Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 14

When did Churchill loose his hair?
This picture, dated to "1900's":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winston_Churchill_1874_-_1965_Q113382.jpg

Has the following caption:

"A young Winston Churchill on a lecture tour of the United States in 1900".

In this picture, Churchill clearly has a full head of hair.

In the following picture, dated 1904, Churchill has major frontal recession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Churchill_1904_Q_42037.jpg

Obviously, based on his hairloss, we can conclude the first picture was taken before the second, thus dating the first picture prior to 1904 (but after 1 Jan 1900). This begs the question -- did Churchill have any underlying medical condition during this time to cause this rapid hair loss? This is really a cosmetically significant amount of hair loss to occur only in four years time. Is it known what condidtion he was suffering at the time of his hair loss, and should it be documeted in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this more, and maybe his alcoholism is related to his hair loss? Do we know when Churchill became a heavy Scotch drinker?  (I bet it was between the 1900-04 period when he started losing his hair.)  Most alcoholics seem to age faster/wrinkle and lose their hair prematurely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we know when Churchill became a heavy Scotch drinker? According to the man himself, over five days in August 1897, at Nowshera.

The General took only five days to coax and quell the Bunerwals, but it seemed a very long time to me. I endeavoured to turn it to the best advantage. I acquired an entirely new faculty. Until this time I had never been able to drink whisky. I disliked the flavour intensely. I could not understand how so many of my brother officers were so often calling for a whisky and soda. I liked wine, both red and white, and especially champagne; and on very special occasions I could even drink a small glass of brandy. But this smoky-tasting whisky I had never been able to face. I now found myself in heat which, though I stood it personally fairly well, was terrific, for five whole days and with absolutely nothing to drink, apart from tea, except either tepid water or tepid water with lime-juice or tepid water with whisky. Faced with these alternatives I 'grasped the larger hope.' I was sustained in these affairs by my high morale. Wishing to fit myself for active-service conditions I overcame the ordinary weaknesses of the flesh. By the end of these five days I had completely overcome my repugnance to the taste of whisky. Nor was this a momentary acquirement. On the contrary the ground I gained in those days I have firmly entrenched, and held throughout my whole life. Once one got the knack of it, the very repulsion from the flavour developed an attraction of its own; and to this day, although I have always practised true temperance, I have never shrunk when the occasion warranted it from the main basic standing refreshment of the white officer in the East.


 * Opera hat (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

He did indeed go bald in his thirties and was facially middle-aged by his late thirties. However, this is not entirely uncommon and not necessarily a sign of illness. Prince William is in his early thirties and seems to be losing a lot of hair. I even had a friend at university who was balding at eighteen and was often mistaken for a mature student. According to Roy Jenkins, Churchill was still relatively vigorous and youthful in gait until about 1930 (his mid fifties) when he began to age dramatically and carry himself like an older man.Paulturtle (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That Churchill should appear older than he was when in his thirties may have been influenced by his periods from age 21 in the tropics on military service and journalistic work. (Avoiding sunstroke and heat related sickness was more important a consideration than effects on skin have come to be in our greater consciousness of UV rays in skin cancer.) The cosmetic ageing would have been more noticeable among his working class contemporaries.Cloptonson (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't think I've ever come across a biography making that claim (happy to be corrected) and his father had a similar hair loss pattern at a similar age (photos easy to find online). The original claim was that he was a heavy Scotch drinker to the point of affecting his health, which I suspect is probably nonsense. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts (even one by Eisenhower during the war) that Churchill deliberately cultivated an image as a heavy drinker by sipping from a very weak glass of whisky ("little more than mouthwash") all day, rather like the cigars which he constantly relit because he never actually smoked them all that much. Apart from that he seems to have drunk a few glasses of wine and champagne most days. There were occasions on which he seems to have "dined rather well", e.g. for some of his wartime speeches, but one simply does not come across stories of him being completely drunk the way one does about Asquith or F.E.Smith, both of them men of high intellect who for years were able to function drunk until the drink got the better of them like it does for everybody in the end.Paulturtle (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * He was clearly starting to lose his hair at the temples in the photograph from 1900. (Varislie (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC))

60 millions of Hindu killed by Churchill
Ethnic cleansing commited by him should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.136.107 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When did that happen? And how? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this can only refer to the Bengal famine of 1943. 60 million was the total population of Bengal at the time. About 3 million people died (many of whom were actually Muslim rather than Hindu). Quite horrible enough without hysterical hyperbole, of course.


 * There exists some controversy about policy that allowed this to happen, and Churchill's part in this, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time. This is in fact "mentioned" - read the section "Indian Independence" which as well as covering the Bengal famine, also makes it quite clear exactly why the Indian people are in fact entitled to have a jaundiced view of Churchill. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anything else was going on in 1943. Maybe Churchill got a little distracted? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Point is that what the OP is referring to is well and truly "mentioned" - i.e. his implication that the article is "biased" is nonsense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Farming
In the late 1940s Churchill was a keen farmer and was a member of the National Farmers Union. He owned two farms in Kent, including Chartwell Farm and Bardogs Farm close to the summit of Toys Hill. See BBC's Countryfile. He was also a member, along with Clementine, of the Kent Beekeepers' Association. 86.175.158.99 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

V for Victory sign
The IWM V for Victory sign photo was taken of Churchill on his return from the Third Washington Conference (TRIDENT) Washington, D.C. in May 1943 -- not in 1940. I was prompted to research the date as I remember reading that he took to the hand gesture V sign later in the war not early on. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign Section 2.1 "in July 1941, Churchill referred approvingly to the V for Victory campaign in a speech, from which point he started using the V hand sign. Early on he sometimes gestured palm in (sometimes with a cigar between the fingers). Later in the war, he used palm out." With this in mind I shall move the positioning of the image and date it accordingly -- Brenont (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110401025251/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/infantry/regiments/4598.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/4598.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox split
I am confused over the reason for the infobox split, also it makes thing look strange as the 2 boxes are different widths. Keith D (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the width problem, but the reason why is easy to figure out Dave Rave (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Who first taught Winston Churchill to paint is inaccurate
The article states "Churchill was persuaded and taught to paint by his artist friend, Paul Maze, whom he met during the First World War. Maze was a great influence on Churchill's painting and became a lifelong painting companion" There is no mention of Lady Lavery.

Many other credible sources give initial credit to Sir John Lavery's wife Hazel Lavery, both John and Hazel were friends with Winston, to be the one who discovered him timidly painting on his own for the first time and gave him his first actual instructions and lessons that made him confident enough to really go for it. Then, yes, Paul Maze was who Winston first confidently painted along side and Paul Maze was his lifetime friend and artistic mentor.

Can we add the initial bit about Hazel Lavery? It seems inaccurate to not include her at all. Even in Winston's own book in his own words, Painting as a pastime, he credits Hazel for teaching him how to "address a blank canvas" when he first started painting on his own. This initial lesson with her unlocked his talents and gave him confidence and this moment with Hazel is what he considers the moment he became a painter. We don't know how many early, private, friendly lessons she gave him but there were several according to his own account, her account and Sir John's account. Paul Maze may have given Winston many more lessons than Hazel, but it is not accurate to say Paul was the first one who taught Winston how to paint.

Sources that credit Hazel with first teaching Winston to paint:

Tara Smith  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarabethsmith (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Both John Lavery and Hazel Lavery have articles and the evidence seems compelling. In fact there might be enough in these excellent sources for a separate article on Churchill as artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly enough material to justify an article on Churchill as an artist, although I don't really know enough about that aspect of his life to contribute towards it myself.Paulturtle (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling him by his military rank in the lead is plain silly!
I am astounded that anyone could have considered this for a moment (in fact I concede that there may be a humorous or satiric element here). Churchill is known primarily as a "statesman" (if "politician" is too sullied a word) - and secondly as a writer. His military career is by comparison a mere detail or afterthought - and not marked by any outstanding achievement, especially not one to compare with either of his other careers (political and literary). He left the army holding a very junior substantive rank - and rejoined it during the First World War as a relatively junior and totally unremarkable battalion commander. Interesting enough to be included in any encyclopedia article, but certainly not to be promoted to the first word in the lead paragraph thereof! Have a heart, please. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. What's next - Captain Ashdown, perhaps? Or maybe Lieutenant Mitchell?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking precedents on this one Martin! Indeed, it seems that other politicians who have held military rank (including Hitler) also follow this pattern. Common sense, one would have thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if anyone's in any doubt then the List of military veterans in British politics might come in handy. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that page currently lists Andrew Mitchell as a RN lieutenant, which is news to me. My understanding is that he did a Short Service Limited Commission (aka "Gap Year Second Lieutenant" before going up to university) in a tank unit. "Second Lieutenant Mitchell" has an amusingly satirical ring to it, I must confess.

But to return to the issue in hand, Churchill was briefly called "Colonel Churchill" in Hansard in 1916 when he was an active backbencher, but other than that did not use his military rank in civilian life. (I'd have to check whether he was ever a substantive full colonel or whether he wore that insignia apropos of one of his honorary appointments, like his air commodore uniform, to mention the two uniforms which he used to wear in WW2). Lots of ex-officer MPs did use their ranks in the 1920s, e.g. Major Attlee, Captains Eden and Macmillan. David Margesson the Chief Whip was, I think, known as "Captain Margesson" for a lot longer than that. But Churchill was not known by his rank. People are funny about which honours they prize and which they despise, e.g. Charles de Gaulle who insisted on remaining a brigadier until the end of his days, and specifically refused posthumous honours. Churchill had no interest in a peerage, but fully intended to remain an MP until the day he died, and was only with great difficulty persuaded to retire in autumn 1964 when he had long been incapable of attending the House of Commons or working (see Martin Gilbert Vol 8 for a sad and moving account of his long twilight years). Maybe if he'd become a general in WW1 as he craved, he might have used the title, like Eric Geddes who was known as "General Geddes" for the rest of his career. But calling him "Lt-Colonel Churchill" is simply not normal usage.Paulturtle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How very reassuring to hear someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking
There is so much distracting blue in this article, particularly in the first several paragraphs, that it becomes exacting to read. Is it really necessary to link words such as "officer", or lieutenant-colonel", etc.? Eliminating the blue of a few dozen words would make this article a little more user-friendly.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Historian?
"Amateur" implies something "done for love" (i.e. unpaid). As an historian, Churchill might at times be "academically "impure", or "popular" (in a mildly pejorative sense), but not really "amateur". Perhaps "the author of autobiography, memoirs and popular historical works"? But all historians have their quirks really - I can't see what is that wrong with just calling him an historian, especially in the lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Amateur" also implies lesser quality. Actually his multi-volume works on Marlborough and the two world wars are pretty substantial, were assembled from the drafts of teams of researchers, and have been the subject of academic commentary teasing out what he got right and where his arguments need to be treated with caution.Paulturtle (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Churchill bombed the Germans before they bombed England
I wish Wikipedia would stop censoring this vital fact. Censorship doesn't make it less true. Please put something in the article acknowledging this fact. Harvizzle Cartizzle (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what fact you think we are censoring, I dont think there was any requirement for the Germans to bomb England first as the declaration of war was related to the invasion of Poland. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to read Strategic bombing during World War II and then come back here if you still think "Wikipedia is censoring this vital fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I seem to remember reading that the first strategic bombing raids were carried out by Germany on England in January 1915; several years before Churchill bombed Germany in May 1940.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The British bombed Cologne and Dusseldorf in September 1914, four months before the first Zeppelin raids on England. The "We shall never surrender" section should mention that Churchill ordered the RAF to begin bombing German cities on 11 May 1940. However it was Chamberlain who first bombed Germany on the night of 3 September 1939. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC))


 * David, you are attempting to answer a question that hasn't been asked. The statement was "Churchill bombed the Germans before they (the Germans) bombed England". As Churchill didn't order the bombings in 1914 or any bombing of Germany prior to May 1940 the initial statement is untrue. I am not against adding a short statement to say Churchill ordered the bombing of Germany in 1940 but anything more would be undue; this is an article about Churchill, not who bombed who first.--Ykraps (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Churchill was an advocate of the aerial bombing of Germany in 1914. The fact that the RAF began bombing German cities in May 1940 needs to be mentioned as it led directly to the Blitz. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Well I don't think we can hold Churchill responsible for the September 1914 bombings whether he agreed with them or not. Nor do I think we can say that the May 1940 bombings led directly to the Blitz because to my mind, that is the same as saying the Germans would not have bombed England had they not been provoked, and I'm fairly certain they would've. I have already said what I think is an acceptable addition to the article, what is the precise wording you wish to add?--Ykraps (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I just think the section should say that Churchill instructed RAF Bomber Command to begin bombing Germany on 11 May 1940 in response to the invasion of France and the Low Countries. It's debatable whether the Germans would have bombed England without provocation, British Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry J.M Spaight wrote in his 1944 book "Bombing Vindicated" that the attacks on German cities from May to August 1940 did cause Hitler to launch the Blitz. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Well it's a moot point I'm sure. Your suggested wording however seems perfectly agreeable so if you have a reliable source to back it up, feel free to insert it into the article.--Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you think any change is needed in this article? Would any new sources be required? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are multiple online sources mentioning the attack on Monchengladbach on 11 May 1940 which marked the beginning of the British bombing of German cities. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC))


 * I don't think anyone is disputing that. But did you now read the point made by Ykraps above? (Note that Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty until May 1915, is not mentioned at Strategic bombing during World War II). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that that article would benefit from having a similar sentence inserted? The article seems quite clear that "The RAF bombed German warships and light vessels in several harbours on 3 and 4 September", "Germany's first strikes were not carried out until 16 and 17 October 1939, against the British fleet at Rosyth and Scapa Flow" and "The RAF bombed Mönchengladbach on the night of 11/12 May 1940, while Bomber Command attempted to hit roads and rail near the Dutch-German border; four people were killed", all from the "The Western Front, 1939 to June 1940" sub-section, and in the "Policy at the start of the war" section, it says "The British changed their policy on 15 May 1940, one day after the German bombing of Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr Area" and "The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 15/16 May 1940 while the Battle of France was still continuing". It is true it doesn't mention Churchill by name but one might assume that when the article talks about Britain did this, the RAF did such and such, and bomber command decided to..., that the go ahead was given by Churchill, or to be more precise, the war cabinet. I'm not against changing anything, just wondering if it's necessary.--Ykraps (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I wasn't suggesting inserting anything. A fair assumption, but yes it would have been the war cabinet, and thus, if anyone's decision, the Prime Minister's. If we had a good source that said "Churchill ordered ..." or even "Churchill pressed ...", that would be different. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Churchill most certainly did personally order the September 1914 bombings of Zeppelin works, and it was done by the RNAS, and the German bombing of England in WW1 was, at least in name, in retaliation for British schrecklichkeit (see p.20 of Richard Overy “The Bombing War”). As far as I can see though, the Sep 1914 bombings were an attempt (doubtless comically unsuccessful) to knock out a military target, unlike much of the strategic bombing in WW2 which was aimed very deliberately at killing civilians under various pretexts (that they were industrial workers, that it would help bring about German collapse, that the Germans deserved it because of Warsaw and Rotterdam etc).


 * I haven’t come across anything that specifically says that Churchill personally ordered the Monchengladbach bombing, only that Chamberlain had been against it out of concern that it would provoke retaliation. As far as I can see it was more a case of letting Bomber Command take the gloves off and do what they had always wanted to do, in other words Churchill lifted the veto when he became PM rather than personally initiating it. Unless anyone comes across an authoritative work which says otherwise.


 * And yes, it is “debatable” whether the Germans would have bombed Britain if we hadn’t “started it”, although once it was underway other factors came into play, e.g. it was part of the attempt to bully Britain into suing for peace in 1940. The Germans for their part thought that we deserved it because they had never forgotten the Allied naval blockade in WW1, which killed elderly and infant Germans long before it had any serious impact on the German war effort, and which had been kept in place – by then allegedly causing real starvation, although that too is a bit of a moot point – long after the armistice, until Germany signed the Versailles Treaty.


 * I did start preparing some material on “Churchill and bombing” last spring following discussion on this page as there is obviously a fair bit to be said on the topic – his bloodthirstiness for much of the war then pangs of conscience towards the end etc - but it’s on hold and nowhere near the top of the pile at the moment. One day …Paulturtle (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's highly unlikely the Germans would have bothered to bomb British cities if the RAF had not already bombed German cities. Hitler did not even start bombing RAF fighter bases until 8th August 1940 - three months after the attacks on Germany had started. For some reason an urban myth developed about the Germans bombing Britain first, when in reality the reverse was true. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC))


 * It's hardly surprising that "urban myths" develop in times of war. That is after all, the main purpose of the various departments of government propaganda. Burning seas is another area where the myth was much more impressive than the reality. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This Telegraph article says the raid on Monchengladbach on 11 May 1940 was personally ordered by Churchill: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html Perhaps it could be added to the "We Shall Never Surrender" section? (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Well that's quite unequivocal: "(the day after he dramatically became prime minister)". Although it's only a newspaper article, Dominic Selwood must be one of the strongest possible sources for this? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Selwood is definitely a reliable source. However if there is any doubt as to whether Churchill personally gave the order, the section could just say that the RAF began bombing German cities on 11 May 1940. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Selwood is indeed a reliable historian, but this is a newspaper article and I think the phrase “on Churchill’s orders” may be poor choice of words in a swiftly-written piece.


 * Richard Overy, whom Selwood rightly points out is the up-to-date authority, doesn’t really attribute Monchengladbach to Churchill personally, let alone to any new initiative which he ordered. Churchill’s enthusiasm for bombing came a bit later.


 * Martin Gilbert (Vol 6) doesn’t really have Churchill doing anything much on 11 May apart from a couple of War Cabinet meetings at which nothing much of note seems to have been discussed. Maybe he was gathering his thoughts about which job to offer people over the next few days, maybe he was having lots of handover meetings which don’t show up in the document trail. Gilbert does, however, have the War Cabinet discussing the pros and cons of bombing the Ruhr over the days which followed (Samuel Hoare, of all people, seems to have been quite keen on it – 11 May was his last day in office before Churchill sacked him), with the general tenor being Churchill going along with the wishes of the majority rather than pushing any new line, although he did argue that the Germans had done so much bombing of their own by then that they need not worry about offending US opinion. However, Gilbert is for all his voluminousness not necessarily a complete record, and there may be other records which he did not include. Absence of proof is not proof of absence etc.


 * Still, the comments of the Selwood article are a good laugh, with various people rattling off all the old porkies about how Dresden was a military target (full of “industry”, important transport hub, full of soldiers – in fact hardly any soldiers were killed) despite being told that the RAF didn’t really see it as such, and that anyone who claims otherwise must be a “blinkered spineless revisionist” etc etc.Paulturtle (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's just occurred to me that Sam Hoare was Air Secretary and like many service ministers before and since may well have seen his role as acting as mouthpiece for the top brass, besides any feeling that being as gung ho as possible in wartime couldn't do him any harm at a time when his sparring partner over India from a decade previously was just taking office and quite likely to drop him.Paulturtle (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As there were no objections I have added a line on this into the article. Given the later controversy over civilian bombing it's important that we should mention when it started. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Oh great. So Nick-D bombed the Churchill article before we bombed NIck-D? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Suez Canal Base Agreement
Should this be mentioned somewhere? (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC))


 * It's touched on under "Stroke and Resignation". It wasn't really much to do with Churchill - he was no longer playing much active part in government by then. He did lobby President Eisenhower to lean on the Egyptians to sign during his last trip (as PM) to the USA that summer.Paulturtle (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Looks like someone else just got blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know, he was hobbyhorsing about this topic on Harold Macmillan's talk page a month or so ago. Still, I'll always give somebody one courteous answer ...Paulturtle (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Censorship?
How come the article doesn't mention that Churchill bombed Germany first in May 1940? Is there some kind of censorship going on here? (92.15.205.134 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC))


 * No, no censorship. And would you care to elaborate? Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Churchill began bombing German cities in May 1940, four months before the London Blitz started. I'm kind of shocked this isn't mentioned in the article. (92.15.205.134 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Why would it even be relevant? In May 1940, the UK and Germany had been at war for almost a year. By that time, the Germans had already terror bombed cities in several other countries, it's not like the war or the bombing started then. Jeppiz (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Germans only bombed military targets in Poland and Holland. Churchill's decision to start bombing German cities on 11 May 1940 led directly to the Blitz. (92.15.205.134 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC))


 * That is of course utter nonsense, the Germans raised Rotterdam to the ground. However, none of that matters. What matters here is reliable sources. If you can provide books or articles by respected historians (no blogs, forums or self-publish books will do) to support your view, please do so. Any attempt to abuse this talk page as a forum will be removed, it is only about how to improve the article by using reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No they didn't and the aerial photographs prove how light the bombing in Rotterdam was. And that happened three days after the RAF began bombing German cities. Dominic Selwood says Churchill began civilian bombing in World War II, so this wikipedia article on Churchill should tell the truth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html The RAF began bombing German cities on 11 May 1940 as a result of Churchill replacing Chamberlain as Prime Minister, not as a result of the Rotterdam Blitz which happened three days after the RAF had bombed Monchengladbach. (92.15.205.134 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC))
 * The attack on road and rail communications behind German lines on 11 May 1940 has no relevance to this article and was part of a strategy decided before Churchill came to power. Not relevant to Churchill either, but to answer your point Churchill started it, the Germans had attacked civilian targets in Poland before May 1940. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is now at least the third time this topic, or something similar to it, has come up, presumably raised by the same person. I really think enough is enough. I said I'd write something in the article at some stage but that it wasn't going to be just yet, so if this comes up again I'm just going to refer people back to this.


 * In a nutshell: accusing Mr Anonymous of forumising is a little unfair, since he or somebody like him did attempt to add Monchengladbach to the article, but no, nobody is censoring the page. Yes, it is true that Monchengladbach was “crossing a (perhaps somewhat legalistic) line” although not really, it seems to me, one which British leaders were all that bothered about at the time. Deciding to bomb the Ruhr (east of the Rhine) a few days later was another. It is also true that the German bombing of parts of Warsaw and Rotterdam, both of them seriously exaggerated in both sides’ propaganda at the time, was technically (in modern parlance) collateral damage in a zone of ground fighting. Ditto Wielun in September 1939. The oft-repeated claim that British bombing was a response to Rotterdam is largely false and is not supported by documentary evidence. There is some truth in the claim that the Blitz was a response to RAF bombing of Germany, but it is not the whole story. The topic is of some relevance to Churchill, however Dominic Selwood exaggerates if he claims that Churchill “ordered” the bombing campaign on becoming Prime Minister – throughout 1940 there was gradual tit-for-tat escalation to which Churchill was party, but Area Bombing – deliberate flattening of German cities and killing civilians under the pretext that they were industrial workers or in the hope of causing a German morale collapse – was still a couple of years in the future.


 * There are a few dubious claims about this kind of thing on Wikipedia, e.g. claims that the Germans deliberately bombed hospitals, synagogues etc in Poland, or the claim that Germans bombed French towns on night of 9/10 May 1940, cited to the “Miami Daily News” at the time (hardly a reliable source, I mean really). My comments below are cited to Richard Overy “The Bombing War”, which is the up to date 800 page scholarly account, not some book with a silly title like “Eagle over the West” by some bloke who knows more about the performance characteristics of ME-109s and ME-110s than about decisions taken by politicians and top brass. Bold in others’ arguments is my added emphasis. My interjections are shown [thus].


 * pp.238-9 “both sides at first stuck to the pledge not to attack targets in cities where civilians were at risk (though this did not prevent the German Air Force from killing non-combatants during its operations in Poland)”. [I think he is referring specifically and perhaps somewhat legalistically to bombing other than in support of ground operations here – although he does not mention the bombing of Frampol, and I’d be interested to know his thoughts on that matter] In September 1939 Chamberlain turned down Polish appeals that Britain bomb Germany - out of worry at retaliation on British towns. “For the first months of the war Bomber Command strained at the leash”. Britain and France negotiated a half-hearted agreement to bomb the Ruhr if the Germans “threatened” Belgium or “decisively” menaced Franco-German forces. (cited to a 15 November 1939 brief for the Secretary of State for Air for the Supreme War Council – an Anglo-French body which had been set up in November 1917). However, it was “the British who ended the international embargo agreed in September” by attacking industrial and transport targets in Monchengladbach, killing 4 people.


 * pp.243-4 [Bombing targets where civilians were likely to be at risk, entirely divorced from ground operations] “was a threshold that had to be crossed consciously.” Chamberlain had been opposed, but Churchill had no objections (he had supported Trenchard’s long range bombing force in late WW1, and an independent RAF in the early 1920s). “A government headed by Churchill rather than Chamberlain was always more likely to endorse a bombing campaign.” It was because of the Battle of France, not a response to the bombing of Rotterdam three days later - Rotterdam was not even mentioned in the War Cabinet discussions of 12, 13 and 15 May (the ones I mentioned in the previous discussion).


 * pp.83-5 Between mid-May and September there were 103 British bombing raids on German cities. In August the RAF flew twice as many night-time sorties as the Luftwaffe flew over the UK, and were so inaccurate (many bombs landed in rural areas) and ineffective that the Germans couldn’t figure out any rationale and wrongly thought the British were deliberately killing civilians per se [that came later!!]. This caused German civilian anger, especially after memories of the WW1 naval blockade. [On 24 August the Germans bombed London by accident, after which Churchill gave permission to bomb Berlin] Revenge for the Berlin raids of late August was part of the explanation for Hitler’s Blitz on London - Hitler lifted his veto on bombing London after taking it as what his Air Force adjutant von Below called “a calculated insult”. The 7 September attack on London was mainly aimed at port and transport infrastructure but it was also part of the half-hearted plans to invade England at some stage in September and/or bomb Britain back to the conference table (to use the phrase which Nixon and Kissinger used in late 1972).


 * The most, I think, that one can say is that Churchill raised no objection to the RAF’s escalation of the air war in early May 1940 and throughout the year, but plenty of other politicians were also willing to let Bomber Command do their thing. There is a fair bit to be said about Churchill and bombing – in particular how he was an enthusiast for Area Bombing in the mid to late war, then, politician that he was, sensed the way the wind was blowing and had qualms later on when key opinion formers began to have public doubts about the bombing of Dresden, a city of minimal military significance (whatever fibs were told immediately afterwards and which some people are still silly enough to believe) flattened at a time when German collapse was clearly only a matter of a few more months. But decisions taken in May 1940 are only a very small part of the story.Paulturtle (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Misquoted text: truncation/insertion/overinterpretation
In the Sudan paragraph we can find the quotation:

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

The quote is truncated without notifying the reader, and additions have been made to it.

Anyone can read the text here: page 249

The correct and complete text includes: 1- after "qualities": "Thousands become the brave an loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence..." 2- after "every step": there is a semicolon, not a comma. This is important as a semicolon indicates the separation between two independant clauses 3- the portion starting with "the science" and ending with "struggled", is delimited by Em dashes, not commas. Em dashes in this context act as parenthesis 4- "(Islam)" has been inserted after "the science which it" 5- The reader has not been notified of these edits

Please understand that I'm not nitpicking here. These edits to a controversial quote susbstantially modify its meaning and context. Point 1 omits the context of Churchill being at war with some Muslims -therefore sees most of them as adversaries- and finds those of them fighting for the British a redeeming quality. In point 2, omitting the semicolon depicts the two parts of the sentence as dependent. Finally, point 4 deliberately places a word in Churchill's writing, against the meaning of the quote, as marked by the original punctuation.

Also, if this quote were to stay, it would be beneficial to state its context. It came after his engine failed in the wilderness, in the middle of a war, and after his "native" engine driver said "But who should say Allah had not some wise purpose?"

Futhermore, I wonder how such a quote is allowed on the page, and occupies so much of the space dedicated to the Sudan war, while numerous requests that have made to state Churchill's controversial race/ethinicity related quotes have been turned down as non-relevant, for the reason that "everyone thought like him at that at the time"?

19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)~
 * The insertion of the word '(Islam)' is not just unjustified, but shows a misunderstanding of Churchill's meaning, which is that *Christianity*, not Islam, had vainly struggled against science. (Incidentally it is 'had' and not 'has'.)109.150.75.126 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The parenthetical insertion of "Islam" was wrong, because Churchill was saying that Christianity was superior to Islam in that it was protected from irrationality by the "strong arms of science", despite Christianity having fought against science. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: quote removed
When it comes to Western leaders, the majority view is that their controversial comments about race/religion/ethinicity are merely a sign of their time and therefore not notable.

I can live with that unwritten rule, as long as it is applied to all of their controversial quotes.

As previously mentioned, the River War quote about Muslims is not relevant to the Sudan war paragraph, and occupies over 50% of it, which is very disproportionate. Furthermore, as I previously pointed out: the quote has been modified to sound more damning to Muslims, and the same pattern has been noted in The River War page. This quote has been used by far right groups (in its modified form) in their anti-Muslim campaigns. I don't believe Wikipedia's spirit is compatible with such manipulation.

I would support reintroducing this quote in a paragraph dedicated to Churchill's controversial views on "savages", "uncivilized races", "mongrels", Blacks, Indians, Kurds and there are plenty of them. This would also include the Indians famine and his concentration camps in Kenya and South Africa. The reason being: first to be fair, and second to give perspective on the man's supremacist views and actions, therefore providing the non-expert reader with tools to understand and put them in context.

Cafnas (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest to reintroduce the unmodified, right quotation. In my opinion, it is relevant because it shows Churchill's belief in reason, rather than religion, and his warning that were it not for science and reason, religion (Christianity, Islam, or any other religion) would pose a real danger to Western civilization. The quote is indeed damning to the Islamic religion, but not to individual Muslims, that is the whole point he is trying to make here. In a time when religious extremism is growing worldwide, it is a relevant and interesting quote, that readers have a right to know, in my opinion. The fact that far right groups may or may not use this quote to warn against Islam, should not be a reason not to publish this quote, however. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1945 Caretaker Ministry
For those who take an interest in this kind of thing, I just added a quote which I came across to the sub-article, which sheds a bit of light on Churchill's reluctant acceptance of the nickname by which that brief and little-remembered administration came to be known.Paulturtle (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War - anachronistic reference
This page states, under his Military Career, Churchill came to Bangalore in 1896 as a young army officer, before leaving three years later for the North West Frontier to fight in the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

This is an anachronism, as the Second Anglo-Afhan War lasted 1878-80, long before he even entered the army and when he was still a child. "Three years" following 1896 came 1899 - the first year of the Second Anglo-Boer War, in which he DID serve.Cloptonson (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Churchill was due to be asked to retire in 1952
I am not sure this has already been discussed in this well-archived talk page but I recall in 1986 a biography of George VI which had not many years been published, but whose author I forgot, that there was concern after the Conservatives won the 1951 election about Churchill's health and that someone (I cannot recall who) had privately approached the king, who had recently had his lung removal operation, asking the latter to invite Churchill to retire (which would have made way for a new party leader to become Prime Minister instead) and that the king agreed to do this in "the new year" (1952) as he had "the constitutional prestige" (the biographer's words I recall) to make that approach. This was forestalled by the death of the king in February of 1952. I wonder if anyone with access to that biography could find this out. At the time I recall thinking the king's death cost the nation a few more years under a prime minister whose health continued to deteriorate. The book may have been published in the early 1980s as any record of the approach may have been subject to the 30 year rule.Cloptonson (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did a fair bit of reading about the 1950s ministry last year and this year, and also a lot about Anthony Eden, about whom I have reams and reams of notes ready for a major article build-out when I manage to clear the diary enough to actually write it. I haven't come across this, which does not of course mean it didn't happen, but does suggest that if it did happen it wasn't of major importance. Churchill's capacity for work was a lot less than it had been in 1940 (even by the time of Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 he was exhausted, prone to waste time on rambling discussion and no longer capable of digesting much in the way of paperwork) but his will to power and capacity for blazing, red-in-the-face rows with anyone who crossed him were still pretty formidable. Eden had insisted on the title Deputy Prime Minister but was perfectly happy to get stuck into his job of Foreign Secretary for at least a while. I suspect Churchill would have brushed the King's suggestion aside. There was iirc an unspoken assumption that he would step down after a year or so, but as is so often the case, both with Gladstone in his second 1880-5 ministry and a certain more recent Labour Prime Minister, endless excuses were found to postpone his retirement (staying on for the Coronation, Eden's near-death on the operating table, the elusive summit).Paulturtle (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have today located the biography, by Dennis Judd (first published 1982) and found that no one had approached the King but Judd states the King was giving consideration while his own health was recovering, explaining that Churchill had had one stroke and was already slowing down. George VI felt it was time for Churchill to make way for Anthony Eden, who was the obvious heir to the premiership. Since none of Churchill's cabinet colleagues stood a chance of persuading him to stand down for Eden only the King had the necessary prestige to undertake the delicate task of suggesting that the time had arrived for Churchill's retirement. He decided that he would broach the subject in the new year. Judd does not mention that the king did do this. Unlike many other contemporary biographers, Judd does not give any reference footnotes. I may work this into the page's narrative.Cloptonson (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added the detail into the page, with the relevant passage quoted in the footnote.Cloptonson (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016
Please add authorlink=Roy Jenkins to the recently-added citation supporting *fact* that Sir Winston was an anglican.

174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is not formatted properly. It should just be "Jenkins, p.49." He's already linked as the author in the existing Secondary source. 86.187.172.92 (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of Roy Jenkins immediately to hand. I've just added some stuff about how Churchill was influenced by Winwood Reade, of which I have a copy kicking around somewhere but have never actually read. Reade is sometimes described as a secularist but seems to me to have been more of a Deist, assuming his wiki article is accurate. If Churchill was an Anglican at all, he was a very lukewarm one, and more likely he simply paid occasional lip service to religion in the way that politicians do, presumably thinking the Church A Good Thing in general even if sensible people didn't believe much of what Attlee later called "the mumbo-jumbo". Those who know their late Victorian political history will of course recognise the issues about which they got so worked up, including the issue of non-denominational teaching in schools (a compromise infuriating to Anglicans, whilst both they and inner-city Catholics tended to wanted their own teachers; conversely Nonconformists came to resent taxpayers' money being spent on CofE Schools, an issue which exploded in 1902 as Churchill's career was kicking off, helping to cost the Unionists the 1906 election, and was not finally resolved until CofE Schools were effectively nationalised in the Butler Act of 1944 when he was Prime Minister; I wrote up Rab Butler's biog last autumn and there is some stuff in there about how Churchill's memories of 1902 made him reluctant to get into a fight with the churches).Paulturtle (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears this request has been answered, albeit indirectly...? Marking answered. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is not formatted properly. It should just be "Jenkins, p.49." He's already linked as the author in the existing Secondary source. 217.38.93.245 (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And the publisher is wrongly linked to DAB page McMillan, and the ISBN has no spaces, and the ISBN is different to both of those currently used in the secondary source. Otherwise, yeah, Roy Jenkins is linked, great. 217.38.93.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Succession information
There is no need for the infobox to have detail on previous and succeeding occupants of office, when the same information is in the template below. Hence I have removed those data from the infobox. Kablammo (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite interesting: "In 1903 Winston Churchill was searching a rich wife in US"
''Winston Churchill, the English novelist, is coming to America in search of a wife who has money. There is an American novelist of the same name, but he does not need a rich wife - his books sell.'' Source: The Indianapolis Journal, Indiana, US, Dec. 22, 1903, Col. 3, p. 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If so, I don't think he actually went. He visited the USA in autumn 1895 and the winter of 1900-1, but not again, as far as I can see, until his visits of 1929-31.Paulturtle (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it looks like a bit of catty (not to mention very out-of-date) journalistic gossip. He certainly did meet the American novelist ("whose books sold") during his second (1900-1) visit. IF the young Winston met an American girl during the same visit then this may have started a few rumours which were still doing the rounds a couple of years later. He didn't meet Clementine until 1904, after all. All the purest speculation, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

World War I
As First Lord of the Admiralty he was responsible for allowing war munitions and explosives to be transported on passenger ships. (165.120.240.224 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Are you sockpuppet of a banned user? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I've read British civilian ships were carrying weapons. Surely this was illegal? (165.120.240.224 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC))
 * But your IP address geolocates to Bury St Edmunds, where other previous sockpuppet trolls, who have an axe to grind against Churchill, have been located?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've read it in a reliable source, then perhaps you can provide a reference so something can be added to the article? Chuntuk (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Page range required
..."paring the Armed Forces too heavily. " I have tracked down the original entry for this to 10:08, 18 January 2008. That's some time ago. Can someone look it up and edit the page range? Brenont (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not on the cited page but I've added a page reference referring to his sparring, as Chancellor, with the Royal Navy over cruisers and the Singapore Base.Paulturtle (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016
Please add a link in the 'See also' section for the (sister project) Wikiquote page: Winston Churchill 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:296A:CC64:7945:8C5F (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done, except it's in the external links section, boxed together with commons and source. Favonian (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see that (its a long article with lots of stuff after the refs). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:296A:CC64:7945:8C5F (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
The intro is misleading. Churchill did not start to speak out regularly against Germany until May 1938. (86.133.84.222 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Are you sockpuppet of a banned user? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Mille
"...The Churchills' children were entrusted to a French nursery governess in Kent named Mlle."

I believe Mlle should point to Mademoiselle_(title). I've very little knowledge of history but it also seems odd to say she was named "Mlle." I apologize if this note doesn't follow guidelines which I'm striving to understand.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niedzielski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good one.  E Eng  05:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Winston Churchill, time-traveller
There is a lot of confusion over dates in the North-West Frontier section. "In 1899 [Churchill] departed for the North West Frontier to fight in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. ... An account of the Siege of Malakand was published in December 1900 as The Story of the Malakand Field Force." The Second Anglo-Afghan War lasted from 1878 to 1880. The Siege of Malakand took place in 1897, and Churchill's account of this campaign, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, was published in 1898 (though reprinted several times thereafter). Somebody might like to fix. GrindtXX (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So it can't have been the Second Anglo-Afghan War. It looks more like Mohmand campaign of 1897–98 (in which article Churchill is already mentioned by name), except that it ended in 1898? So maybe the year of 1899 is also wrong there? And that link to modern day Malakand is not very helpful either. I wonder would Malakand District be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Karsh
I truly hope that you've gotten the rights to use the famous Karsh portrait. If you can get ALL of his portraits for wikipedia that would be glorious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.125.231 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you click on the image and select more details it explains the source and licence for the image. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

War crimes
There ought to be a separate section on the war crimes Churchill was accused of. Also the Battle of the Atlantic had nothing to do with the Bengal Famine. (Mc,dss (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Are you a sockpuppet of a banned user? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This source shows that Churchill was directly responsible for the famine (genocide) in India: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html (Mc,dss (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Hmm, I see. So you won't mind anyone requesting a CheckUser check of your identity? There seems to be a pattern emerging on this Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you're talking about. However the lede needs to be corrected - the Battle of the Atlantic did not cause the Bengal Famine of 1943. (Mc,dss (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * An interesting choice for your first ever edit at Wikipedia. Have you dropped the war crimes theme now? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest a change to a related section? There is a section under Political Isolation that reads "There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943". The second sentence of the article that it links to states "Approximately 3 million people died due to famine". The two scales don't tie up and I think that something of this relevance should be accurately portrayed. Matt.asbury (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is Bury St Edmunds at this time of year? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? Matt.asbury (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are another brand new editor, who's popped up in exactly the same thread, 18 days after another brand new editor was blocked for socking. You won't mind if someone checks out your ip, will you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that you need to make checks, but go nuts Matt.asbury (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Go nuts? Poor old Churchill. Anyone would think you had a deeply embittered, long-standing, personal grudge against him. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Churchill was disliked by people all over the world, and he never really won an election. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Many politicians are disliked by people all over the world. Just like original Hitler, and the new Orange one, for example. So that makes Churchill guilty of war crimes? Wow. And it depends what you mean by "win an election". But so what? He was still the leader of the government in accordance with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Had you thought of dropping a note over at User talk:Mc,dss? Looks like you have quite a lot in common. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ... or what about User talk:Matt.asbury as well? ... you could all get together for a "let's bash Churchill" knees-up?
 * This is not about bashing Churchill, I merely made a suggestion that you could improve one article by having it accurately reflect the accepted information in a related article. If you don't want to make the change then don't make the change, but don't accuse me of Churchill bashing. Looking back over the history of this article, maybe you should ask yourself why you defend him so explicitly. Any time anyone suggests anything negative towards him you immediately discount it and accuse the suggester of being a sock puppet or having an issue with Churchill. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to have a collective input to articles to improve the accuracy of it. It seems that that is not being allowed in this case. I assume that you checked my IP address and accepted that I wasn't a "sock puppet"? Some of us actually care about the accuracy of facts and figures. This isn't about attacking anyone in particular but giving a balanced picture of historical figures, and not elevating their standing or holding them on a pedestal. Matt.asbury (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this article has suffered from the repeated attentions of a series of recurring sock-puppets who care only about portraying a negative view of Churchill. Perhaps you can undestand that when a brand new user, like yourself, pops up here, with an account less than two days old, in a thread about Churchill committing war crimes, and possibly being responsible for the deaths of millions, it might seem a little suspicious? I am very sorry if I have not assumed good faith on your part and I am happy to consider your legitimate concerns over the accuracy of facts and figures. My actions are not based on a blind defence of Churchill, no matter what, but on a desire to protect this article from the devious attentions of unbalanced sockpuppets. It might be best if you add a new discussion thread heading for your own enquiry, above, to make it distinct from the "War crimes" heading added by Mc,dss? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply Martinevans123, and I understand your position. I will check my amendment and find a better way of making the suggested change. Matt.asbury (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1943 Bengal Famine - How many deaths?
Is it thousands? Hundreds of thousands? 1 million? 2 million? 4 million? Or more? See, for example: and. And see also the separate article on the famine. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article seems to centre on approximately 3 million. The problems arise when, before whatever figure is used, we add the words "Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of ..."? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Umm... is there a reason why a single bare quote of Churchill's claims about Jewish world conspiracies appears without any commentary and other than this the words "Jew", "Jewish", "Judaism", "antisemitism", "anti-Semitism", "antisemitic" and "anti-Semitic" are completely absent from the article? Did someone add discussion of the topic and someone else remove it? Or has there never been a question of its inclusion? Do reliable sources simply not cover the topic? I honestly don't know. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see only two previous discussion threads on "ant-semitism" plus one on "Churchill's views on Jews": Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive index. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Decolonization support
Churchill did support some decolonization of the British Empire, albeit reluctantly. The Suez Canal Base Agreement happened in 1954 during his second premiership. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:98DC:8E0B:BC37:5387 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC))
 * What a great shame that User:JimThorpeAllAmerican has been indefinitely blocked after a checkuser investigation showed him to be yet another on the huge list of Sockpuppets of HarveyCarter, as he was so interested in discussing this very topic, not two months ago (see the "Decolonization" thread above). What a strange and unnerving coincidence that is. But then I see that you share your IP provider details with the anon IP in the thread immediately above this one, about that nice Mr Hitler offering to end the war early. Perhaps you'd like to join in there as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1954 agreement was negotiated by Eden. Churchill was privately sympathetic to the Tory backbenchers who opposed it (the "Suez Group") but didn't do much about it - not least because this was after his stroke. I believe this is in the article.Paulturtle (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Rejected offers to end war
Churchill rejected offers by Hitler to end the war in July 1940 and May 1941. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:C27:8080:2A08:99A6 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Surely those would have been decisions made by the War Cabinet, not just by Churchill? I wonder what were the conditions attached to those two offers? Surprised they are not mentioned at Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, which otherwise seems to go into enormous detail about the content of that book. It's listed under "See also" in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler publicly offered to end the war on 6 October 1939 after the German-Soviet conquest of Poland, in July 1940 after the Fall of France, and in May 1941 before the invasion of the Soviet Union. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:D5B9:6DC7:6400:E228 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC))
 * I wonder did you miss the deliberately placed question marks in the preceding reply. Here's another example  ? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Churchill's line was that no peace could be accepted until Germany had given up her conquests. Halifax also publically opposed Hitler's July 1940 peace offer, although it is unclear whether he was privately still more sympathetic.Paulturtle (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Under Artist, Who First Taught Winston Churchill to Paint is Inaccurate
The article states "Churchill was persuaded and taught to paint by his artist friend, Paul Maze, whom he met during the First World War. Maze was a great influence on Churchill's painting and became a lifelong painting companion" There is no mention of Lady Lavery.

Many other credible sources give initial credit to Sir John Lavery's wife Hazel Lavery, both John and Hazel were friends with Winston, to be the one who discovered him timidly painting on his own for the first time and gave him his first actual instructions and lessons that made him confident enough to really go for it. Then, yes, Paul Maze was who Winston first confidently painted along side and Paul Maze was his lifetime friend and artistic mentor.

Can we add the initial bit about Hazel Lavery? It seems inaccurate to not include her at all. Even in Winston's own book in his own words, Painting as a pastime, he credits Hazel for teaching him how to "address a blank canvas" when he first started painting on his own. This initial lesson with her unlocked his talents and gave him confidence and this moment with Hazel is what he considers the moment he became a painter. We don't know how many early, private, friendly lessons she gave him but there were several according to his own account, her account and Sir John's account. Paul Maze may have given Winston many more lessons than Hazel, but it is not accurate to say Paul was the first one who taught Winston how to paint.

Sources that credit Hazel with first teaching Winston to paint:

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Tara Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarabethsmith (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

TRYING AGAIN 50.183.186.98 (talk)

References

http://www.historychannel.com.au/articles/12/making-his-mark-winston-churchill-the-artist#.Vi03tGvODMs http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/687-churchill-as-artist http://www.hughlane.ie/past/160-sir-john-lavery-passion-and-politics http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/life-times/the-struggle/sir-john-lady-lavery/ Painting as a pastime- Sir Winston Churchill

and all of the books about the painter Sir John Lavery, including his own autobiography, mention Hazel teaching Winston to paint.

Both John Lavery and Hazel Lavery have articles and the evidence seems compelling. In fact there might be enough in these excellent sources for a separate article on Churchill as artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly enough material to justify an article on Churchill as an artist, although I don't really know enough about that aspect of his life to contribute towards it myself.Paulturtle (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016
In the "Germany and rearmament, 1936" section:

"On 22 May 1936 Churchill was present at a meeting of Old Guard Conservatives (the group, not of them present on that occasion, included Austen Chamberlain, Geoffrey Lloyd, Leopold Amery and Robert Horne) at Lord Winterton’s house at Shillinglee Park, to push for greater rearmament."

This sentence is missing the word "all." It should read:

"On 22 May 1936 Churchill was present at a meeting of Old Guard Conservatives (the group, not all of them present on that occasion, included Austen Chamberlain, Geoffrey Lloyd, Leopold Amery and Robert Horne) at Lord Winterton’s house at Shillinglee Park, to push for greater rearmament." Shutupshake (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done agt x  21:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Guyana coup
Why is there no mention of his coup in Guyana? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/mi5-files-coup-british-guiana (Morbson (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016
Change Republic of Ireland to Ireland. The name of the state is Ireland. Republic is the system of governance of the state. 86.44.127.1 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean in the "Funeral" section, when describing the broadcast? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee." Stickee (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Decolonization
Why is there so little mention of Churchill's strong support for decolonization? (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC))
 * How is Bury St Edmunds at this time of year? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not bad, I came over here after the war. Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941 which promised self-determination to every country in the world. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes, Roosevelt signed that one too didn't he? And then there was a joint Declaration by United Nations? So what's your point exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that Churchill agreed to give independence to all of Britain's colonies. The United States was only occupying the Philippines, which had already been promised independence in 1934. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * So, the Atlantic Charter article, fully suppported by sources, currently says this:
 * "The acknowledgement that all peoples had a right to self-determination gave hope to independence leaders in British colonies. The Americans were insistent that the charter was to acknowledge that the war was being fought to ensure self-determination. The British were forced to agree to these aims but in a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the peoples who formed part of the British Empire."
 * I don't see any wording about Churchill "agreeing to give independence to all of Britain's colonies". Do you intend to add that, with suitable source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The charter confirmed every country in the world had the right to self-determination. By signing the charter Churchill had signed away the British Empire. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * The source doesn't explicitly say that Churchill was a strong supporter of decolonization. Inferring that he did and inserting an edit accordingly would be original research, which isn't allowed. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The United States had three aims in World War II - to defeat the Axis militarily, to defeat the British Empire economically, and to dismantle all the European colonial empires. By signing the Atlantic Charter Churchill did more for decolonization than anyone in history. His wife said it was good he lost the election in 1945, as otherwise he would have been forced to give India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc their freedom. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC))

Since I was nice enough to link to the original research policy, you must've read it. Having read it, you know that Churchill's signing of the Charter and his wife's words aren't even close to enough for us to include a claim that he supported decolonization. So why are you saying these things? RunnyAmiga ※  talk 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Churchill did not support decolonization then why did he sign the Atlantic Charter? (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Because he wanted to "respect the rights of all peoples to choose the forms of government under which they would live; and wished to see sovereignty and self-government restored to those who had been forcibly deprived of them." Just a guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thus the British could no longer justify occupying a quarter of the globe by force once they had agreed to respect the rights of all peoples to choose the forms of government under which they would live; and if they wished to see sovereignty and self-government restored to those who had been forcibly deprived of them. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC))
 * I don't think Churchill was asked to provide any such justification, was he? Or did he send you a special note, privately dictated to Clemmy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that he signed the charter because it was August 1941, Britain was standing alone in the West, Russia was being hammered in the East, and he was desperate to bring the US into the war. He'd have signed anything if it made Roosevelt happy.


 * I wouldn't want my guesses as to his motives for signing to be included in this article any more than yours, but there are plenty of reliable sources out there showing Churchill's attitude to the Empire, which make it clear that he was anything but "a strong supporter of decolonization"! Chuntuk (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Britain was never alone at any stage in the war. Churchill signed away the British Empire so he was a major architect of decolonization. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence": . But I guess that was ten years earlier, when Mr Hitler was still collecting his kindling? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhat belated comment, but Churchill fought pretty hard to insist that the self-determination clauses of the Atlantic Charter (Article 3 iirc) were not deemed to apply to the British Empire. He had also, despite his opposition to Indian Provincial Self-Government a decade earlier, committed himself to India getting Dominion Status after the war, so regarded Britain as off the hook on that one, although that didn't stop there being a good deal of US pressure for immediate moves towards Indian independence after the crushing of the "Quit India" rising. Elsewhere, Britain did produce a scheme to buy out the white landowners in Kenya and encourage blacks to buy land (similar to what had happened in Ireland in the 1903 Wyndham Act when the landlords were bought out). This was designed so that Britain could be seen to be making further progress towards the principles of the Atlantic Charter, but nothing much came of it. It is of mild historical interest because the Minister of State for the Colonies across whose desk it passed in 1942 was Harold Macmillan, who was later to preside over the decolonisation of Africa, which happened very suddenly after Churchill had retired.Paulturtle (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever Churchill may have pretended to believe publicly is irrelevant. The Charter stated very clearly that it applied to every country in the world. Macmillan may have presided over decolonization in Africa, but Churchill guaranteed the complete collapse of the British Empire (and all other colonial empires) by signing the Charter. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Are you proposing a change to the wording in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be mention of the Atlantic Charter at the beginning of the article, and the fact that it effectively ended the British Empire and the other European colonial empires. (JimThorpeAllAmerican (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
 * I disagree with both of your suggestions. I don't think it was a significant enough in terms of Churchill's entire life to be mentioned in the lead section. And any detail, explaining what it did or did not do, in balanced and neutral terms, belongs not here, but at Atlantic Charter. Happy to hear the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Churchill guaranteed the complete collapse of the British Empire (and all other colonial empires) by signing the Charter." - Roosevelt signed it as well. So when is the United States going to hand over power to their own 'natives' in North America. I'm sure many eagerly await the day when the US President and members of Congress have names like "Eagle Wing", "Hunts With Bears", or similar. Most of the ex-British colonies now have their own 'native' governments. After over two hundred years of independence from Britain, why doesn't yours.

BTW, Churchill and many other people in the British government at the time were wary of giving India independence because unlike many Americans, they actually had around two hundred years of knowledge of India and of the various races and creeds, along with the various factions, within India, many that quite frankly, could not get on with each other and would likely be at each other's throats given half a chance. See Partition of India for the results.

And the people of Iran and Iraq weren't murdering each other in the streets while they were under British administration either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.231 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oldham
I know it can be rough, but does being the MP count as military service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.159.219 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the front row can be especially tough, I believe. But that's a fair point. The "Military service" section describes what he was principally engaged in during that period. And the Oldham by-election really can't be moved go anywhere else without disrupting the chronology. So I think we'll just have to live with it. Unless you have a better suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Length missing
Add length. People search that data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.37.9.29 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We dont normally use the term "length" in biographies it has no meaning except related to time served in office which is included, if you actually mean height then it will only be mentioned if it was notable for some reason. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you do mean height. Do you have a better source? 1.67 m wasn't that tall, but it was 4 inches shorter than that German guy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Five foot five or six wasn't that tall, but it wasn't that short either. By way of example, the table of "Average weights for healthy persons" in the 1933 Pharmaceutical Pocket Book gives heights from 5'2" to 6'0" for men. This article says he was 5'8" at his tallest, shrinking to a little over 5'6" in old age. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2014 article you link to is quite interesting. I'd not seen it before. And as it's the subject of a focused piece, in a WP:RS by a notable political person, I'd say that might argue for mentioning his height somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think Boris has any psychological or psychiatric qualifications, and short man syndrome seems to be a load of bunk anyway, so for my money I wouldn't put it in. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Just because Boris suffers from giant prat syndrome. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Inexcusable suggestion by User:BenStein69 that Sir Winston Churchill was an anti-semite.
Hi.

I feel User:BenStein69 is extremely off-base for suggesting Sir Winston is an anti-semite.

Indeed even a simple cursory assessment of this outrageous claim suggests this is the type of misinformation that deters people from making edits.

Edit: Additionally, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com claimed that the Template:officeholder religion field is deprecated, which does not seem to be true. And, following the brief comments on the field, I believe that this field (with a citation, I may add) should be re-added.

So this request is to make two changes:
 * 1) Remove the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom stub, as it is not true.
 * 2) Re-add the religion field, along with the citation. In the case of Sir Winston, this field is of decent importance.

Edit2: Hello please forgive the intrusion but it is imperative to get this matter resolved immediately. It is not acceptable to just insert an offensive category for a national figure, and remain silent when it occurs. Surely individuals with appropriate privileges to alleviate at least one of the two concerns has read this.
 * The antisemitism allegation is extremely serious and any similarly serious subscription to this belief is both uncivilised, as the mechanisms invoked to uphold this belief as true requires sufficient effort--i.e., some level of sentience--to uphold.

MisinformationFighter (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Relax. There is certainly no need to ping JW. I have reverted, and expect some reply from with supporting sources to justify this rather odd claim. Irondome (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone removed all of the successors/predecessors
I know the list of Winston Churchill's offices does indeed make the infobox quite unbearably long, but I'm not sure removing information is the best solution. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am that someone. The templates at the bottom of the page contain the same information.  Kablammo (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but wouldn’t scrolling down to the bottom of the page be counterintuitive to the purpose of an infobox? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of an infobox? Kablammo (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other infoboxes with this problem - such as Theresa May, Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman. A better solution is to organise the list into collapsible sections as I did there. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph makes no sense
There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943.[145][146][147][148] While some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level,[149] Grusl2017 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked it slightly. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

26 May 1940
It should be mentioned that Churchill and the cabinet seriously considered ending the war on that day. They were going to ask the still-neutral Mussolini to broker a negotiated end to the war. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:28EF:52B:CC6E:81A6 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC))
 * What sources support that? Kablammo (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many sources online and it is covered in detail in the Cabinet papers and in Jenkins' biography of Churchill. They even did a play about it called "Three Days in May" in 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/8848954/Three-Days-in-May-When-Winston-Churchill-wobbled.html (86.144.87.179 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
 * The basic story is well-known, but tends to grow somewhat in the (popularising) re-telling, especially when 'they' 'do a play about it'. Vol VI ('Finest Hour') of Martin Gilbert's multi-volume biography covers (pp 402 - 422) the period and has little in it to support any 'when Churchill wobbled' interpretation (granted, it is probably the last place one would look for that interpretation). It has
 * on 26 May 1940 at a War Cabinet meeting (0900 onwards) Halifax reporting that the Italian Ambassador "had asked for an interview in order to put forward 'fresh proposals' for peace"
 * a discussion by 'an informal group of Ministers' at the Admiralty in the afternoon of 26 May on whether to take up the Italian offer
 * a War Cabinet meeting on 27 May 1940 (1630 onwards) "dominated by Halifax's support for an Anglo-French approach to Italy, with a view to persuading Mussolini to act as a mediator, at least for a 'general discussion' " Those noted as opposing by Gilbert are: Sinclair, Attlee, Chamberlain, Churchill. (Sinclair attended meetings, but wasn't a member: Arthur Greenwood (a member) must have been present and opposing: Gilbert quotes Halifax (contemplating resignation) complaining in his diary that Winston had talked the most frightful rot, and Greenwood had been just as bad) However, Chamberlain then backtracked slightly; he didn't think approaching Mussolini would serve any useful purpose, but perhaps "we ought to go a little further with it, in order to keep the French in a good temper"
 * on 28 May (after the Belgian surrender, and Churchill's warning to the Commons that it should 'prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings' about the BEF) a War Cabinet meeting was held (1600) in Churchill's room in the House of Commons to discuss the repeated Italian request to act as an intermediary. Churchill was against, Halifax for, and Chamberlain did not see 'what we should lose if we said openly that, while we would fight to the end to preserve our independence, we were ready to consider decent terms if such were offered to us'. Attlee and Greenwood did, warning of the grave danger to morale if negotiations were embarked upon. The War Cabinet then adjourned.
 * on 28 May, immediately after the War Cabinet had adjourned, the more junior Ministers gathered in Churchill's room and were addressed by him. Gilbert quotes a long passage from Hugh Dalton's diary, of which this is the nub: "And then he said: I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man.' But it was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms than if we fought it out. The Germans would demand our fleet - that would be called 'disarmament' - our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler's puppet would be set up - 'under Mosley or some such person'. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other hand, we had immense reserves and advantages. 'And I am convinced,' he concluded, 'that every man of you would rise up and tear me from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.' There were loud cries of approval all round the table.... Not much more was said. No one expressed even the briefest flicker of dissent."
 * 'the effect of their demonstration was considerable on Churchill's own resolve' says Gilbert
 * on 28 May (1900) the War Cabinet reconvened. Churchill reported to it the mood of the meeting of junior Ministers. Chamberlain now took a firmer line: the French (who had indicated to the British that they intended to accept the Italian offer) should be persuaded that it was worth their while to go on fighting. The War Cabinet decided against negotiations (and also against any appeal to the United States)
 * on 28 May 1940 (2340) Churchill telephoned to the British Ambassador in Paris a message for Reynaud (the French PM), rejecting the Italian offer and urging the French to do the same; this they promptly did.
 * Interpretations of all of that may of course vary. The most obvious one to me is that Attlee was right to say (post-Norway Debate) that Labour would not enter a coalition government under Halifax. But seems to be pushing it a bit to take the above to support anything as black and white as 'the cabinet seriously considered ending the war on that day'. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I trust you mean that Attlee and Labour refused to serve under Chamberlain a fortnight earlier. They were more than willing to serve under Halifax, who effectively declined the job of PM as it would have left him a figurehead with Churchill running the war, just as Lloyd George had wanted Asquith to be in December 1916; the idea that Labour insisted Churchill be PM is later Labour mythology.


 * But on the specific issue, you are quite right that Churchill did not want to sue for peace, and he himself pointed out, somewhat disingenuously, the matter was never officially discussed by the Cabinet. Beyond that, interpretations do vary a bit, not least as to the degree to which Churchill was merely humouring Halifax and playing for time in the early meetings when he was, or appeared to be, open to the idea of peace talks later in the year after Britain had put up a bit more fight. He also seems to have had, at this time, a somewhat inflated idea of how long France would carry on fighting and how quickly the USA would come in. Halifax, by contrast, thought that we were more likely to be able to get the BEF home under an armistice than otherwise, and that such an armistice might be obtained by offering the Italians some bases in East Africa etc. It's also worth bearing in mind that Churchill was as guilty as any other politician of packing meetings with naiive people whose heads he had filled with nonsense, demonising his opponents and creating false dichotomies - telling the new Labour ministers that peace would mean naval disarmament, and then telling the public that the alternative to his policies was "surrender", when Halifax had quite emphatically not been urging any such course of action.


 * There is an article on the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis, on which I've done some work in the past, based on Andrew Roberts' biography of Halifax. But there are quite a number of books which cover it, not just heavyweight biographies like Jenkins and Charmley, but more recent books like Robin Prior's book on the Battle of Britain or Hermiston's book on the wartime coalition. They will all need to be ploughed through at some stage.Paulturtle (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gilbert (vol VI p 303) has Boothby reporting to Churchill (9 May) Clement Davis telling him that Attlee and Greenwood were not prepared to serve under Halifax (somewhat devalued as evidence by being hearsay, and both B and C D wanting to think it true !) and that is what I was thinking of. Opinion had generally hardened against Halifax by the time (10 May) Labour replied to Chamberlain, so their formula that they would not serve under Chamberlain but would participate fully in a "new Government, under a new Prime Minister, which would command the confidence of the nation" is (at least in British English) a bit Delphic.Rjccumbria (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite clear from this that Churchill did not himself seriously consider "ending the war" that day, and that any arguments over nuance are best dealt with in the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis mentioned by Paulturtle. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but arguments would probably be futile; even-handed discussion in the article is what's called for, and I can't see that that could legitimately go much beyond 'various interpretations are possible' ; victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan. As a general and distinct point, the article could probably do with better linkage to that and any other such 'more nuanced' articles covering episodes in Churchill's war premiership; otherwise in another six months or so, somebody else will come along and want to insert a distinctly non-nuanced sentence covering some such episode.Rjccumbria (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have notes kicking around for articles about Churchill and Strategic Bombing, and Churchill and India (not just the 1930s but the events of WW2 including the Quit India Rising and the Bengal Famine, not to mention his sympathy for Jinnah). Both of those topics are perennials on this talk page. But they are not going to be finished any time soon.Paulturtle (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

9-10 May 1940
charmley pp394-5; Gilbert Vol 6 pp300-3, 312; I don’t have copies of Jenkins on Churchill or Roberts on Halifax immediately to hand

On 9 May, while Chamberlain was ringing round the Labour leaders and being told that they would not serve under him and that they wanted Hoare and Simon out as well, Churchill lunched with Eden and Kingsley Wood, who, to Eden’s surprise, told Churchill that he and not Halifax must be PM. There is no contemporary evidence to back up later tales by Bracken and Beaverbrook that they advised Churchill to keep silent when asked to serve under Halifax.

That afternoon Chamberlain called the famous meeting with Halifax and Churchill. He also briefly saw Attlee and Greenwood, and got the impression they were willing to serve under Halifax, who was also Chamberlain’s own preferred successor. According to Churchill’s later account, after a silence, Halifax spoke, declining to be PM as it would not be feasible to do so from the Lords [NB – the King favoured Halifax, and later pointed out that an ad hoc Act could have been passed to allow Halifax to sit in the Commons, whilst the previous autumn Chamberlain, who was seventy and in failing health, had taken legal advice to confirm that the Commons could simply pass a resolution allowing Halifax to sit in it until they voted otherwise]. According to Halifax’s contemporary account, Chamberlain urged him to be PM and Halifax said openly it would not work as he would not be running the war. Halifax had also been told by Margesson (Chief Whip) that opinion (we are not told whether this was just Tory opinion or Labour as well) was moving towards Churchill. Later, Chamberlain heard that Labour opinion was moving towards Churchill.

Chamberlain’s letter to his sister Ida (11 May) and Halifax’s account noted down by Alec Cadogan that day are more or less consistent with one another, except that Halifax has the Labour leaders turning up at the end of the meeting rather than the start. Churchill misdates all this to 10 May in his “Second World War”. That evening (9 May) Boothby wrote to Churchill, saying opinion (he does not specifically say Labour opinion) was hardening against Halifax and mentioned a clique of usual suspects like Harold Macmillan – an eccentric backbench perennial rebel at the time - who wanted Churchill as PM. Clement Davies said Labour did not want Halifax.

Charmley says Chamberlain actually did resign that evening, although Gilbert does not include this and Chips Channon wrote at 8pm that Chamberlain was still in power. That night the German attack began, and Chamberlain tried to use this as an excuse to rescind his resignation. Some Tory MPs were angered by this when rumour got out, and before 10am Kingsley Wood told him he must go [he is hardly the only PM to behave like this, in fairness – Churchill wanted to meet the new House after the 1945 Labour landslide, and Eden had to talk sense into him and tell him to resign].

Chamberlain received Labour’s formal answer (Attlee and Greenwood had had to clear it with their conference, then in session) during the War Cabinet meeting at 430pm on 10 May. As discussed above, they expressed no formal preference between Churchill and Halifax. Chamberlain resigned thereafter.

So the Clement Davies hearsay is the only real bit of evidence that Labour did not want Halifax. Chamberlain was trying to shoehorn Halifax in as his successor so he may have overestimated Labour’s willingness to serve under him, but officially, they would have gone along with a Halifax Government and I think this is the line historians tend to take.Paulturtle (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Having had a chance to think about Charmley's claim that Chamberlain resigned on the evening of 9 May, it occurs to me that Chamberlain might have rung the Palace to inform them of what had happened and to book an audience with the King so he could resign in person the next day, or whatever. If that is confirmed by any book about Neville Chamberlain it might explain the apparent discrepancy/error. Everyone seems to agree that after the German attack on the West began that night he tried to cancel his impending resignation the next morning (Archibald Sinclair actually announced as much to the press) until Kingsley Wood told him that this just wasn't going to wash.Paulturtle (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hermiston's recent book on the Churchill coalition mentions a letter of A.L.Rowse, then a Labour candidate, to the papers a few days earlier, recommending a Halifax premiership - it should be remembered that Halifax was then seen as a morally upright Christian figure, as well as having been a reforming Viceroy. Dalton clamed that Labour inclined towards Halifax a few days earlier, but had swung towards Churchill by the time he was appointed, but the source for this is Dalton's memoirs rather than his contemporary diaries. Once I've had a chance to check Roy Jenkins and some books by or about Dalton next week, I should be in a position to sharpen up the coverage of this episode a bit, both here and in the biogs of Chamberlain and Halifax.Paulturtle (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Conscious that we are really trespassing on the WSC page, so I will try to wrap up briefly. What A&G phoned through to No 10 was the result of an NEC vote, and it is not clear to me that Attlee would have sought anything other than a doctor's mandate from the NEC. Hence I don't know that much can be read into the formal response. However: Googling around last night, I found a couple of Attlee biogs on Google Books. One seemed significantly divergent from what I understand to be the standard narrative of events ( asserting that A&G knew Halifax was a non-runner before they left for Bournemouth) but it does give multiple instances of Halifax being thought PM material by Labour politicians in previous months. The other gives an extract from Dalton's diary for 9 May (presumably Dalton's diary is genuinely contemporaneous ?) reporting (after a conversation with Attlee) "He agrees with my preference for Halifax over Churchill, but we both think either would be tolerable" so I fear we are now in agreement that I was wrong. I have added a reference to the Dalton diary entry to the Norway Debate article; it might be a useful addition elsewhere.  Rjccumbria (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

26 May
(Gilbert pp410-25, Charmley pp400-08)

I think we are in agreement. The separate article needs to discuss the available interpretations - I may get round to it one day, and if anyone else wants to do it they can be my guest. And this article needs to have a neutral sentence or two directing people to said article.Paulturtle (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Last needed citation
"In June 1936, Churchill organised a deputation of senior Conservatives who shared his concern to see Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax. He had tried to have delegates from the other two parties and later wrote, 'If the leaders of the Labour and Liberal oppositions had come with us there might have been a political situation so intense as to enforce remedial action.' As it was, the meeting achieved little, Baldwin arguing that the Government was doing all it could, given the anti-war feeling of the electorate."

Has anyone a copy of The Gathering Storm to look up the page number? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorted. Most of what Churchill wrote about this kind of thing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt - he later claimed that the Rhineland (March 1936) was the moment Hitler should have been "stood up to" - but he wasn't saying that at the time, whilst Rhodes James writes amusingly about how his views about defence and weaponry were often less well-informed than popular mythology would have us believe.Paulturtle (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And now there are twenty citation-needed-tags addedto the article. Well, at least I had my joy for three weeks.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Which are cut down to three, now.Can anyone solve the last three remaining needed citations? Thanks in advance and best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Artist?
Sorry, but is there any reason to believe that WC was other than an amateur artist? Therefore should this word not be added to the 'artist' section and the word 'artist' removed from the lead, as no one would claim that he was in any sense known as an artist, unlike his writing and political achievements. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Answer, from 50.183.186.98 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Tara Smith: Winston Churchill has paintings hanging in several famous galleries and museums internationally. When his paintings sell, they sell for a lot of money. Famous people even collect his paintings. I think that qualifies as an artist, beyond just a hobby. Even if it was "just a hobby" for him, great art came from it, which is also famous art. So, he had many talents, achievements and ambitions but he was still an "artist" among them. Also, it is not mentioned in the article about Sir John Lavery, and his wife Lady Hazel Lavery. They were very influential in him first becoming a painter. Hazel is actually the first person who got Winston painting. This is is verified in several books and documents on Sir John, Lady Hazel and even books written about General Michael Collins. Churchill himself credits Lady Lavery for first teaching him. (More details below in new topic) They all mention and give credit to Hazel for being the first to teach Winston to paint. This needs to be added or corrected. Please consider the edit.

USA, there are many schools here that are named after Churchill, the one near my cousins has as a mascot a bull dog. Where would a good place to include these?
The Winston Churchill page covers much including portrays in popular media. There are many schools (built in the the post WW2 boom) named after Winston. I think that as an American tributes to a British leader would be a respectful inclusion to his record. Where would be a good place to include these ??

":Welcome - Churchill School - Home of the Bulldogs - Homewood il" http://www.hsd153.org/

There are many schools here in America like this. I think to include these is just as, if not far more important than some movie portrayal. A school where thousands of children got their education is important. That these are schools named after Winston needs to be noted.

Thank you. Haddon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017
I requested to the information gathered in the Book The Inglorious Empire by Shashi Tharoor Gaurav ry (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

'Winston Churchill has blood on his hands and I'm appalled by the willingness of the British to completely overlook his disgraceful record. 'Essentially, the British have to realise that they are praising a man simply because of five-years' of inspiration speech-making in the Second World War, a war he won in the end only because the Americans came in on his side. 'People should read the assessments of Churchill in the British newspapers of the 1930s - he was not taken seriously or regarded very well. 'As he rather cynically put it, 'history will look kindly on me because I will write it' and he proceeded to do just that, which put him up on the pedestal he now occupies in the British popular imagination. 'It is extremely difficult to excuse his conduct in India. 'The overt racism of many of this statements - I spoke to the historian Roy Jenkins (author of Churchill: A Biography) and gave him many examples he said that, yes Churchill was 'racialist', but those were the times. 'But I disagree. There were plenty of decent, non racialist people around back then. It's not like people in 1930s Britain were incapable of thinking humanely about people of other colours and races. 'But people like Churchill and Rudyard Kipling were incapable, and the fact that they have now been deified in this country does not speak well of Britain despite his odious racism and deeply unpleasant language about India, Indians and Hindus. 'It was his decision that grain would be exported from Bengal during the famine, it was his decision that Australian ships laden with wheat calling on the port of Calcutta would not be allowed to disembark their goods but would sail on to England. 'And when conscious stricken officials in India wrote to London pointing out to Churchill that his decisions were costing a huge number of human lives, all Churchill could do was write peevishly in the margin - why hasn't Gandhi died yet. 'This is the man we're expected to applaud as the saviour of freedom and democracy?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-4304630/Indian-MP-Shashi-Tharoor-Empire-moral-atonement.html#ixzz4b7Jixt6b Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 * Tharoor isn't a professional historian and doesn't present any new information about Churchill. However, he is a distinguished diplomat and his view is relevant, if attributed. I would have thought a sentence or two, not a whole quote like the above. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm against this edit. It sounds like one more spiteful, emotional outbust of an Indian MP against India's former rulers. It has already been made quite clear in the article that WC was against Indian independence, and possibly prejudiced against the Indians themselves, and that his action might have contributed to the famine, etc.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He is more than just an Indian MP and this book is going to be discussed very widely. I'm sure not everyone will agree with it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Responsability for the Bengal Famine is a separate question from his general opposition to Independence and Gandhi, and should be dealt with in the section on 1940-1945, rather than the current section. It should be written by reference to facts with places and dates rather than introduced by the idea that there are different interpretations. Of course any disagreement between historians about the facts should be covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that all taken verbatim from the new 2017 book by Shashi Tharoor (published by Hurst, and available from Amazon at £17) or from the topical Daily Mail?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope no-one's proposing the Daily Mail as a source! Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail used to do very respectable hard backs, I'll have you know, long before they put poor old Winnie close to Trump. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1. We don't need polemics from any source, and one's standing as a parliamentarian is not a good reason to include his/her opinions.

2. We should not use extensive excerpts like the quote above. WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches is still useful reading. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed that extensive excerpts would be no good at all. Tharoor is not just a parliamentarian, but a runner up for Secretary General of the UN. His view is significant whether you agree with it or not. Some things are polemical; we have to live with that. Churchill was an able polemicist for sure. When I've read the whole book I will have a go at putting in a short statement. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Consensus appears to exist against its inclusion. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 05:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Antwerp 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#First_World_War_and_the_Post-War_Coalition

I'm not at all sure that the claim about saving the Channel ports is correct here. The Germans had no designs on them at this stage. They were attempting to implement the supposed Schlieffen Plan (assuming there was such a thing), which didn't even allow for British participation in the War, so the ports were of no relevance. If anything "saved" them, it was the battle of the Yser, as an unintended consequence.

What James actually says is: " ...the seven days respite almost certainly allowed Dunkirk and Calais to be secured", which is not quite the same thing. John French says in his memoirs that he feared for the Channel Ports, but he would, because they were vital to the British, but hey weren't in German plans at that time. An editor's footnote in Margot Asquith's War Diary: "(Churchill) claimed to have gained time to enable the Allies to secure the Channel Ports by preventing Antwerp's surrender until 10 October, a claim disputed by Strachan, First World War, p272-3." Hengistmate (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * John French's memoirs are notoriously unreliable, so I wouldn't take anything in there as gospel. If anything the intention (certainly of Churchill, and perhaps French) at this stage was to seize the Channel Ports to make sure that Britain rather than France controlled them. At one stage that autumn there was a plan to build a giant fortified camp around them, which Joffre vetoed. He was always keen to keep the British away from the sea to stop them doing a runner, and usually tried to keep a French army (Tenth iirc) between the BEF and the Belgians, with Foch playing a local coordinating role, so that Flanders didn't just become a British fiefdom. Some of Elizabeth Greenhalgh's books are good on this ("Victory through Coalition"), as is Philpott's 1996 book on Anglo-French relations and the Flanders theatre (back in the days when Philpott was writing sensible history rather than ridiculous polemic).Paulturtle (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did a bit more digging on this. In September 1914 the Allies thought that the war was won after the Battles of the Marne and Aisne, and Churchill was hoping to hold onto Antwerp as the left anchor of a new Allied line. It was only somewhat later that the German reserve corps turned up and marched headlong into British forces at First Ypres. Churchill did indeed claim that he had saved the Channel Ports, and his claims, even claims of foresight, grew a little during the drafting process of The World Crisis, but were repeated by the early batch of historians like Edmonds, Crutwell and Liddell Hart. The stuff I mentioned above about Anglo-French friction over control of the Channel Ports was during the autumn. See Robin Prior, Churchill's World Crisis as History (pp.32-6), quoted with approval by Charmley in 1993.Paulturtle (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to believe French in this instance - he had nothing to gain by saying that he wanted a secure bridgehead. The rest is fair comment, but I don't think it addresses the question of what the article should say about this particular point. The German advance in western Belgium was an attempt to turn the Allied flank, not to seize the ports. Strachan says, "(Churchill argued) that he had prolonged the defence of Antwerp until 10 October, and that in doing so he gave sufficient time for the Allies to secure the Channel ports. In reality, Belgium's decision-making was determined not by Churchill but by the continuing power struggle between its senior commanders." How should this ambiguity be reflected in the article? Hengistmate (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've written this up in more detail now in the spinoff article (Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–39)Paulturtle (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist?
In December 1954 Churchill told a visitor to 10 Downing Street that be believed in white supremacy. (81.154.38.144 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC))
 * DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The accusations are mentioned here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-party-candidate-brands-sir-winston-churchill-as-racist-white-supremacist-9749623.html (81.154.38.144 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Which says fuck all about December 1954 or a visitor to 10 Downing Street. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was mentioned at the beginning of "Churchill's Empire: The World that Made Him and the World He Made" by Richard Toye. (81.154.38.144 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Which page was that? 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The very first two pages. (81.154.38.144 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Of the Prologue or of Chapter 1? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC) The first two pages look supremely white to me.


 * This trolling post should be shut down and boxed off. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede
Why is the Bengal Famine of 1943 not mentioned in the lede? (86.144.87.8 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Because the lead is a summary of the main points of the life of Churchill, the Bengal Famine is mentioned in "Indian independence" but we cant list everything and the allegations surrounding the famine are not that noteworthy to the Churchill story. Lots of discussion on this in the page archive if you want to know the background information. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NA5SosVg?url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.met.police.uk/Article/The-Siege-of-Sidney-Street/1400015482933/1400015482933
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/apr45.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F10%2F01%2Fnwar101.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/02/interviews/clifford
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723161106/http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news319.htm to http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news319.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122204911/http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news475.htm to http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news475.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20060303073806/http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/cav/D04h.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20071219190806/http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/cav/D04QRIH.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20071219043134/http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-england/vcav/oxford.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Good article candidate
This seems a very well written article. Any objections to taking it to WP:GA for promotion to "Good Article"? LK (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As the original user who took this article to GA in 2007, no objections at all. It is still an excellent article and probably meets most of the GA criteria again since being de-listed in 2014. I would support the nomination if it went to GA, but equally because there are some 350 references, another editor may have a number of minor corrections they would like to see be made to the references if it was re-nominated. If you are willing to handle such queries please go ahead and get it back to GA. Thanks. LordHarris  18:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Text in introduction
recently made a series of copyedits to this article. As I believed the former wording was better, I reversed his changes to the text, and also edited language on when Churchill was ousted. Bann Smaori has reverted my changes.

I believe that the former text was better, and therefore bring the matter hear for other editors of this article to decide the question. Kablammo (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have undone both edits. It appears that the other user is making nonconstructive changes in other articles as well.  Kablammo (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winston Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002001315/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Portraits of Churchill and Stalin
I query the use of the photo of the portraits of Churchill and Stalin in Brisbane. This was not an official gathering, but a meeting of the "Aid to Soviet Congress" (probably the Congress for Friendship and Aid to the Soviet Union). It just seems to be a misleading image to use.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Relations with the Soviet Union
The content of this section largely deals with the fate of Eastern Europe, not about relations with the USSR. A fair amount is not about Churchill either.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

14.1 Bibliographies and online collections

 * Meta-talk:
 * ''The purposes, of this first (of my two) block(s) of meta-talk that share identical timestamps and sigs, are
 * ''to clarify why a relatively new editor might use "14.1 Bibliographies and online collections" as the title of a section on this talk page, and
 * ''to explain why fixing some problems that could arise from that editor's choice of section title is (IMO) worthwhile.


 * ''The (chronologically) first editor of the current talk section evidently had their paragraph-number-visibility flag set, but may have been unaware that
 * ''(a) article section-numbers are subject to change (as sections are added, deleted, merged, split, or moved)
 * ''(b) talk-page section-numbers are subject to change
 * ''(as preceding talk sections are moved to talk-archive pages, or
 * '' as sections are added at the top by editors
 * ''who know only the list-server conventions, or


 * ''who imagine that those conventions make any sense at all, anywhere but on list-servers)
 * ''(c) some users
 * ''(whether
 * ''by intention,


 * ''AFAIRecall perhaps by default, or


 * ''by neglecting, forgetting, or misconstruing the documentation on section-numbers
 * ''don't see section numbers.
 * ''don't see section numbers.


 * --Jerzy•t 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  end of   Meta-talk !

Unfortunately, the section contains not one proper bibliography. There are, however, at least these two: '
 * Frederick Woods: A bibliography of the works of Sir Winston Churchill. Vane, London 1963.
 * Ronald I. Cohen: Bibliography of the writings of Sir Winston Churchill. Thoemmes Continuum, London 2006, 3 Vols. ISBN 0-8264-7235-4.

Please be so kind as to incorporate them. Der Konservator (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Meta-talk:
 * ''The preceding contrib (made a couple weeks ago) by der K was a little spread out, offering at least one obsessive-compulsive editor the occasion to worry about
 * ''whether Der K was advising a prior constructive (but not yet savvy) suggester of citations,
 * ''or was themself the suggester.
 * ''Indeed, Der K's comment (which, as it turns out, includes three sentences --one incorporating a two-item list-- and their standard WP-editor signature) is only their third contrib, and it would not be unusual if they feel unready to tackle the task of nicely formatting entries within the article's lists. --Jerzy•t 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  end of   Meta-talk !


 * Surely what Der K means by
 * "contains not one proper  bibliography"
 * is
 * "contains not one  citation for a work that  proper  ly constitutes a bibliographical work."
 * --Jerzy•t 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not averse to incorporating the bibs into the accompanying article myself. Still, i came to the accompanying article intending to address one specific matter, which i don't recall having yet dealt with. (And while i've forgotten precisely what it was at least twice now, i expect to reconstruct that information a second time, and finish that task.)
 * But if -- as often occurs -- some other bright, shiny, new WP task interferes (as did the problem that brought my attention to the accompanying article and to this its talk page) before i finish that specific matter to my satisfaction, i am unlikely to ever return to deal with this talk section's non-meta problem. If such occurs: Sorry! (And by taking that pretty surely idiosyncratic approach, i don't intend to deprecate the worthiness of the task Der K has unintentionally offered for us.) --Jerzy•t 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)