Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Royal Military College at Sandhurst

Why does this article not have a mention about Churchill's studies at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst?60.51.32.35 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

?It does. Though according to Gilbert, by the time he graduated he would have been able to transfer to an infantry regiment rather than being forced to choose cavalry because of low grades (he did well at Sandhurst), but chose to become a cavalry officer despite his fathers wishes. Sandpiper (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote on Gandhi

Churchill said of Gandhi:"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle-Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace...to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor." Considering Churchill's famed wit and quotations, it must be noted that he got the facts wrong here. Gandhi was a member of the Inner-Temple. Petty, but worth noting.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldnt agree. His mistake does not change his point, and in the context of a man whose biography is very long indeed, the mistake may not be worth explaining. Sandpiper (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancestors

In regards to the Ancestor section, The New York Genealogical & Biographical Record Vol. 73, 1942 gives the mother of Ambrose Hall as Mehitable Beach of North Stratford, Connecticut. I felt this would be of help to fill the remaining gap in Churchill's ancestory as Ambrose's lineage is the only one currently listed as Unknown.

Also, Ambrose Hall's father was also named Ambrose.

The website is located here for further reference: http://www.beachfamilyjournal.com/chrchill.htm

Billynapalm (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Duke of London

I don't doubt that it is true, as it sounds like the sort of thing that might be true, but the sourcing was problematic to say the least, and so I have removed it for now. There is significantly more discussion of the claim in Honours of Winston Churchill, and the sourcing there is a bit better, so I left that alone - for now. However, even the sourcing there seems a bit odd to me. It would be good if we could get some contemporaneous news reports, or actual respected biographies, which discuss the issue. A personal genealogy website, and a single line in a trivia question at Churchill.org seems a bit questionable to me. I think that claims which sound plausible but for which we have little good sourcing are often going to be the 'soft spot' for a hoax to slip in.

For all I know, this is a completely true claim, and everyone on the planet knows it to be obvious but me, but still, it would be great to have some good sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored a revised statement about the title based on a higher quality source. The claim that he was the first non-Royal to be offered the title of Duke since 1874 was not mentioned in the sources I could find so I have left it out for now. I will take a look at the related article you linked to. Road Wizard (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To confirm Churchill wasnt the only non-Royal to be offered a dukedom. In fact Hugh Grosvenor, 1st Duke of Westminster was a non-Royal who became a Duke in 1874. I should also mention that Roy Jenkins biography of Churchill, page 896, states that the Queen definately offered him a dukedom, but only after enquiries were made to ascertain if he would refuse it, which he duly did. Additionally his work mentions nothing about the title being the 'Duke of London' merely that he was offered 'a' dukedom. LordHarris 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert's short biography p.939 says the queen told churchill she would have made him a duke, except that he wished to continue in the commons after resigning as pm in 1955. Churchill suggested it would be a great honour, should he later leave the commons. doesn't mention a specific title.Sandpiper (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PC

Can anyone explain was Churchill entitled to bear "PC" after his name? I am confused by the article of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council as it says only peers have the privilege for using the post-nominal letter "PC". --Clithering (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a stupid compromise because we're not allowed to use "The Rt Hon" before his name for some reason that was agreed to ages ago that I don't really remember. You're right, though, that we should not include "PC" for non-peers. john k (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The "PC" has been returned. This is outside my expertise, so I do not change it, but has not there been some conclusion reached on the propriety?Czrisher (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there. S*d it, let's Ignore all rules and get common sense on this one. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Malakand, published 1900 or 1898

There seems to be an error in either this article (section 'Malakand') or in the article "Churchill as a writer" in terms of the year of publishing of "The Story of the Malakand Field Force". This article states 1900, the other states 1898 as the year of publishing. All other sources seem to agree on 1898 as the year of publishing; i.e. www.savrola.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.9.157 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Winston_Churchill#Funeral

« The funeral also saw the largest assemblage of statesmen in the world until the 2005 funeral of Pope John Paul II.[172] »

Trouble : the Tito (yougoslavian leader)'s article say exactly the same thing, for 1980 :

« His funeral drew many world statesmen.[19] Based on the number of attending politicians and state delegations, it was the largest statesman funeral in history.[20] » from Tito#Final_years.

Who is true ? 220.135.4.212 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The pope isn't a statesman now is he?--87.210.52.227 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• That link describes a statesman as someone with a long and respected career in politics at the national and international level. I think a pope would qualify, particularly that particular one. He was even elected. Sandpiper (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This still hasn't been resolved. According to the Tito article, guests "...included four kings, thirty-one presidents, six princes, twenty-two prime ministers and forty-seven ministers of foreign affairs. They came from both sides of the Cold War, from 128 different countries." Is there any statistics for Churchill's funeral? If not, the BBC article cannot be a source for the phrase "The funeral also saw the largest assemblage of statesmen in the world until the 2005 funeral of Pope John Paul II" as the article states "It promises to be one of the largest funerals in history. The title, "Holding history's largest funeral" is very misleading, as it does not reflect what is actually written in the article. Any thoughts? I would personally change "The funeral also saw the largest assemblage of statesmen in the world until the 2005 funeral of Pope John Paul II" to "The funeral also saw one of the largest assemblage of statesmen in the world" --Zivan56 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

churchill`s income

Before the 1940 war Churchill was `loaned` £1,000,000.00 which after the war the government `wrote off` he never paid a penny of the money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Givrnup (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't he deep in debt or something, which was why four businessmen bought a cottage and let him live in it after he retired from politics until his death. He and his wife didn't have to pay rent and after he died all his debts were written off. Curiously William Pitt the Younger also died deep in debt and the government paid off his debts. It was the least the grateful nation caould do for two war heroes. (User:Willski72]) 18:10 3 March 2009Willski72 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the globalize tag

The section to which it's applied is almost entirely a discussion of Churchill's position with respect to Indian independence as a British politician not holding ministerial office in the early 1930s. The section is focused on the effect this period had on Churchill, not on the overall Indian independence debate, which is covered elsewhere: this is the biography of Churchill. I fail to see how a "global" perspective on this could possibly helpful; it'd be like getting a "global" perspective on the San Andreas fault, or an article on the City of Austin. Drive-by tagging removed. Ray^Talk 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't think the Indian view of what has happened in India is relevant? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to insert a tag on a discussion that is entirely about Churchill's position on Indian independence as what amounted to a very loud back-bencher in Parliament, and its effect on Churchill's political career. If you have useful information that is reliably sourced, you're welcome to add it or bring it up for discussion. But I don't think a priori there is a gaping hole in our coverage that would allow for such a tag to be inserted, no. It would be like asking for a Chinese perspective on Senator Byrd's reaction to Nixon's trip to China. Nixon's trip to China: of supreme importance to the Chinese. Senator Byrd's reaction: probably of interest only to people studying American politics. Ray^Talk 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but not with your a priori assumption. There is a "rather" big difference between three million deaths and a visit. I hope you see this. I must remind you that 3 million deaths is the same order of magnitude as the Holocaust. Of course - it happened to people that the English considered and consider inferior, thus making their premature deaths utterly unimportant, but Wikipedia policy doesn't justify such a POV. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to engage in argument for its own sake :) I'm glad we're agreed that the globalize tag is unjustified and that there's no need for such a perspective in the article. That's not to say it wouldn't be welcomed if it could be done in a tasteful way in line with the overall thrust of the article, but a tag saying "we have to have one or the article is bad" is unneeded. Ray^Talk 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated archiving?

I propose to set up automated archiving via the MiszaBot (or one of those) here, to archive all threads where there hasn't been activity for over 90 days. Is that alright with everybody? Ray^Talk 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take lack of objection as a tentative okay. If it turns out badly, feel free to reverse. Ray^Talk 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Abdication Crisis

The article currently gives December 7 as the date that Churchhill was unanimously shouted down and cites to Lord Beaverbrook. However, Manchest, in the second volume of The Last Lion, Alone, indicates the date is December 11, relying on papers by another MP, Bob Boothby. That source also indicates 1) it was the "first and only time" Churchhill arrived to Parliament drunk and 2) in addition to receiving hostility from all members, Churchhill was ruled out of order by the Speaker because he had been trying to issue a speech during Question Time. All of this is on p. 233.

Can anyone with access to the Beaverbrook source double check the date? I think the other points should be added, but don't want to unclearly mix sources with opposing dates. IMHO (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bourke Cockran - never a candidate for US President

The quote:

Home of Bourke Cockran, an admirer of his mother's. Bourke was an established American politician, member of the House of Representatives and potential presidential candidate. He greatly influenced Churchill, both in his approach to oratory and politics, and encouraging a love of America.

False -- Bourke, having been born in Ireland, could serve in the Congress, could serve in any US Government office, except 2, President and Vice President. The US Constitution, Article II states that the President must be a "Natural Born Citizen of the US". Some Constitutional amendment prevents the VP from being elected if he/she is unqualified to be President.

76.100.68.129 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Jack Stout

Good catch, thanks! Ray^Talk 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I don't think this article has enough categories. It needs more. Oh and navboxes.. definately more navboxes. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hah :) Yeah, Churchill was an outsized historical figure, and our navboxes and categories do reflect that. Ray^Talk 02:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama

U.S. President Obama, in a televised news conference April 29, 2009, said Churchill stated early in the war that "we don't torture" (quote from Obama, not Churchill).

The president's statement was:

"The British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don’t torture—when the entire British—all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."

Does anyone have a citation for this admirable statement? I've read a lot about WWII, some of Churchill's memoirs, and Martin Gilbert's biography of Churchill, and don't remember seeing it.

Sca (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities is a much better place for questions of this sort. Ray^Talk 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ No criticism section?

I h=am an admirer of Churchill, and have read many books about him however I think it is undemocratic of you guys not to put a criticism section of this man because he is far from a saint. By this I am referring to his involvement in the coup etat of 1953 Operation Ajax (Winston, in order to protect British Anglo Persian Oil assets, convinced Roosevelt that the Iranian Democratic govt of Mossadehg was spreading communism and therefore needs to be over thrown). He was also an underground"proponent of the Eugenics movement in Britain, no surprise given his frequent use of racist terminologies.

There should be no arguement here, insert a criticism section so that the reader is better informed. period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was a supporter of eugenics and he helped to create Iraq.In his book about the World War II, he wrote that the last Shah of Iran was a talented person.Churchill's command was terrible in Battle of France in 1940.Again, when Japan attacked, he was a weak military leader.Beyond doubt, he was the best choice, but only because there wasn't anyone with less defects, than Churchill.Agre22 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Winston_Churchill#Abdication_Crisis

"On 4 December, he met with the King and again urged delay in any decision about abdication. On 5 December, he issued a lengthy statement implying that the Ministry was applying unconstitutional pressure on the King to force him to make a hasty decision." What is the article referring to by "unconstitutional pressure"? The United Kingdom has no formal constitution which would be discussed in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkmilitia (talk • contribs) 08:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Why is it that almost every major politician, from George Bush to Clinton, seems to have a criticism section, but not Churchhill? Aside from the Indian Independence controversy, this article seems to paint him as a saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• probably this article is written from the alternative viewpoint of avoiding arguing whether someone was good or bad, but presenting controversies as they arose historically, spread through the text? Sandpiper (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is far from critical; look at the section about India, pre-war remarks about Mussolini a.s.o. To me, this contextual placement is far preferrable to a separate "criticism" section. Asav (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that as he is the best politician ever, he doesn't need a "criticism" section, because there isn't any. He was honest, fair, level-headed, saint-like and he led Britain through WWII.

I myself reverted a flamebait like edit [1]. After a while all the edits of that autor were reversed. I believe some of them may be valid and should not be removed invoking NPOV (as usual). --BBird (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Churchill has much criticism surrounding him, though not on this article. His mentality was that of brutality. With the Iran oil issue surrounding it's nationalization proposed by Mossadegh, Churchill's solution in parliament was to "send in the troops, a bit of blood and its all solved".--93.97.181.187 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't discuss the subject. We are writing an encyclopedia article here. not a debating society. The things you mention are recorded in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are the worst way of dealing with negative facts about a subject. The best way is to integrate negative facts with other facts into the body of the article. Please feel free to add negative facts, provided they are well-sourced, to the body of the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to read a section about Churchill's alcoholism or at least renowned use of alcohol. I'm not really certain how this talk page works, but a quick Google search about Churchill and alcohol presents many informative pages. Even the pretty biased site winstonchurchill.org [2] mentions it in an opinion essay at [3]81.155.60.91 81.155.60.91 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)(talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been sections on Churchill's attitudes towards alcohol written before. People keep taking them out. I wrote one myself awhile back and it's now nowhere to be found. I think the (probably rather deserved) reverence a lot of Brits have for this courageous man tend to lead to a tendency to scrub the article clean of anything that extremists could use to tarnish his memory, but I agree - it's not good history to ignore the historical record in an effort to put anyone on a pedestal, even Churchill. And the famous quote “Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.” [4] seems to indicate that it might be worth a discussion. In an interest of disclosure, I do NOT believe Churchill was an alcoholic, just a heavy (and enthusiastic) user, and in the current backlash about alcoholism worldwide it might be good for people to hear that there was at least one prominent heavy user of alcohol who did not believe it to be detrimental to his life and work, and who lived to a very old age. 76.175.151.187 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of wish there was a criticism section. This is a good scholarly article, but I just wanted a birds-eye view of what people, who didn't like him, would say what's wrong with him. There was a lady, who once said"If you were my husband I'd poison your tea" Why did she say that? Was she pro-Nazi, pro-Stalin, pro-Indian independence? Just didn't like him because he was corpulent? Did people think he was boorish? Ill-mannered? The King wanted to give him the Royal Order of the Garter, and Churchill quipped, "The people have already given me the royal order of the boot" So why was he voted out? Was he seen, like Kruschev, as too common and brutish? A simple summary of why some people don't like him would be nice. The people who critisize him, what were their political motivations? 64.252.28.56 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Churchill did drink a lot but it didnt have any real effect until he lost the election in 1945 when he (understandably) felt slightly betrayed, this didnt stop him doing another 4 years as Prime Minister however. He also smoked but these two things, along with his overweightness, didnt stop him living until the age of 89, two fingers to the government health regime. A criticisms section sounds fair but it would have to be properly edited, accussing Churchill of genocide etc has no place in an encyclopedia.Willski72 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the idea of a criticism section, you would have to include that he was a well known racist. He called black people words I'd rather not repeat, Asians "Chinks", Indians "Boorish" and the worst race beat only by the germans, and the list goes on.--Aquaseal (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is also true and it should be mentioned, but it must be accompanied with a mention that these comments, though rightly condemned now, were not then. (or during most of his life anyway)Willski72 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that he is burning in hell. His treatment of "uncivilized tribes", including the Irish, is indicative of his true feelings on "inferior" races —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.166.54 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniforms/rank during WWII

Churchill was photographed many times wearing a military uniform during WWII. It appears to be a British Army uniform, but I have not seen one where you could make out the rank insignia. Did he hold a military rank? I know that he was an honorary colonel, but I would think that wearing any rank lower than Field Marshal (United Kingdom) would mean that the PM would be outranked by officers that he is over. However he is not included in List of British Field Marshals, as several members of the royal family are. --rogerd (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill was notorious for wearing clothes he had no entitlement to, starting with his French helmet during the First World War. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his uniforms were also falsely worn. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

He was made honourary Colonel of many Regiments during the Second World War and so had many uniforms to choose from! He outranked the Generals he met because he was War Minister as well as Prime Minister and therefore was technically above them. He was a Lt Colonel of the 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers during the First World War and fought with them, so he could wear that uniform. He was a fighting Major of the 4th (Queens Own Oxfordshire) Hussars, so he could wear that uniform. And he was a Lt of the 21st Lancers during the Sudanese campaign, so he could wear that uniform (although by the time he was PM the rank of Lt was probably too low for him). He had lots of uniforms to choose from in the first place (though i dont doubt that he probably wore some falsely because he liked the look!)Willski72 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have since found some pictures of him in commons wearing an RAF Air Commodore's uniform, a "one-star" rank equivalent to an British Army Brigadier. I think that this is odd that he wore a uniform of lower rank than officers that he was superior to. But I guess that was his way. Thanks for the info. --rogerd (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most he could get away with!Willski72 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this from The Times about his military rank --rogerd (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dresden edit in intro by User:Wallie

The sourcing supports what the article already said and everybody knows: that the RAF was involved in the bombing of Dresden. It does not support that Churchill ordered the city destroyed. Deliberate punitive destruction of an entire city does not feature in Allied war aims as presented by the source cited, nor does Churchill appeared to have played any especial role in the planning. Indeed, the source explicitly gives responsibility for the selection of Dresden as a target to SHAEF, and its targeting was a function of Eisenhower's staff, in response to Dresden's vital role as a communications hub and industrial center for the Third Reich. Accordingly, unless User:Wallie can turn up specific sections of the source, or other sources, to support his edit, I continue to regard it as a biased, inaccurate portrayal of events. Ray (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through the source as well, and I can't see where Wallie is getting this from either. Churchill is referred to perhaps twice in the long article presented as a source, in reference to the conferences with Stalin, Roosevelt, et al. Nowhere does the statement 'Churchill ordered the city destroyed' appear, or anything like it. Even if we were to stretch into the realms of OR, I can't even see how that this could even be reasonably inferred. Benea (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Benea. Most people, even the extremely biased know that Churchill was the one who ordered the destruction of the city, and not Harris, who he tried to pin it on. To my mind, the whole article on Churchill is highly biased, making him out to be a saint. This is the common view in Britain, but not elsewhere. Wallie (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Most people? Can you cite that? Also can you address the facts presented above, that you read a lot into sources that don't seem to be there? Your new reference states, using the testimony from a British bomber - 'We were briefed to bomb Dresden, because we were told that Churchill had received a request from the Russians to bomb Dresden, because it would help the push on the East.' Can you see why this does not say that 'Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden', or even if it did, why this pilot is perhaps not an authoritative source on the decision making process? It says Churchill had been asked by the Russians to bomb Dresden. True enough, at the conferences Russian delegates put forward requests for allied bombing to weaken the German defence. But the decision making process is not one that allows you to make a definite statement of this type. The far better source you were using before showed this far more clearly, showing the key involvement of the sub-committees, SHAEF, Eisenhower's staff, Tedder, etc. Are you trying to insert the note 'Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden', and then trying to find the source that claims that because 'Most people, even the extremely biased' know this to be true? If so I'd strongly suggest trying it the other way around, write here what the source says, and avoid introducing your own biases. Benea (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Benea. The source says that Churchill had received a request from the Russians to bomb Dresden, because it would help the push on the East. This is clearly an order. We only have Churchill's word that the Russians requested this. Anyway, a request is one thing, ordering it is another. I am not biased. If I thought Churchill wasn't involved, I wouldn't say he was. You are the one who is whitewashing Churchill. "My country right or wrong" seems to apply to you. I don't think it matters what reference I come up with. You will revert it. Wallie (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, you seem to be putting 2 and 2 together and making 5. A request is an order? So the Russians ordered the bombing? Or they didn't and Churchill lied and ordered it off his own bat? Sources please! I am not whitewashing Churchill, there's certainly a lot he is sourcably guilty of, see how he treats Gandhi! For that matter see our large section on the 'Dresden bombings controversy' in this very article! I have no interest in whitewashing anyone, provide a reliable source that categorically states that Churchill gave the order and I will support you, but at the moment you are reading too much into these sources and coming up with your own conclusions. And be kind enough not to accuse me of nationalistic biases. Benea (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Benea. The Russians clearly could not order Churchill to do anything, no more than he could order Stalin. You know this too. Anyone can request something. It is the person who approves the request that is responsible. Churchill was very political and stated things in such a way that he could get the credit while putting the blame on someone else, if it went wrong. I am glad to see that you could support me. I do think that Churchill was to blame (or to be praised) for the bombing of Dresden. Harris has paid the price for too long. Wallie (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Coming in from WP:MILHIST, I'd also like to see the sources that support this accusation. Skinny87 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see that Wallie, but where does Churchill come in to the planning, organisation and finally where is the order? The breakdown of events seems to be that after the Tehran conference Eisenhower as head of SHAEF, encouraged by Roosevelt, sends his deputy, Tedder, to arrange for assistance for Russian operations from the allied air forces. At Tedder's request the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee draws up a series of objectives. Tedder and the staff at SHAEF analyse them and draw up priorities. 'On 31 January, the decision was made by the Deputy Supreme Commander Tedder and his air staff that the second priority for the Allied strategic air forces should be the “attack of BERLIN, LEIPZIG, DRESDEN and associated cities where heavy attack will . . . hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts.' This was then passed down to RAF Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Forces and specific targets and plans of attack within the city were finalised. The responsibility for ordering the attack does not seem to lie on Churchill, Harris, or even any one man. It was reached at by committee, through the work of all the allied powers. Churchill perhaps bears as much responsibility as Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Tedder, Harris, because they were all figures in the command structure that ultimately drew up the operation. Why are you singling 'Churchill out as the man who gave the order', where is the evidence for this order? Please don't see this as a crusade to alter an article on Churchill that is 'highly biased, making him out to be a saint', or see accusing Churchill of these actions as a way of exonerating Harris. Benea (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN. Wikipedia does not make assertions from information that does not exist. Nowhere in the reference does it explicitly say that Churchill ordered the destruction of the city. You are combining original research with your personal point of view. —Dark ^talk 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. There is something this stinks about this whole article. Of course Churchill was a crafty politician that worded things in such a way so that he could quickly pass the blame onto someone else, if it went wrong. The British people love Churchill so much they will suppress anything negative about him, even though they know it is untrue. Other nationalities are too afraid to take you on. Wallie (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not British... —Dark ^talk 07:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) I like Churchill, and I'm a Brit, but I don't think he was a saint. God knows he did more than a few bad/dodgy/immoral things for which he should rightly shoulder the blame for. But historical evidence shows Dresden isn't one of them. Skinny87 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it cuts both ways, anyway. A lot of foreigners and ideological opponents think they have an axe to grind about Churchill and Britain, use stigmatising language (as evidenced in the discussion above) and push things that aren’t true, so as an argument simply imputing motive one way or another is a very weak defence. Lachrie (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As PM of the UK Winston Churchill had about the same responsibility for destroying thousand year of european history, killing 2 million civilians as Hitler as "Fuhrer" of the German Reich was responable for the millions that were murdered in the concentration camps - or Stalin as chairman of the USSR communist party murdered well as many as Hitler (!) - and

both dictators attacked Poland, so why did the UK and France only declare war on Germany ? JPEriksson,Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The truth of Churchill

If Churchill was such a great guy. Why has all records of Churchill been sensored since 1874. In the UK we have a 30,50 or 100 censor. However with Churchill, nothing has been disclosed. Was this guy a hero or a murderer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.106.201 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

.

From Pontus Eriksson,Sweden

.

Since the winners always writes the history, Winston Churchill without doubt is the hero of the 20th century. Specially his work as PM during the time UK stood alone in WW2. This was practically from his fiftht day as PM, 15th of may 1940 when his french colleague phoned him with the message (after only five days of german offensive, which started the same day he became PM, 10th of may) "We are beaten !" Churchill then asked about the reserve troups - but there were no such thing ! Until Hitler desided to attack the Sovietunion 22nd of june 1941. German generals as von Manstein and Guderian had understood that tanks not should be used just to help the infantry, but as free army units. This while the french assumed a war similar to WW1 and had more than a million men in the static "Maginot line" wich didn't cover the Belgium border at any point. And with the attack coming right were it was considered "unpossible", through the Ardennes, the belgian, french and brittish armys destinies was defeated in only five days as contrast to the more then four years whithout an real ending during WW1 ! Specially during 1940 and the speach of the spitfire pilots "Never before have so many had so much to thank so few for" Churchill had a great influence on the brittish public. Churchill were also one of the first politicans to warn about "herr Hitler" as Churchill used to call him. But is all work of Winston Churchill only of pure goodness ? Did he never made errors ? Did he always care for his own ? And whatabout the civilians among the enemy ? Already as minister of the navy (don't know the exact title, sorry) during WW1 he most probably let the admirality know that if an german submarine should sink a big Atlantic passenger ship it would be to the benefit of the UK. Atleast if many american citizens would die. And so didn't RMS Lusitania got more then a public warning of the risk of german submarines, but not more exactlly were the admirality last had seen them and when. This is shown in the BBC-film "Lusiania - murder on the Atlantic". And as if the torpedation of Lusitania wasn't good enough, Churchill and the admirality tried to blame the surviving captain Turner. This did not succeed thow. But in Turkey Churchill was the highest responsible man for the disaster at Gallipoli, wich led to him beeing fired as minister of the navy. During WW2, from june 1942, let he as PM the RAF and US air force bomb almost evry german city. Thousand year of historical buildings laid in ruins for no military reason. About 2.5 million civilian germans dead (compared with 4000 in the UK) , including the worst airbombing in history (atombombs i Hiroshima and Nagasaki included) , on the 13-14th of february 1945 (l0 weeks from V-day) 200 000 people were killed (very few of them soldiers) These are facts that also must count somehow. Most supprisingly to me is thow how easy he welcomed Stalin and the Sovietunion. Eventhow Hitler attacked the Sovietunion , the two dictatures had an agreement concidering the issue that lighted the fire - the invation of Poland. Germany attacked from the west (and from East-Preussia) on september 1st 1939, only 16 days later Sovietunion does exactlly the same from the east. And both armys stops at the line that still today is the eastern border of Poland (but wasn't in 1939). What did Hitler do that Stalin didn't, concerning outbreak of WW2 ? I don't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For "minister of the Navy" you mean First Lord of the Admiralty. Your figures for civilian deaths from bombing are completely wrong (4000 to 2.5 million???) and are quite frankly an insult to the British people who lost friends and family. You also fail to mention all the other European cities bombed by the Lufftwaffe chief of which are Amsterdam and Warsaw which were nearly flattened. Churchill new he needed the support of Stalin to defeat Hitler (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and after the war he was one of the first to publicly recognise the threat posed by the USSR (the Iron Curtain speech). In 1940 the USSR did not invade Western Europe, Hitler did. Churchill was informed of the nuclear weapons being dropped on Japan and he agreed but the Americans would have dropped them without his approval anyway. I understand that you are not a native speaker of English and so i have tried to accommodate you. He was far from perfect but many of your facts are just wrong im afraid.Willski72 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the title of Churchill during beginning of WW1. I'm very sorry if I have insulted the great brittish people, who has teached the world so much. But only central Coventry were completly destroyed by the blitz in autumn 1940. Reason was that the aircraft engine factories that was located in the center of the city. Elsewise damages in Britain compared to the "thousand heavy bomber raids" ,led by british RAF general Arthur Harris, began about may/june 1942 and had the aim of full destruction of all german cities. This air offensive were of a far greater magnitude than the blitz and the V1 and V2 random hitting rockets together. (Visit for instance Hamburg and study the arcitecture - only 5% remains from before 1942. While only (central) Coventry in Great Britain shows anything similar. The numbers of british death is civilians inside Great Britain only - soldiers is of course not included. Source is a swedish dictionary ("Bonniers Lexikon", a jewish company by the way) The german figures is not questionable in terms of magnitute. Between 2½-3 million dead civilians, but some of them thow died during the ethnical cleaning of East Preussia, Pommeronia and Schlesia (not sure of the english name of the last area - in german Schlesien, with cities like 650000 Breslau, now Wroclaw in Poland, its new inhabitants were commended by the red army to leave their homes i ex-Polish Lwow, now Lviv in Ukraine, before 1918 Lemberg in old Austria) About 2 million civilian germans died under mr Churchills responsibility and Arthur Harris command. Thats a fact, not an insult of the British people. This shall not be taken as a defence of nazi-Germany or Stalin and Berias (head of th NKVD, the russian Gestapo and SS) massmurder. My point is that also the allied did wrong, and most specially the Sovietunion. I end with the cruical question - why did England and France not declare war also against the Sovietunion after september 17th 1939, when it became appearant that the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement not only was a pact of non agression between the both dictators, but also an agreement of deviding Poland, the three baltic countries and Finland between them (althow Finland quite easaly could stop the red army at it's frontiers, probobly dued to the fact that Stalin had let the NKVD execute about 85% of all higher officers in the red army, just because he didn't trust them... Hitler on the other hand never quite trusted his generals eighter but he didn't kill them, not until after the 20th july attac on his life) Once again I'm sorry if I've hurt Brittish feelings, it was not my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JPEriksson this talkpage is not a forum for a general discussion about Churchill or aspects of the Second World War. This is for discussing how to improve the article on Churchill. Try posting at the reference desk if you want possible answers to your questions. Benea (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've tried to come up with somethings that the article about sir Churchill should

mention. Like his disaster ar Lord of Admirality during WW1, both for the RMS Lusitania torpedation and the Gallipoli-attempt to open the seaway to tzar-Russia. Also he was indeed highest responsible for the bombing campaigns against the german people during WW2. I mean he is the hero of 20th century, but he was not only a saint. A good article must critisize even heroes if they done big mistakes. As I read the article Churchill carrier is described so saint-alike that it almost is a lie. He did many bad things aswell, his great work is in what he achieved during the very difficult period may to november 1940. But his smaller - but very many - errors, concerning WW1, Stalin, the bombings of non military objects in Germany (for which he would hang for if the enemy had won) , treating of Gahndi and so on can't be kept as a secret. I also had to respond to an other person, who does not seem to have red other than old WW2-propaganda (?) The bomb damages to Britain during the WW2 simply cant be compared with what Churchill and Arthur Harris did to germany. An old schoolteacher of mine lived in the most southern town i Sweden (Trelleborg) he said that all cloud free nights for several years they could see the sky burning in the south, an often afterwoods hugh amounts of big airplane flew along the swedish (western) coast. To the closest german town (Stralsund) is atleast 100 km /54 nm /62 miles. I have wondered about theese things for years, and still wonder - was this terrorbombing really nessecary ? And was it not a war crime, bombing women, children and elderly people while their men fought for their country ? I mean was this not ALSO a crime ? / Since I understand the english but still do not understand why my text is criticized by administration (under headline "The truth of Churchill") where a younster (?) asks if Churchill "Was this guy a hero or a murderer" - then I think I gave him an answer, aswell as contributed with subjects missing in the article. At several other places under "discussion" is discussions like mine. Please could You be a bit more precice with the "non-forum-comment". Have I written any lie ? Is it wrong to answer people - who seems histrically at ground level , or who attacks me ? Have I insulted the brittish people like suggested or what. I never participates in forums otherwise, and didn't think I did now either. Best reguards, and I love Bill of Portland and Weymouth in the summer. I've been there five times. At London six times and in Coventy once. I've also seen Ramsgate,Broadstairs and Margate. the UK is my second home. And the first is NOT Sweden. I'm from Scania, were we still feel quite danish. (Scania was robbed by Sweden 1658, followed by wars and protests wich not ended until the Napoleon-wars. But where I live there is still only 15 british miles over the sea to Copenhagen, my capital.) best reguards JPEriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Germans started the bombing the British and Americans finished it, the Germans werent complaining when their aircraft were bombing all over Europe (not just Britain), only when the Allies got their revenge. More of the bombing was done by the Americans than th British, the RAF did not have enough aircraft for the thousand bomber raids nor enough fighters to protect them (which is why 'Flying Fortresses' were used). 60,000 Britains died due to German bombing not 4000. I fully agree that Churchill was far from a saint and there should be criticism but lets put this in perspective. If the Nazis had won Churchill would not of been hanged he would of been shot, along with hundreds of thousands of others in Britain (at least). Stalin had no emotion and would even kill members of his own family if he considered them a threat (an explanation for his killing the Generals). The terrible cases of rape and murder by Red Army soldiers were a horrible revenge for the rape and murder committed by German soldiers in Russia (there wasnt much forgiveness on either side) and Britain was in no position to stop the Soviet Union. There should be more criticism i agree with you, but some comments you have made (such as believing that the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was partially the fault of Churchill) is just wrong. In fact as First Lord of the Admiralty it was Churchill who managed to get the Navy mobilised in time, well before the army. To Benea what JPEriksson wants is more criticism, which i agree with, however many of his facts are wrong and i find myself compelled to set them straight (but you are perfectly right and i will know stop).Willski72 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hyphen

My understanding is that although the dukes of Marlborough spelled their name "Spencer-Churchill," Lord Randolph dropped the hyphen and his son never used it. Can we identify any instance of the name being spelled with the hyphen? He didn't merely use "Churchill" in public life - he always used "Churchill" in both public and private life, as far as I am aware. john k (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first Duke of Marlborough most definately wasnt Spencer-Churchill (John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, builder of Blenheim Palace) this was added later, probably when a cousin or other relative with the surname Spencer inherited the title and had to change his surname as part of the bargain. You may well be right about Lord Randolph focusing on the Churchill part as that was the side of the family that contained a war hero after all!Willski72 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first Duke of Marlborough was indeed a Churchill without any Spencer involvement. His only son, however, died in 1703, predeceasing him by almost 20 years. Somehow, in spite of the fact that he had a son, the first duke had managed to get remainders on titles in such a way that they could be inherited by his daughters and their heirs-male, and then to the heirs male of his daughters' daughters', not just by his own heir-male. He had four daughters. The first duke's eldest daughter, Henrietta Churchill, who succeeded him and became duchess in her own right, married his good friend Sidney Godolphin's son Francis. They had one son, but he died unmarried before his mother. They also had two daughters - Henrietta Godolphin married the duke of Newcastle, and was childless, and Mary Godolphin married the duke of Leeds. Her male line descendants were in line for the title, but died out in 1964. However, they came behind the heirs male of the first duke's second daughter. Said second daughter was Anne, who married Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland. Anne died before her sister, but when Henrietta died, she was succeeded by Anne's son, Charles Spencer, 5th Earl of Sunderland, who thus became 3rd Duke of Marlborough in 1733. The Dukes kept the surname "Spencer," however, until 1817, when the fifth duke changed his name to Spencer-Churchill to remind everyone of his family's connections to the first Duke. The Earls Spencer, from whom Princess Diana descended, are actually descended from a younger brother of the third duke of Marlborough, and have kept the surname "Spencer". At any rate, my understanding is that Lord Randolph decided to drop the hyphen, and use "Churchill" as his only surname. If he didn't use it, we shouldn't. john k (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Right Honourable Lord Randolph Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer, new what he was talking about.Willski72 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Honorary U.S. citizen

We say in a couple of places that he was the first Honorary Citizen of the United States. But that article says he was the second, Gen Lafayette being the first in 1824. Also "first foreigner" seems a little redundant, since by definition it's only a foreigner who could ever be an honorary citizen. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Harold Nicolson's diary records that Churchill prided himself on his American roots from his mother. Eden went so far as to say that Winston thought himself "half American" already and that was why he mainly sided with Roosevelt against De Gaulle and others etc. So perhaps "foreigner" is too strong a distinguisher in light of Churchill's transatlantic sympathies.GBS2 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that misses my point. A person who is born in a country or otherwise qualifies to be a citizen of that country, would never be made an honorary citizen of that country. So, by definition, all honorary citizens are foreigners in respect of the country that awarded them that honour. All we need to say is he was the first/second person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the US. I really can't see any reason why Lafayette should be deprived of his primacy here, so I'm changing Churchill to be the second US honorary citizen. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading up on this, and the original text is correct; whilst Lafyette was given the honor first, it wasn't ratified until 2002 by President George W Bush, so Churchill was the first. That's found in Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. I can get the page number if people need it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Honorary Citizen of the United States#2002? is worth reading before we rush to judgment. The Marquis de Lafayette has the honour of being the first, for my money. The distinction is that Lafayette was the first honorary citizen of all, but Churchill was the first honorary citizen proclaimed by Congress. Being proclaimed by Congress is not the only way to become a US honorary citizen, apparently. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) "In his lifetime the French soldier and statesman the Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834) was made an honorary citizen of both Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was not until 167 years after his death that he was made an honorary citizen of the United States (Public Law 107-209, 117th Congress, 2nd Session), passed into law by President George W. Bush on 6 August 2002." Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America, Pocket Books, 2008, p. 448. The actual text is contained within footnote 42. I think this makes a good case for Churchill being the first honorary citizen, given the distinction Gilbert highlights between being an honorary citizen of the United States and Maryland and Virginia. Skinny87 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that here is not the place to determine this issue. It would a little pointless coming to a separate view that Churchill was the first, when all the known evidence is discussed in detail at Talk:Honorary Citizen of the United States. That is the place to go, and whatever consensus is reached there is reflected in the relevant articles, such as this one. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Irving on Churchill

Hi,

I just found this: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html

Basically, it looks like revisionisme about Churchill having forced Hitler to bomb London. I don't say it is true or wrong, but the existence of this, especially from Irving, is worth considering—and debunking, if necessary.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www

David Irving is a prominent Holocaust denier and quite possibly a neo-nazi. His work has always aimed to show Hitler in as good a light as is possible while showing those who helped to defeat him in as bad light as possible. It will be putting Hitler's justifications to the German people in book form, basically, "we were forced to invade Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway (etc) and try and invade Britain and Russia (etc) because they were threatening the nation or citizens of the nation." Complete bull**** of course! Though an interesting article it should probably be treated like the rest of his works, as dangerous nonsense with little or no truth. Though it would all make for an interesting discussion it is probably best left off this page.Willski72 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of University of Rochester degree

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/568-the-birth-throes-of-a-sublime-resolve-the-old-lion-

This link has a copy of the date of a speech (June 16,1941 regarding the awarding of the degree. I can't change it because it is semiprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.215.136 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I found a problem.

Hello,

I noted that in this article it states that Churchill was the second person to be granted honorary American citizenship, while in other articles (specifically the one on "honors of Winston Churchill") it states he was the first.

I'm not certain which statement is accurate (Though I believe he was the first.)

I don't know how to go about correcting this inconsistancy, and as I said, I'm not sure which article I would be correcting if I did.

So I leave it to the more experienced among us.

Thank you and I hope everyone is having as good a day as the fates will allow

James

Rampant unicorn (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen (x5)

I realise this topic has been discussed before (1, 2, 3, 4), and the result seems to have always been to display Churchill's name without the hyphen. However, a user is now insisting that the hyphen be included, reverting over protestations at both Order of Merit and here. A Google search shows me one source that uses the hyphen, but the vast majority do not. I also read in previous discussions here that Churchill himself never used a hyphen. Thus, it seems that it should indeed be removed here and at the OM article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen must be deleted. It makes it look as those the fellows surname is Spencer-Churchill. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen must go. See all previous discussions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I mention this here because it doesn't seem to have come up in the four previous discussions of this issue. The General Register Office's indices to the Births, Marriages and Deaths registers list his surname as Churchill:

• Winston Leonard Churchill born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire (volume 3a page 695) in Oct–Dec 1874.
• Winston Leonard S Churchill married in St George, Hanover Square, London, Middlesex (volume 1a page 1110) in Jul–Sep 1908 to Clementine Ogilvy Hozier.
• Winston L S Churchill died, aged 90, in Kensington (volume 5c, page 1192) in Jan–Mar 1965.

In all three cases he's listed under C, not S, and Spencer is clearly being used as a middle name, not part of the surname. I'd have said these are pretty authoritative sources. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Try keying in SPENCER-CHURCHILL on Wikipedia search and see what you get? His family's surname?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What we get is a mess well beyond one article. From the fifth Duke onwards all the Dukes are at "Spencer-Churchill". Members of Lord Randolph's branch of the family is consistently at "Churchill" except for Jack at John Strange Spencer-Churchill and his son at John Spencer-Churchill (artist), but individual articles on family members give the surname as variously "Churchill", "Spencer Churchill" or "Spencer-Churchill".

Part of the problem is that name usage was rather more flexible in past ages than today (try working out the correct surnames for James Ramsay MacDonald, Andrew Bonar Law and Arthur Conan Doyle), and under British law one can use whatever name you like (so long as it's not with intention to defraud) and so there's no need to go through the hassle of re-registration if one uses a shortened form or adds names and so forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

His father was always known as Lord Randolph Churchill and he hardly ever used Spencer. Winston continued this. The Duke's of Marlborough continued the full name as it was seen as part and parcel of the title. As Randolph was not the first son he decided that he would use it as little as possible, it was natural for the son to follow the father in this respect.--Willski72 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammy link

The link to 'Churchill Speeches' goes to a lapsed domain with spammy links, can someone remove? --HappyDave (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

His Books

I think Wikipedia should have a full list of his books, especially as external link "Books written by Churchill" is wrong. There should be a cautionary reference therein to "The American" (see "My Early Life", Oldham chapter; search for "another military chronicle on the Soudan War"). 82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Churchill Centre has completely reworked their website and old URLs are now invalid. I fixed the two links to this bit, but all the other Churchill Centre links need to be updated. Calling all volunteers.Czrisher (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I went through quite a few, I wasn't able to find "Winston Churchill the Painter" on either the new website or the archive, so I left that one as is, but I do hope we can find something similar soon. Ray^Talk 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parrot canard

I'm a little dubious following the addition of the parrot story. Granted this pops up every few years and makes for good newspaper copy, but the factual details are disputed. The claims are mainly put about by Charlie's (Charlie (parrot)) owners at the animal sanctuary. Churchill's family dismissed the possibility, and categorically denied he ever owned a bird of Charlie's species. The National Trust who maintain Chartwell can find no record of him, and reliable sources are thin on the ground to substantiate the story. Is there anything in any decent scholarly articles and sources to support the claim that the anti-Nazi Charlie was owned by Churchill? If not, perhaps it would be better to remove this dubious and disputed claim? Benea (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For evidence of the counter arguments, see here, here and here. The story has also now been added as a fact to the parrot article. Benea (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sad. It's definitely one of those stories one wants to be true, but I think the denial by Lady Soames is decisive. She was, after all, living at home at the time the parrot was supposedly bought. Ray^Talk 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I'll remove the brief anecdote I've mistakenly added. For future reference, I re-post it here:

• In 1937, Churchill's reacted with wry aplomb to those who simply wouldn't listen -- he bought a parrot.<:ref>Churchill's pet parrot, Charlie, was purchased in 1937. The blue and gold female macaw outlived her famous owner; and in 2009, the bird is reported to be cheerfully cursing Nazis as she was taught to do by imitating the tireless oratory of the war leader.-- Hoffman, Bill. "Churchill's parrot still squawking at 104," New York Post. January 20, 2009, p. 7.</ref>

In a sense, this becomes an excellent example of WP:V working well -- a persisting canard. --Tenmei (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories, length and templates

The article is 137kb long. Not sure how much is readable prose but it feels like it needs spitting. Also, I feel that there are too many categories and footer nav bars. We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them on the internet... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

honorary doctorates

Since I do not have an account I wanted to post this here. Could someone add Leiden University (The Netherlands) as one of universities Churchill received an honorary degree from? It was awarded in 1946 and Churchill was present, it was an honorary law degree. See these links: http://about.leiden.edu/laureates/leiden/honorary-doctorates and http://www.trouw.nl/krantenarchief/1999/02/09/2383599/Nelson_Mandela_eredoctor_in_Leiden.html (Dutch)

thanks for your time! 99.138.95.13 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FA workgroup

Anyone interested in working together to bring this article up to FA status? Last attempt looks to be around 2005, with a GA reassessment and speedy keep a year or so ago. Article is pretty good, and I think most of the concerns from 2005 are stale; most of the work is likely in form and consistency. Any takers? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on a GA and an FL but not an FA before. I am not fully familiar with the requirements, but I am willing to help out where I can. I noticed the style in the sources section is a little jumbled so I have started to convert them to {{cite book}} for consistency. Road Wizard (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Grave pictures

Hi, I've just uploaded some images of Churchill's grave- File:Churchills Grave.jpg and File:Churchills Grave 1.jpg. I have added one to the article- feel free to swap, move or remove as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another school?

I am reading Churchill's autobiography 1874-1908. Churchill reports that he attended St. James from aged 7, for two years, about 1881-1883. He hated the school which was fairly vicious in disciplining small children. It appears to be in Ireland, since his father and grandfather were both stationed there when the latter was Viceroy. Can anyone document this a bit better? The autobiography is a bit vague on specifics. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the bio seems to have missed the fact that he spent his very early life in Ireland, along with his parents and grandparents. Student7 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean, except for the first page where he writes, "My earliest memories are Ireland. I can recall scenes and events in Ireland quite well, and sometimes dimly even, people. Yet I was born on November 30, 1874, and I left Ireland early in the year 1879"? Google BooksCzrisher (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, his grandfather lost his job as Viceroy in 1880. I am surprised that Churchill would leave with his father, his grandfather's secretary, before the Viceroy's term expired. But he still mentions "St. James," regardless of where it is. Maybe England. Student7 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

His memory failed him, as the Churchill Centre explains. There was no St. James's in Ascot, but there is and was a St. George's School, Ascot.Czrisher (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Why isn't his religion included

Surely since he was prime minister and as its compulsory it would have been Church of England The C of E (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think its compulsory, Blair was a Catholic, I think Brown was Presbyterian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.151.134 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blair didn't convert until after he left office but he could have done so before - nobody ever saw Iain Duncan Smith's Catholicism as a reason he couldn't be PM. But amongst Churchill's contemporaries there were several PMs who were Scottish Presbyterians (e.g. Law, MacDonald), a Welsh Methodist (Lloyd George) and a Unitarian (Chamberlain). A British politician's religion is rarely notable and Churchill was a non-practising Anglican. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

His recent biography by François Bédarida states clearly that he was raised an Anglican, and, despite attending sometimes Anglican services and stating that the religion that he most identified was the Church of England, he was most likely an agnostic for most of his life, even calling himself a "materialist". The chapter I`m mentioning his "The Faith of an Agnostic".Mistico (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What about including his views on Islam? Ibn Kaafir (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

— How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses 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 had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

The River War - An Account Of The Reconquest Of The Sudan (1902), By Winston S . Churchill

— Fanaticism is not a cause of war. It is the means which helps savage peoples to fight. It is the spirit which enables them to combine--the great common object before which all personal or tribal disputes become insignificant. What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Soudan--a faculty of offence or defence.

Interesting quotations, but how are they relevant to this discussion? Ray^Talk 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank on Churchill

Hi,

I can't seem to edit this page, since I lack the requisite privileges, but I thought that someone who can edit it could add the following to WC's profile.

Anne Frank says in her June 9th, 1944 entry, that the BBC announced that WC wanted to go into combat alongside his troops for the DDay offensive, but that Eisenhower and other generals convinced him his talents would be better used elsewhere. What a leader! He was around 70 years old, and willing to march into battle with his troops! Think Bush would have done that in Iraq?

Anyway, it's worth posting there, if somebody wants.

JamesAGarfield (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow what STUPID point you are trying to make. The President of The United States does NOT go striding into a warzone; his position is too important, whether the President is a nutbag or a genius, it doesn't matter. Such is the same for the Prime Minister, and his people knew it, and rightly talked him out of it. Fool.

I agree, it would be a good addition as that section is quite general rather than relating to Winston as much as it could. It was the King that dissuaded him though. Source LunarLander // talk // 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in the first paragraph

Winston Churchill was not the first man given an honourary American citizenship. Offhand i know Lafayette was much before him. Regardless, even the article for the honourary citizenships shows this as incorrect.

In light of this, the sentence should be changed to show that he was given the honour but was not the first.

Zorateus (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Zorateus.

It's probably worthy of a footnote here that LaFayette, often listed as America's first Honorary Citizen, was bestowed citizenship by four states, the one from Maryland prior to its ratification of the Constitution acting to make him a natural-born U.S. citizen under the terms of the Constitution. Churchill was made an honorary citizen of the U.S. in 1963, the first time this was ever done by Congress; Lafayette's honorary citizenship was ratified by congress only in 2002, after Churchill, Raoul Wallenberg, the Penns, and Mother Teresa had been named honorary citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.151.141 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hussars

Adding the info that WC was made an honorary colonel of the Hussars in 1941 seems to imply it was the same Hussar unit which he earlier joined as second lieutenant. In fact it seems to be quite a different regiment. Perhaps the sentences need to be separated? Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding socialisim

"More inhumanity to man, since 1919, has been done in the name of socialisim than any other cause." Aluded to Winston Chruchill circa 1961 or 1962 in an old letter found after the Berlin Wall went up.

Has anyone ever heard of this quote? Any help appreciated! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

irrelevant content hidden

Surely, if this is ever backed up by a reference would be a misquote of what is understood as socialism. In its historical context, the term socialism was abused in the name of oppression, completely disregarding its fundamental tenets. It is comparable to replacing socialism with a religious denomination, where there are many examples of wrongdoing in the name of such religions, where faith and spirituality had nothing to do with it.Politik999 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Surely, The National Socialist Workers Party "Nazis" did not directly contribute to some 14 million dead (about 6 million Jews) in their social engineering. And that in World War II contributed to some 26 million dead? Surely, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "USSR" social engineering programs did not contribute to 10 to 22 million dead? Surely, The People's Republic of China "PRC" did not have economic and SOCIAL(ist) plan known as the Great Leap Forward that resulted in a minimum 36 million death? And other SOCIAL plans in the PRC may have that 36 million reached double that figure? Surely, the PRC more recent transition from a SOCIALIST planned state into a "market socialism" state, and officially defined by the PRC as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is not a SOCIALIST state? Surely, the Killing Fields of Cambodia (1 million plus dead) and to a lesser degree in Laos were not SOCIALIST engineering or any form of ethnic cleansing as in Kosovo, Bosnia and Darfur is not to be counted? Surely, ethnic cleansing is not SOCIAL(est) engineering called forced deportation or 'population transfer' where murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group is done by accident? Surely, since 1919 there has been another human cause that has exceeded "Socialist" caused deaths of human beings? If there is such a human cause, I would like to know. Please note I have said nothing about Eugenics pushed by Progressives (SOCIALIST lite) for better social engineering that was implemented in the early 1900s by the United States that spread to Europe in the 1920s. Or about social planning called "abortion" ... Surely, those governments mentioned had good social intentions and did not use the term "SOCIALIST" or socialisim in any manner that was not accepted by others? Enfermero (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldham poster

This poster is for the 1900 General Election, in which Churchill won, and not the 1899 by-election which he lost, as is written in the article. 88.211.192.151 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some sort of reference for this? The current image referencing on commons is pretty useless, so, as it stands, it should probably just be removed from this article. (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The poster could stay. I think it is derived from here which also fills in some details about the two Oldham elections.

For more details, refer to any copy of the Constitutional Year Book up to 1919 or the Fred Craig book for 1885-1918 for a full set of results, or Vol I of the Randolph Churchill-Gilbert biography where a description of Mr Mawdsley (the other Unionist candidate in 1899) is given. You can also see from Wikipedia's own page on the by-election that the Unionist candidates in 1899 were Churchill and Mawdsley, whereas the poster invites the men of Oldham to vote for Churchill and Crisp. As Churchill only stood in Oldham twice (1899 and 1900) this should be sufficient evidence.

For reference the results were:

Oldham by-election, 1899

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Liberal	Alfred Emmott	12,976
	Liberal	Walter Runciman	12,770
	Conservative	Winston Churchill	11,477
	Conservative	James Mawdsley	11,449
Majority			1,293
Turnout			28,476
	Liberal gain from Conservative		Swing
	Liberal gain from Conservative		Swing

United Kingdom general election, 1900: Oldham

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Liberal	Alfred Emmott	12,947
	Conservative	Winston Churchill	12,931
	Liberal	Walter Runciman	12,709
	Conservative	Charles Crisp	12,522
Majority			222
Turnout			29,253
	Liberal hold		Swing
	Conservative gain from Liberal		Swing

88.211.192.151 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Jellicoe

I believe the reference to John Jellicoe as a gunboat captain is not correct. It was David Beatty who commanded a river gunboat in the Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.138.177 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Thank you - I'll go change that. Ray^Talk 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Speeches

Any truth that some of his speeches were done by voice actors? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe; probably not. See Norman Shelley. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a myth. See [5].--Britannicus (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, another David Irving lie. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Freaking wikipedia

Seriously, in section "South Africa", this reads: "After the 1900 general election he embarked on a speaking tour of Britain, followed by tours of the United States and Canada, earning in excess of £5,000.[46]"

Then in a completely different section: "Political career to World War II", sub: "Early years in Parliament", this reads: "After winning the seat, he went on a speaking tour throughout Britain and the United States, raising £10,000 for himself."

While I agree (obviously) that £10,000 is in excess of £5,000, I can't help but think that such non-repetitive redundancy sullies any chance that I would treat wikipedia as a source of facts and not just convenient anecdotal factifications.

Facting wikipedia. Facts are facts, seriously. 95.148.89.126 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are aware, anonymous OP, are you not, that well in excess of 3,000 different editors have contributed to the current state of this article? That it's not an utter schemozzle, as might be expected from such a large committee, but a high quality article that can hold its head high anywhere, is a glowing tribute to how beautifully Wikipedia works. You choose to highlight one little problem. That's your choice, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by damning the entirety of Wikipedia because of one tiny problem. Far better to do something about it - yes, you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the anonymous IP for his comment. If this is the worse thing in this article, it speaks very well of wikipedia. The comment might also prompt someone to add a conversion to today's money value for these amounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

£10,000 in 1900 is about £1,370,000 today. I have added this to the article. (Hohum ^@) 15:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a staggering amount of money. So this is not a trivial detail and certainly not "convenient anecdotal factification". But perhaps anon has two fair points, hidden as they are within his abusive comment - what exactly does Jenkins say on p. 69? And does it need to be repeated? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going wholly on memory, but I believe that the American tour raised approximately the same amount of money as the British tour. If that is correct, the article is not only largely accurate but somewhat more detailed than expected, indicating that he received £5,000 in America and a further £5,000 in Britain, though the second reference would need to say "North America", rather than "the United States". (I do not change it myself, because this is largely speculation.) Czrisher (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wp can't rely on your memory or on speculation. If there is another reliable reference which has £5,000 for each tour, then hopefully someone may find it and add it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some say Churchill raised Over 9000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.97.71 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)