Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Winston Churchill


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In the opinion of most, sufficient sources to support the topic's notability have been identified. The "delete" side generally does not address these sources.  Sandstein  12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Racial views of Winston Churchill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. This article has been unstable since it was first created in September 2019 and is in breach of WP:NOT on several counts, including WP:IINFO, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTANARCHY. The article was obviously created in order to try and make a WP:POINT of the type that we have repeatedly seen at Winston Churchill itself, especially on its talk page which was recently protected. As WP:NOT rightly asserts, in the provision of encyclopedic value there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done – merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete If there was more here I might vote keep, as it is this can be merged with no real loss of any depth. Also soime of it does not even seem to be about race, so there is a whiff of OR and fork.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral Some of the prose is a bit "blog" and "commentary" which runs against policy, but saying that, the quotes are extensive and not chopped up as much as I'd feared. It might need tightening and re-focusing, but I'm not sure it needs a full deletion. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic covered by a sizeable literature, and the material on the topic I'm most familiar with (Churchill's views of Indians as relevant to the Bengal Famine) seems a patchy but basically OK summary of historians' views. From what I've seen, there's a consensus that Churchill was racist towards Indians. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge The lead in this article, "Winston Churchill made a variety of contradictory statements on racial and cultural issues, making generalized conclusions difficult", is the key takeaway and it, and the—after a very heavy pruning and editing of the lightly referenced—sections that follow, should be merged into a new small subsection on the Winston Churchill article (2-4 sentences at most) or scattered into the relevant existing sections. Any views Winston Churchill had need to be assessed against the majority views of the time (not of today) - it is where they were substantially different to the norms of then that they become noteworthy, particularly if they had a major influence on his decisions. Even though deceased, should be treated like LPB - only high quality multiple source referenced facts to survive. Kangaresearch (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Myself, I started a spinoff page about Churchill to fill a gap – Winston Churchill as painter.  I was confident that this was valid as a separate topic because I found books on the subject:
 * Sir Winston Churchill: His Life and His Paintings
 * Winston Churchill: His Life as a Painter
 * Sir Winston Churchill: Life Through His Paintings
 * Churchill: The Statesman as Artist
 * By contrast, the page in question is not supported by specific and substantial sources like this. If we search for book titles which link Churchill with race, all we seem to find is:
 * Churchill and Colonist Ii: The Story of Winston Churchill and His Famous Race Horse
 * The Island Race
 * The first book about the race horse shows the extent of the vast literature about Churchill. The second is a book written by Churchill and it's about British history.  It seems telling that the page in question does not cite this work to tell us Churchill's views about "the island race".  Instead, it seems to cherry pick fragments from elsewhere.  These seem tendentious, engaging in original research and synthesis to make a selective case – a classic WP:POVFORK.  So, as we seem to lack suitable sources to support such a split, the conclusion is Delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The literature on the Bengal Famine alone includes pretty significant coverage of Churchill's racial views. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Andrew Davidson is not doing the right search, as "race" has multiple meanings; more relevant results are found by searching "Winston Churchill and racism". While there may not be many scholarly sources which deal with Churchill's racial views per se (or at least they were not obvious when doing a Google Scholar search), there are some which discuss it significantly as part of a larger work. There are more sources which discuss his racial views in terms of particular issues and groups (eg. antisemitism/Zionism, the Bengal famine, Caribbean immigration proposed "keep England white" election slogan etc.) which you can see from the sources in the article. Also, Churchill's racial views have caused modern day controversies to the point that a UN ambassador was forced to apologize for quoting Churchill on a completely unrelated subject. Obviously the article needs to be kept under close watch because it could easily become a magnet for all sorts of OR and POV pushing, but that's not a good reason to delete it. buidhe 12:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nick-D and buidhe. There is quite a lot of literature about Churchill's infamous racist views. SD0001 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that we have articles titled Racial views of Adolf Hitler and Racial views of Donald Trump, I don't see how we can delete this article. Smallchief (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For the answer to that, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Buidhe and Nick-D. The sources exist; the article is not bad enough to justify blowing it up and starting over; and a merger would be inappropriate due to the quantity of material. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per not just the other arguments, but seems like the topic would be inconvenient for those who wish not to commensurate Churchill as a key figure of WWII against Nazism with his racial views that would look possibly negative and could infulence his evaluation. Worst case it could be merged into his mother article.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC))
 * Delete/merge As per Kangaresearch. Unless his views were notably different to other people of his generation then they don't need to be singled out. By today's standards everyone of his generation would be considered a bit racist, the only difference is here that Churchill is well known and well sourced (including by his own writings). There's a vast difference between the norm and those whose racist views were so extreme that they deliberately exterminated 6 million people - so it's right that Hitler's position should be explored in more detail. That aside, it is a  dreadful article: poor structure, limited/weak sourcing, bit of synthesis and often contradictory, which is the kind of thing one would expect from a POV fork like this and exactly why Wikipedia has policies to prevent such articles in the first place. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO the fact that his racial views weren't any different from the people of his generation is not really a valid reason to not have this article. We do have an FA on George Washington and slavery even though Washington's views on slavery were the norm at the time. It's just that we have the sources, as is the case here. Concerns about the poor structure should be addressed editorially and not through deletion. SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's not about your opinion, it's about Wikipedia's content policies. The burden of proof is with those who want to keep this article: they need to prove that the content meets the notability critieria (and not the WP:NOT criteria, which is where it is at the moment). If he were still alive then this 'article' would be simply an attack page, and thus qualify for speedy deletion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that the topic of the article meets the notability criteria as there are a number of sources. I don't think notability is what this AfD seeks to dispute - the nomination statement is based entirely on WP:NOT. The alleged WP:NOT violations are something that can be fixed through editing. SD0001 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic with plenty of available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above sources and WP:ARTN. I agree with SD0001's point that "other people were racist then too" is not an excuse for the racist views of a major historical figure, and if there are reliable sources discussing the topic, then the topic is notable. Concerns about structure, sourcing and synthesis can be corrected via normal editing, as per ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you maybe undermine your argument by citing that aspect of notability guidelines. Notability is determined by weighting; content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (my emphasis). Creating a separate fork to introduce value judgements because those opinions would not otherwise merit coverage seems like an attempt to circumvent core policy (which some of the users involved have tried before in other, equally high profile articles). If a significant number of reliable sources dedicate a significant amount of space to this aspect then it may deserve an article. If it's just fringe views by a minority then it does not meet WP:ARTN. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Winston Churchill. clearly a WP:SYNTHy content fork. Great as a proposed topic of someone's Masters or PhD thesis, but not a standalone Wikipedia article. --Nug (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of nomination
Comments. As nominator, I did not intend to take any further part here as I was happy to await consensus but I'm concerned to see so many entries focused on notability criteria because that is irrelevant. I'm not disputing the notability of the subject. SD0001 has recognised that by pointing out that the nomination is entirely based on WP:NOT, which isn't notability – it is What Wikipedia is not.

My contention is that the article is a honeypot for people with a WP:POINT to make about a topic that, however notable, is extremely contentious and, in contextual terms, highly dubious. Churchill was a Victorian/Edwardian imperialist who considered other races to be inferior because that was the collective mindset of contemporary British people in all classes who perceived the empire as not merely a fact but a right. It was not until after the Second World War and perhaps not until the 1960s that this ignorant mindset began to be demolished.

Churchill was not a racist in 21st century terms (whereas Hitler certainly was) and that is the big mistake his accusers make and why I say that their case is highly dubious in terms of the historical context. Churchill did not agitate on racist grounds and he was unconcerned about biological differences. His attitude to people from his equivalent of the "third world" was just that – he saw inhabitants of such countries as underdeveloped compared with the industrialised powers and therefore, to his imperialist way of thinking they must be inferior and in need of British, American or European leadership, but not biologically inferior. It is a fact that his negative attitude towards Indians had more to do with his apparent distaste for Hinduism, but on the other hand he saw great merit in Zionism. I would be more concerned about Churchill's chauvinism than any alleged racism. Although he was largely dominated by Clementine in the domestic sphere, his attitude to women in general really was deplorable.

Going back to the nomination statement, WP:NOT rightly asserts that in the provision of encyclopaedic value there is an important distinction between what can be done and what should be done – merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. My contention is that this article should not be here because it is not suitable. The parent article is the place for short character assessment summaries and the salient points made in the racism article are already in the parent, but without WP:UNDUE.

So, please leave notability out of the discussion. Because we're talking about Churchill, it should go without saying that the article meets the GNG. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If there's a significant literature on this topic, which there is, then having an article on it is appropriate. We don't delete articles because they might be problematic to maintain, and the OK shape of the article at present indicates that this isn't a significant issue anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that the nominator is also trying to make a WP:POINT, and has a POV: that "Churchill was not a racist in 21st century terms (whereas Hitler certainly was)". The statement "that is the big mistake his accusers make" indicates that the nominator believes there is a set of "accusers" and "defenders", and is taking a position on the side of the "defenders". Obviously Churchill was less racist than Hitler was; everybody was less racist than Hitler. (And see Godwin's law for a comment on the strength of that argument.)


 * I agree that the term "racist" is loaded and POV. At the moment of my posting this response, the word is used in the article once: "Churchill often made disparaging and outright racist comments about Indians," and that will be corrected ten seconds from now because I'm going to take the phrase "and outright racist" out of that sentence. "Churchill often made disparaging comments about Indians" could still be improved (what does "often" mean? should it be "Churchill made several documented disparaging comments about Indians"?) but at this point it's just a matter of normal editing and doesn't need to be a deletion discussion.


 * This discussion is focusing on notability criteria, because that's what deletion discussions are usually for. If the subject is notable, then an article is appropriate and shouldn't be deleted. The nominator's statement that there are "accusers" indicates that the topic is notable, and just needs to be balanced between "accusation" and "defense" to the level that the reliable sources support. If lots of RS say that Churchill's views on race were unremarkable and only one source says that they were extreme, then that should be reflected in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per and per ' reply above.  Seems there's no dispute as to notability at this point, and the WP:NOT issues identified by the nom can, if necessary, be fixed by editing the article.  If reliable sources exist disputing the claim that Churchill was racist and are not already included, then they can—and should—be added.   YorkshireLad  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is a dispute about notability otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. It seems like some are confusing the notability of the subject with the notability of the object. One is notable, one is not. The WP:NOT argument is a non-starter, which is why content discussions don't usually bother - it's easy enough to fix with judicious editing and references. The real question is the weighting of those references: how many RS comment on racial views as a proportion of the totality of sources on the subject? Is an individual article on this topic giving undue prominence to an aspect of Winston Churchill that most reliable sources pay minimal (if any) attention to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Apologies, I was referring to the nominator and phrased that (very) badly. Obviously you do dispute that the subject is notable, though I'm pleased you agree with me that any WP:NOT issues can be fixed by editing.
 * I can assure you that, personally, I'm not confused on the point you raise: I'm aware that an article on Potato crisp preferences of Winston Churchill would not be notable simply because Churchill is. But your argument—proportion of sources mentioning something—would also be an argument for deleting Early life of Winston Churchill, presumably, since the vast majority of reliable sources about him will be silent on his childhood: I can only assume that the vast majority of works in reliable sources that have written about Churchill have written about his premiership in the Second World War.  Unless, of course, you mean that the majority of biographies, and other works discussing his life in totality, don't mention his views on race?  I'd be surprised if that's true, though I don't have access to a collection of biographies with which to check.
 * I'm a little confused as to where you've found the idea of weighting of sources in WP:N; the line you quote earlier in the discussion (fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources) is from WP:NPOV, which of course isn't used to determine whether an article should exist or not, but to determine what should be in articles that do exist. Indeed, the only mention of weighting that I can find on the main notability guideline page (under WP:NOPAGE) makes the exact  point to the one you're making—that if something is a minority theory or viewpoint (which you appear to think this is; correct me if I'm wrong), then it may be better served by a standalone article than in a main article, which might give it exactly that undue weight.
 * In terms of meeting WP:GNG, it seems clear that there are multiple reliable sources discussing what views on race Winston Churchill had, and not all just attack pieces. Some things are anti-Churchill, of course: like this in the Independent, and in the Washington Post ; others are balanced on the issue, like Sky News , The Times  (which concedes that he was racist but argues that he was "still a great man") and the BBC  (which of course has a statutory duty to be neutral on political questions).  There are also pieces defending Churchill, such as this from the "Churchill Project" at Hillsdale College , and this from the International Churchill Society .  And those are just the ones I found from a quick Google.
 * As I said, all of these viewpoints (not necessarily these exact sources) should be cited in the article. But it seems the topic itself has received the signficant coverage needed by GNG. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 22:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Churchill's premiership during the war it was only part of a long public career that didn't end in 1945. As it happens, there are indeed many books about his childhood. Typically, Churchill didn't leave this up to his biographers, but wrote an account himself, My Early Life (1930).  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed; he was PM again after that, of course. I think it's still true though that, if a source is picked at random, it's more likely than not to be covering WWII than to be covering his early life, his post-war political career, or indeed his views on race.  I'm not actually trying to argue that there shouldn't be an article covering his early life (though I can't find the "many books" that you refer to that are specifically about his childhood).  Off-topic, but of course an autobiography would be about as far from the independent of the subject stipulation of WP:GNG as one can get! <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 23:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Churchill's premiership during the war it was only part of a long public career that didn't end in 1945. As it happens, there are indeed many books about his childhood. Typically, Churchill didn't leave this up to his biographers, but wrote an account himself, My Early Life (1930).  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed; he was PM again after that, of course. I think it's still true though that, if a source is picked at random, it's more likely than not to be covering WWII than to be covering his early life, his post-war political career, or indeed his views on race.  I'm not actually trying to argue that there shouldn't be an article covering his early life (though I can't find the "many books" that you refer to that are specifically about his childhood).  Off-topic, but of course an autobiography would be about as far from the independent of the subject stipulation of WP:GNG as one can get! <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 23:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep every modern biography of Churchill has at least a section devoted to his "racial" views. Side comment: the article shouldn't be reduced to whether Churchill made racist comments or not, but whether he supported a colonialist and racist state policy towards the people of the Indian subcontintent.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge Most of this infomation can be shortened and summarised within the main article and the specific topic does not warrant its own article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep After much heartburn, I have concluded that is correct; the article does meet WP:GNG, and I abhor attempts to rule entire subjects off-limits under WP:NOT. That is not to say that I disagree with the nominator, quite the contrary; it is very hard for me to visualise this article ever becoming more than a dumping ground for toxic waste. But at least it will keep it out of the main article.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. This is a relevant subject discussed in the literature, although the current article lacks the necessary balance and plurality of sources (it's mainly based on Roberts' book. Alcaios (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.