Talk:The Second World War (book series)/Archive 1

Is Anything Going To Be Done About This Article?
For example, Churchill didn't resume office in 1939.One minor and a major fallacy in a single sentence. I also can't understand what the phrase "then beginning" at the end of this sentence mean.Therefore I edit it a little bit but still leave that "then beginning" remain there because I totally don't understand its usage in that sentence. (First line of "Writing") -- An d Re w 03:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the title should be changed to "The Second World War (Book)" and not "(Churchill)".-- An d Re w 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance work required
I tagged this in response to the following comment left on the Village Pump under the title "Worst Article EVER!" I'd tend to agree that this needs work. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A whole MESS of supposition, conjecture, and unsupported critique. That article is essentially a rant. The critical conjecture in it should be supported with source materials, the pastiches of facts should have supporting articles as well. Its a 750 word article without a single supporting reference. Nor is there a single mention of the Nobel Prize that the 6 books were largely responsible for him winning. No wonder academics like me think of Wikipedia as best suited for cataloging episodes of Three's Company. 71.102.49.157 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

a good source for references on Churchill controversies regarding "The Second World War" http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=83 71.102.49.157 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Nobel prizes for literature are not awarded for specific books, so the assertion that it was awarded chiefly because of this work is speculation. It would be legitimate to include, but it should be attributed to whoever makes that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of deficiencies in this article. First, it has the tone of a book review in which the reviewer did not share the political views of the author. Second, while the work identified was one of the most important war histories of the Twentieth Century, very little is actually said about it. Third, the work identified was published in six volumes, which are named, but nothing whatsoever is said about the contents of each. The article is not impartial, says little about the book series is concerns, and fails to provide any substantive account of the actual contents of the series. Russcannon (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed yet. Article still reads like a personal point of view and there should be many more inline citations. For example, contentious statements like "was...still intending to return to office", "Churchill's history thus became a semi-official one" definitely need inline citation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the source and so, can't verify these.  S Pat   talk 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Was still intending" - any bio of Churchill will confirm. "Semi-official" - that's a good point, it's POV and should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, the specific fact tags are vastly to be preferred to the big hunking POV tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates
What were the dates of publication of the separate volumes? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added dates. Drutt (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Photograph
For this article, I would much prefer a photograph of the books, which I note on the web there are quite a few. Churchill is the author, yes, but pictures of him can be seen on the article about him. --BSTemple (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll look for a picture of the six volume set. Churchillreader (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hope the photo of my 12-vol paperback copy is OK for you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not neutral at all
Could this article possibly poormouth this series any more than it does? This is a mess. I'm tagging it for now, maybe I'll take a crack at rewriting it later.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To poormouth means to deprecate, I guess? By all means contribute, especially if that means filling in some of the 'citations needed' gaps. If you have a (more positive?) point of view yourself, please be careful. Remember that Churchill still has an enormous (positive) reputation, so any article on him has a duty to point out the balancing negatives where these exist. However, I agree with you that this article needs better citations. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * David Reynolds excellent book In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War makes pretty much the same criticisms as this article, and much more (though he also notes the strengths of the series). Churchill was obviously in an odd position when he 'wrote' the books (Reynolds demonstrates that a high proportion of them were written by others), and this greatly limits their use to modern readers. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article would be greatly improved by adding refs to Reynolds, with page numbers, for the missing citations. This would go much of the way to removing the neutrality issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, here's where we are - have added refs to Keegan; TLS on Churchill's "vast" earnings; and Reynolds is also listed. I think we have pretty much covered the bases so have removed the POV tag, hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)