Talk:A total and unmitigated defeat

Assessment of the effects of Churchill's praise to Hitler
If you are not in agreement with the cited conclusions of a historian as to the effects of Churchill's praise of Hitler, regardless of whether it was part of a longer missive, then post opposing references. The historian's work is cited, as well as Karl Dönitz statement about the content of the letter in his memoirs. Flybd5 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . In April 2021, had to tell you in this ANI edit about how WP:BRD operates. You are doing the same thing again and, on my talk page, accusing me of edit warring after I made one revert and gave a reason for it.
 * BRD progress in this case has been:
 * You made an edit (B).
 * I did not agree because the source cited is a blog and we need WP:RS, so I reverted (R).
 * You opened this discussion (D). So far, so good.
 * Before the discussion could get under way, you restored the content and added more, some of which is plainly WP:POV and the rest citing the views of a convicted Nazi war criminal (again, WP:RS?). I would also question the relevance of the Dönitz piece to an article about Churchill's speech?
 * You then went to my talk page and posted this message in which you accuse me of "blindly reverting your edits" (all one of them) and of "starting edit wars" (I made one single revert and gave a reason for it).
 * Because I suspect a connection between yourself and User:HarveyCarter, I have opened an SPI but that is out of scope here unless the checkuser result is positive.
 * If we are to progress this matter in accordance with due process (BRD), you must first self-revert your edits and then state your case here so that your views about accuracy, credibility, relevance and source reliability can be discussed by interested editors. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I've been pinged, here's how I see this:, you should have discussed this change and gained consensus before reinstating. Please self-revert. With regards to the source, Richard M. Langworth does appear to be a scholar, and has written on the subject of Churchill, so his self-published views may be worth mentioning in the article (this is permissible by WP:SPS). However, since this is just his personal blog, it does not carry the same weight that something like a peer-reviewed scholarly article or monograph would. If the consensus is to include, it should probably be attributed to Langworth rather than asserted as fact. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not self-revert, because Karl Dönitz' comments on the matter precede Langsworth's by decades. If the community wants to dispute Dönitz's comments, let them provide evidence that his own statement was wrong. "Controversial" does not translate to "revert and discuss". Facts are facts, regardless of whom they cause grief by their disclosure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flybd5 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That is a sensible approach. I accept Langworth's reputation, btw, but his view on this occasion is controversial and needs wider sourcing. Plus, we need to consider if it is relevant to this article, the scope of which is a speech by Churchill about the Munich Agreement. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)