Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 4

Malakand

I don't know anything about Malakand, but a previous editor thought Malakand was in South Africa. I have moved the Malakand references into a separate section with that name. Someone who knows about Malakand and Churchill's activities there should fix this up. Peashy 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Malakand was a part of India when Churchill visited, today it is in the North-West frontier province of Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakand_Field_Force 89.8.9.203 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted as GA

No way does this conform to WP:NPOV. I have looked through the WWII section, there is no criticism mentioned at all. Most importantly not a single mention of Dresden, nor the war crimes allegations like these. Probably a whole lot else missing, but I can't be bothered digging any further, complete omission of criticism is bad enough for delisting.--KonstableSock 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the above is an adequate explanation. I also don't think the above is a complete or fair assessment of the article. Therefore, I have referred the matter to Wikipedia:Good article review. Johntex\^talk 03:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More resources?

Not necessarily related to the article itself, but I need more sources for Info on Mr. Churchill for a school paper, and my teacher won't take Wikipedia as a "legitimate and acceptable" resource despite you guys' hard work. I have already used most all of the links at the bottom but I need considerably more. Google and other resources are producing to many "unverifiable" claims etc. I need some information on his contributions to modern, to science, technology, culture, literature, politics (this part is easy), and as much more as you guys can get me. (Avatar of Nothing 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing)

Set your teacher a challenge - can they find another internet site with this much detail, information and authority? Then see if they still think Wikipedia is a no-no. :-) MarkThomas 14:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try, But I don't think that will go over very well XD oh well, keep an eye out, just add them to the references or leave the links here if you can, Thanks again Avatar of Nothing 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Avatar of nothing

I Went and looked at the links on the page, Excellent job Guys and Gals, You are greatly helping me, why the number of links has nearly tripled! My project may yet be saved! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.52.112.70 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably too late to mention it, but your teacher is right about Wikipedia not being a legitimate and acceptable resource. My advice - forget the internet, and head to your local library. Lianachan 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I am trying, however my library here is teh suck. oh well, I ordered a book off of barnes and noble. I'll be using that for alot. *sigh* thanks anyways guys. Avatar of Nothing 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing

Archive and protection status

I have made a new archive as the current talk page was getting very long. I would like to point out that this article is sadly vandalised at least once every day, several times a week. I think it should be placed under semi protected status and remain so to prevent unregistered users vandalising it. LordHarris 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Very much agree M'Lord, the problem if anything has grown worse in recent months. Similar picture over at World War II. MarkThomas 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for semi protection and its just been very kindly done. Hopefully vandalism will decrease now! LordHarris 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Role as wartime Prime Minister

What is the complaint about unbalance about exactly? I've just read through that and can't find much lack of balance in it, unless the "balance" complained about is that we should make Churchill out to be a swine as compensation? :-) On a wider note, Churchill's war was so wide-ranging and so much has been written, might it not be a good idea to set up a new page just on that subject? MarkThomas 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Family and personal life

The following has been removed several times on the article without reason. Sources have been provided.

As a member of the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars, in 1896 Churchill became embroiled in a lawsuit wherein he was publicly accused of having engaged in the commission of “acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type” (homosexual). This case was duly settled out of court for a payment of money and the charges were withdrawn. Also a determinant factor was the interference by the Prince of Wales, with whom his mother was having an affair.

In 1905, Churchill hired a young man, Edward Marsh (later Sir Edward) as his private secretary. His mother, always concerned about her son’s political career, was concerned because Marsh was a very well known homosexual who later became one of Winston’s most intimate lifelong friends. Personal correspondence of Marsh, now in private hands, attests to the nature and duration of their friendship.

"Somerset Maugham claimed that Winston Churchill had slept with Ivor Novello (also a friend of Edward Marsh) to find out 'what it would be like with a man'. Legend records Winnie's verdict on the effects of the experiment as 'musical'."

--Zefrog 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have strong reservations about including this material:

1. As to the court case, I dislike reporting the settling of legal actions as being confirmation of the allegation in them. There are many reasons for settling cases, especially for public figures who cannot afford the embarassment of such trials. And frankly I'm not convinced the is sufficiently reliable.
2. As to the private secretary, this smacks of "guilt by association". The fact that someone is good friends with a homosexual is a totally trivial fact and shouldn't be used to imply they are gay themselves. I can only see it being relevant in a discussion about someone who has made anti-gay statements, ie. "although x publically expressed disaproval of homosexuality, his best friend y was a homosexual." That doesn't seem to apply here. Again, the ref isn't great.
3. The cotent of the letter is third-hand hearsay.

Even if these were included, I don't think that would justify adding Churchill to Category:LGBT people, or put him within the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject. WjBscribe 11:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Favorite meal

Once I read in a magazine that Churchill loved Wiener schnitzel and ate it a least once a week. But he kept it as a secret because schnitzel is strongly associated with Germany. Is this a matter of fact?chicken noodle soup wit a soda on da side

Early life

Winston Churchill mother was of Jewish ancestry. I had provided the refrence (Jerusalem Post as well as Churchill's war years Biography "Churchill's War: Vol. II Triumph in Adversity") as well but it ahs been removed. I am going to add it today again. Before trying to remove it, just try to check the refrences. Fortunately the book "Churchill's War Vol. II "Triumph in Adversity" is available online as well and hence the veracity of the reference can be promptly validated. Haji004 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable. David Irving is a widely discredited anti-semite and holocaust denier with Nazi sympathies. His Churchill's War is a hatchet job attempt to discredit Churchill, and "exposing" his Jewish past is component of that, given Irving's anti-semitic views. Furthermore, Irving cites that Jerusalem Post article as his evidence "outing" Churchill as Jewish. But the article is in no way authoritative: it was just an editorial--anyone can write anything in an editorial, it's not investigative research. And the editorial writer doesn't prove Churchill is Jewish, he merely mentions it in passing--if Irving had to search this hard for one reference to Churchill's Jewishness, then it's just plain not convincing. So much has been written about Churchill, and he has been so widely researched, that one single reference just doesn't cut it as adequate proof of something like this, especially when that source is as dubious as David Irving. The only other sources out there proclaiming Churchill's Jewishness are neo-Nazi anti-semitic sites with false research, and a few Jewish sites, because Jews are proud to call Churchill one of their own--but they don't have any authoritative sources, either.QuizzicalBee 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A Dutch ADHD-site (www.hersenstorm.com) cited evidence that Mr. Churchill had some form of ADHD

(Dobby-fc 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I have heard that Winston Churchill was actually born in a ladies room during a dance.

Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.206.196 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I think I read this in Krockow's Churchill. Eine Biographie des 20. Jahrhunderts (German) as well, but I'll have to check this before being sure. FloK 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true, it was at Blenheim palace during a dance. LordHarris 14:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam commentary

I apologize for adding this in the form of a large quote, but I wasn't sure how to add a new section. I do think that its important, for comprehensiveness' sake, to include this in an otherwise glowing review of Churchill's life (barring certain obvious failures like Gallipoli). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.91.103 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

• It would help to know when and in what fashion he made that statement. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, following German User:Mariachi, it's quoted from his River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan, and Blogger Chris Bell seems to spprove it - as well as some other googled ones I won't look through. So I think the question is how to shorten it, or just bringing it to the wikiquotes. I'm not an expert, it's up to you. FloK 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality

This article needs some fixing. I didn't read all of it, but the section "Parliament" for example, makes absolutely no sense at all. Jack Daw 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "The Army" needs a major rewrite. The style reads like a bad school essay, has dubious facts, no formatting or wikilinks and has a number of misspellings and American spellings. I'm sure that the subject matter was handled better in earlier versions. If I have time, I may come back later--DavidCane 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism!

"In India, the main preoccupation of Churchill's regiment was polo, a situation which did not appeal to the young man, hungry for more military action. He devoted his time to educating himself from books, which he had sent out to him by his mother."

I don't know who changed this article, but the section "The Army," like someone else said, reads like a bad school paper. However, there's more to it than that. The quote that I put above is from Churchill: The Unexpected Hero by Paul Addison. I know because I used that book a source when writing a paper of my own about Churchill. (Hopefully, it will be better that the current article.) Someone please restore the article to its previous revision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.74.80 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's gone now. Aaron Bowen 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Info box

Churchil was liberal then conservative. So perhaps at the info box, it should be re-written to "liberal than conservative".Tourskin 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Army"

The third section in, "The Army," really needs to be rewritten. Right now it sounds more like somebody telling a story about Churchill than an encyclopedia's information, not to mention to fact that it's just hard to understand. Soldieroffortune7 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten it, placing all the various paragraphs that were all over the place in a sort of prose and order. I deleted some of the more silly stuff but theres still loads of things that needed sourced and ive added citations needed where they are. It would be great if someone had a biography of Churchill and could fill in the needed citations. Anyway at least it flows a little better and its understandable. Hopefully its a bit more encyclopedic as well.LordHarris 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up the parliament section a bit, and added some subtitles as well.LordHarris 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It still needs references.--Svetovid 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Honours

This article, as the edit intro states is getting very long and as guidelines suggest I would be happy to create a new article to reduce this articles page size. I would be happy to create a new article detailing the awards and honours belonging to Churchill that is currently in the main article, writing a short paragraph for here and a 'main article:' link to his honours. Ill also add some references. Does anyone object? LordHarris 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe even the Last days could be merged into this (?), as they contains only few not linked to the state funeral - clearly a very special honor. FloK 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a seperate honours article and have tried to incorporate briefly the part of his funeral relating to a state funeral. As for the last days, Ive split the section in two - last days and funeral. LordHarris 12:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be in American English or Brittish English

I'm not sure. What's wikipedia's "English"? What is this article supposed to be in? Is it "organization" or "organisation"? Both are right, depending on what version of English we're using. Fredsmith2 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses American English for articles dealing with Americans, the United States and all contained therein, and specifically American concepts. Everything else should be British English. Of course, your mileage may vary. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:ENGVAR for the policy in this area. As Mackensen said, broadly articles are written in the form of English that naturally goes with the topic e.g. American English for George Bush, British English for Winston Churchill. Otherwise the aim is consistency and so the first used spelling convention tends to be kept. "Organisation" vs "organization" is more complicated. Although the former is more common in the UK, Oxford English still favours 'ize' and both forms are correct spelling. Again, consistency seems best so switch to whatever form is in the majority :-). WjBscribe 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mackensen is incorrect in saying "Everything else should be British English". The policy is that if there is no strong association to either countty, then the spelling will follow the spelling used by whoever starts the article. Since most volunteers on Wikipedia are American, you will find that most topics use American spelling. British spellish is correct here, of course, Winny's honorary American citizenship not withstanding. Johntex\^talk 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple References

If I got it right, most of the uncited facts in the India section come from the Roussel text, as well as these I just shortened (Thank you, Mylord, for looking up! ;) ). Is there a possibility to indicate this (e.g. The following paragraph is sourced on: ...), or are such "overall" references disliked at all (e.g. because they themselves could be wrong or so)? "Wikipediazational" experts, please. FloK 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One way is to put a <ref name=Roussel> reference in, then at the end of each paragraph refer to the same citation with <ref name=Roussel />. You could also add an HTML comment at the beginning of each such paragraph to tell editors that the initial version of the paragraph is from the Roussel source. Eventually m:WikiTextrose will help with such things. (SEWilco 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Does it absolutly matter?

Timeline

Thanks for all the work - I've used the information from Wikipedia and other sources to create a Winston Churchill Timeline and was hoping it would be suitable for the external links section? You can interact with the timeline by changing the detail level to get more events. Onetimeliner 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Creating a list page for the many things named after Churchill such as the multiple Winston Churchill High Schools or the several Churchill Squares. Kevlar67 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Added some new images to the article (shown below) that I was given permission to take at the Churchill Museum a few days ago. LordHarris 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The River War, one of Churchills first books Churchill and Stalin, August 1942

Correct quotation or a bad hoax?

It's often claimed Churchill said after World War II in regard to Hitler and Stalin: 'We slaughtered the wrong pig'. If that's a correct quote, I would like to see it in the article. - Of course I asked google, but the result is a little ambiguous. Byzanz

Deletion

I am proposing that this article be deleted and rewritten from scratch, as in its current state it reads appallinglly. In my opinion the language contained within is in some places on a par with that which a 5 year old would utilise. I am unable to state my reasons on the AFD page, sinec I am not able to start a page without an account, so please can someone follow the link and set it up there. Thanks--81.76.36.152 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the prose suffers but AfD isn't the solution. From what I can see the structure of the article is sound and a substantial rewrite could be accomplished without deletion. Mackensen (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

I noticed that the lead section had an expanded request so Ive made an attempt to expand the introduction to reflect the length of the article as well Churchills importance and distinguished career. Ive tried to reflect the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section but welcome others to improve it.LordHarris 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also created a template to link the articles related to Churchill. I welcome others to try and improve the template by adding further relevant articles etc. LordHarris 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Churchill as a historian....

"Churchill as a historian" section has a link, and the paragraph that I just removed:

"Churchill grew up a deprived child. At 8 years of age, he was fascinated by the ancient Greek and Roman epics. He used to dress up in togas and parade through public city parks with a sword and paper shield at hand."

And that was it. It should be self-explanatory why I removed it. Should stay just a link until there is something of merit to write here. Harley peters 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Churchill-Stalin Picture

Basically, it's way too dark, I can't even see Stalin. It really should be removed. Ashnard _talk 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Stalin was invisible...

I think removing the image would be the best way forward - it's very hard to tell what is in it. Duke of Whitstable 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I had to maximise the screen brightness just to see the vague figure of him. Ashnard _talk 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've given it a tweak offline and although it can be made to look better, it's really not up to the standard required. Just my opinion, of course, but given that this is an "important" article, we are surely better off without the picture. Duke of Whitstable 20:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you decide to remove it. Please nominate it for deletion as well. I uploaded it in the first place and appreciate it is very poor quality. If you remove it from the article then it might as well be deleted. Thanks.LordHarris 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Mikołajczyk and Churchill and the destiny of Poland

It's a petty the article doesn't say clearly what Churchill did to Mikołajczyk and how Churchill forced them to move the territory. It should also be briefly mentioned that Churchill de facto forced Mikołajczyk to abdicate as head of the Polish Government in Exile to enable Stalin to to set forth a communist regime. Byzanz 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference/source for it, then please add. WP:REF LordHarris 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

free image

this photo w/ churchill, son, and grandson might be useful to add to the family/personal section: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.05370. 140.247.240.181 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

The infobox to this article says that Churchill was born on November 28, 1874. The lead of the article and the article 1874 say that he was born on November 30. Which article is correct, and which article needs to be corrected? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood

Is there any mention of Churchill being knighted? I didn't see any, but maybe I'm just blind. 63.245.255.26 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is mention at the top of the article, but if you don't recognize "KG" you can find in the Honours section a link to the article Honours of Winston Churchill which has some details. (SEWilco 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Antisemitism?

(I've combined the two "antisemitism?" sections.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this worthy of being noted in the article? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/10/070311000812.7mxzo1k0.html Mwv2 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been a while and nobody has raised any objections so I am going to add it Mwv2 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should not be included in the article really. It seems to have happened, it is definitely blaming the Jew, if that isn't Antisemitic then I am sorry, I have changed the name of the title to be more palatable to the encylopidic tone wikipedia needs. With LordHarris' revisions I see the addition as fair.Mwv2 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How in any way is it "definitely blaming the Jew"? I really can't seem to understand your interpretation of the remarks. Are you referring to the phrase "he (the Jew) refuses to be absorbed"? Taking into account Churchill's stubborn pride, that phrase was obviously meant as a rather high compliment and definitely not a criticism. Think of Churchill's "never surrender" words. Just as the English "refused to be absorbed" by the Germans, so too the Jew is to be admired, not criticized, for "refusing to be absorbed".

For some reason you seem to be dead-set on painting Churchill as an antisemite, resorting to rumours of some unpublished work which even if indeed true, isn't the least bit antisemitic in the first place. As I said previously, you couldn't find a Wikipedian more hypersensitive to antisemitism than I. I've just recently been unblocked after promising to stear clear from a certain other editor who, let's just say, tends to make remarks about Nazism that don't particularly sit well with me as a Jew. But Churchill? This one I simply can't understand. Perhaps if you'd explain to us just why you're so convinced that Churchill was an antisemite, perhaps we'd better understand your perspective. Forgive me if my tone appears harsh. I'm not angry at all, just very puzzled. Lewis 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly object to this particular addition to the article, and so I deleted it. I've got to be one of the most oversensitive Jews on Wikipedia, I've even been indef-blocked for my charges of antisemitism on the RefDesk. But this one is ridiculous. Even if true, I can't possibly see how a work entitled "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution", and then going on to point out that Jews are "different" consists of any form of antisemitism in any shape or form. Of course we're different! And proud of it!

In my personal opinion, as a proud Jew, Churchill has got to be one of the most admirable men of character to grace the Earth, as well as the least antisemitic. If anything I'd describe him as something of a Judeophile. Taking a quick look at wikiquote here [1] reveals a seemingly endless series glowingly flattering remarks made by Churchill about Jews.

I certainly don't believe in censorship, and in particular, the removal of facts. The text of the section was indeed factual, and the more I think about it, it was really just the suggestive heading "Antisemitism?" that I had a problem with. The only way I can see this piece of information as being presented in anything close to an NPOV fashion would be to rename the header to something like "Antisemitism or Judeophilia"? List the original information in the edit, but then go on to devote at least equal length to the fact that in his remarks, Churchill was rather consistently pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist. Lewis 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

---

There was already a section for this (number 3) I will continue my views up thereMwv2 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, but why include this at all? It seems like spurious scholarship; the Churchill Center rebuttal to it drives a steamroller over every aspect of it. "It is believed by some sources" -- has any scholar other than Dr. Toye made the mistake of attributing Diston's language to Churchill? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Im opposed to the inclusion of this information as well. The Churchill centre present a more than sensible rebuttal of the of the remarks. Furthermore considering the length of this article all ready and the small siginificance that this amounts to, is it encyclopedic enough to be verifiable? LordHarris 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where this discussion is taking place, so please excuse me for placing it in both discussions.

How in any way is it "definitely blaming the Jew"? I really can't seem to understand your interpretation of the remarks. Are you referring to the phrase "he (the Jew) refuses to be absorbed"? Taking into account Churchill's stubborn pride, that phrase was obviously meant as a rather high compliment and definitely not a criticism. Think of Churchill's "never surrender" words. Just as the English "refused to be absorbed" by the Germans, so too the Jew is to be admired, not criticized, for "refusing to be absorbed".

For some reason you seem to be dead-set on painting Churchill as an antisemite, resorting to rumours of some unpublished work which even if indeed true, isn't the least bit antisemitic in the first place. As I said previously, you couldn't find a Wikipedian more hypersensitive to antisemitism than I. I've just recently been unblocked after promising to stear clear from a certain other editor who, let's just say, tends to make remarks about Nazism that don't particularly sit well with me as a Jew. But Churchill? This one I simply can't understand. Perhaps if you'd explain to us just why you're so convinced that Churchill was an antisemite, perhaps we'd better understand your perspective. Forgive me if my tone appears harsh. I'm not angry at all, just very puzzled. Lewis 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not deadset on it, I just think that is an interesting, noteworthy aspect to be included in the article. In the current form it is written fairly, both sides are shown. As for the article not being antisemitic (regardless of if it was a ghostwriter or not) it refers to "Hebrew bloodsuckers" I think you would be hard pressed to find someone not offended by that statement Mwv2 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's a peculiar criteria for including something in an article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy

Hey i dont know were that views on jews artical came from but i didnt know any of that about winston churchill...thats a good artical, and i think that the artical "How jews can combat persicusion" should be part of this page.

Voting for the devil

From Winston Churchill:

During 1900 when looking for a vote, he asked a person for his support, to which the man responded: "Vote for you? I’d rather vote for the devil." Churchill replied: "I quite understand, but since that man is not running this time, could I count on your support?"

From John Wilkes:

When told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally". He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"

Hmmm... are we sure both men came up with this same witticism? Ham 08:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no knowledge as to who said it, but there was nothing to prevent both men from arriving at their versions in parallel -- while witty, neither line requires an immense leap of imagination -- nor of Churchill hearing of Wilkes's line and using it himself.Czrisher 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet new article

I propose moving the very long and very length list of churchills cabinets to a new article, inline with guidelines relating to length of an article, for which this article is still far too long. Anyone object? LordHarris 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. There's a standard format for such articles; I'll take a stab at it. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward Marsh

I've removed the following twice:

Relationship with Edward Marsh

By December 1905 Edward Marsh had become a first class clerk and was in the West African department. Winston Churchill became parliamentary under-secretary for the colonies, and in 1906 he invited March to become his private secretary. For the following 23 years Marsh was at Winston Churchill's side whenever he was in office and Marsh was widely known to be a homosexual

It doesn't seem relevent to the subject, it was placed in an inappropriate section, etc. Thoughts Duke of Whitstable 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure why the sexuality of a colleague is neccessary, unless of course there were public scandals in which Winstons sexuality was under scrutiny. If this is the case then there must be several, reputable references from different sources to support. As it stands I think this information should stay removed and added at a later date, if sufficient citations and cause can be found. LordHarris 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No bibliography of his writings?

Churchill was a prolific author and I am very surprised to find that there is no list of all the books he published. The entry for his six volume History of the Second World War doesn't even bother to list the tiles of the individual volumes. 217.155.195.19 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This website lists a lot of his books; I have no specialist knowledge as to whether it is comprehensive. 217.155.195.19 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dresden

(With regards to my delisting of this as GA in January: [2] which lead to re-confirmation here )

Apologies for being a bit harsh in my words, and not giving a more thorough review. I stand by the reason for delisting however. Dresden,etc, is completely left out of the article, and this is a very major thing. I don't see how a "Good Article" on Churchill could exclude this. There are a couple more things that I would have liked to see for more balance, but right now I do not have the sources and as they are not as well known I will leave them off for now. I had the urge to write something about Dresden and the war crimes allegations myself but I'm afraid it would not be the best nor the most neutral writing.--Konstable 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of resources debunking the Dresden myths (that WSC did it as well as the extent of the damage) but I'll drop one in here: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=106 Satisfactory repudiation? Czrisher 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that article meant to say Churchill was not guilty of the Dresden bombings? When comparing this to convinctions in the Nuremberg Trials he certainly is. The article should definately say something about Dresden and that Churchill allowed it to happen, that's why I added it. I think the way I wrote it, it will be sufficient for everyone whether they agree he was responsible or not. It just had to be said, or it's like having an article about Stalin without mentioning his purges. Wiki1609 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronological sequence

The sections dealing with Churchill's career as a soldier needs to be rearranged, it hops back and forth in time in a confusing manner. 89.8.9.203 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

awkward wording

"Throughout the war, Churchill kept democracy alive" sounds a bit like POV to me. Maybe that should be changed. Perhaps "Throughout the war, Churchill kept Britain out of German hands" or something like that. I'll look over it later.

Cam 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) User:Climie.ca