Talk:Winston Churchill

poor student?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=111 the churchill center officially states this as a myth and refutes it. blakerboy777 10/20/08 at 9:14 AM

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)

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)

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)

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)

Improve caption?

The caption: "Historical footage of the destruction of Dresden, February 1945" should perhaps read: "The destruction of Dresden, February 1945" as it not a film, and there is no need to mention that it is a photo.

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)

Fucking 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)

Speeches

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