to do with opinions of Britain, it's opinion on the policies. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I have a different interpretation. I respect your opinion on this. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• User:Binksternet Hi, I found your name from the last GA review. Would you kindly please take a look at my small proposal? As a neutral third party, I value your opinion. If you still disagree, I'll move on. Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've already got your third opinion from Toddy1. Your proposal has been clearly rejected, twice. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  My second proposal is rejected once and unrelated to you. Also, you're not Binksternet. I'll wait for him to respond. Thank you! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Two proposals that were essentially the same, rejected by two different editors.

  And don't hold your breath for a response. Most editors have better things to do than to re-review previously rejected edit requests. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 30, 2024 (Churchill's 150th birthday). A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-11-30. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Winston Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, during the Second World War, and again from 1951 to 1955. Apart from 1922 to 1924, he was a member of Parliament from 1900 to 1964, and represented five different constituencies. This black-and-white photograph of Churchill, titled The Roaring Lion, was taken on 30 December 1941 by the Armenian-Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. Churchill is particularly noted for his posture and facial expression in the photograph, which have been compared to the wartime feelings that prevailed in the United Kingdom – persistence in the face of an all-conquering enemy.

Photograph credit: Yousuf Karsh

Recently featured:

• The Rose of Persia
• Pomegranate

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

1923 photo?

His children look too old for this to have been in 1923. Are we sure about the date of the photo? OscarL 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)