Talk:Leslie Howard (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Walter H. Thompson[edit]

A documentary on Churchill's bodyguard shown on BBC2 last weekend seemed to add weight to the theory that Howard's plane was shot down in attempt on Churchill's life. It suggested, or perhaps merely speculated, that Churchill (who was due to fly back to the UK on the same evening as Howard's flight) had been aware of a possible attempt to shoot him down through secret Enigma decodings and had ordered his bodyguard to disable one of the engines of his plane in order for there to be an apparently legitimate explanation for him not flying back that evening. Churchill had made it clear that there should always be an alternate reason to explain actions initiated by the interception of German secret messages, in order to prevent the Germans from guessing that their codes has been broken. The documentary contained apparently new insight into the mystery of the engine fault. Jooler 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

War Service[edit]

I can only find this in the London Gazette which suggest he served until 1916 Steiner&exact=&atleast=&similar= as an 2nd Lt Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't shellshock, as this article suggests. He received a severe wound to the buttocks and never sat down comfortably for the rest of his life. --90.242.112.201 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Above comment re a wound is incorrect. Leslie's medical assessment of January 1916, from his military record in the National Archives, is reproduced as figure 11 of the Eforgan biography (chapter 2) Npaskin (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Death[edit]

The infomation on his death was supposed to revealed this year (2008) but has been held back till 2025... any thoughts on why :O should this be put in? it was on BBC radio 4 program on Howards death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.116.146 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This passage is very confused and lacks the specificity of reference to document the claim that all the cited books come to the conclusion that Howard's plan was targeted because of his presence. As worded the passage even ambiguously suggests that the Goss book may or may not endorse this theory:
Several exhaustively detailed books such as Bloody Biscay: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Only Long Range Maritime Fighter Unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and Its Adversaries 1942-1944 (2001 by Chris Goss) by (which comes to a slightly different conclusion), Flight 777 (1957 by Ian Colvin), and In Search of My Father: A Portrait of Leslie Howard (1984 by Ronald Howard, Leslie's son), conclude that the Germans were almost certainly out to shoot down the plane in order to kill Howard himself.[7]
Since I haven't read any of the books in question and don't have them, I have not attempted to edit the passage. However, it needs to be clarified. My own belief is that its highly probable that Howard was in fact targeted. But the article needs to analyze this problem with greater clarity than the present version does. Thanks to anyone who can supply details on this.--BenJonson (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The claim by Bloody Biscay: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Only Long Range Maritime Fighter Unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and Its Adversaries 1942-1944 (Chris Goss, 2001) is certainly not without controversy. Goss's book, quotes Oberleutnant Herbert Hintze, Staffel Führer of 14 staffels and based in Bordeaux, as remarking that his staffel shot down the DC-3 merely because it was recognised as an enemy aircraft, unaware that it was an unarmed civilian airliner. Hintze states that his fellow staffel pilots were angry that the Luftwaffe had not informed them of a scheduled flight between Lisbon and the UK, and that had they known, they could easily have escorted the DC-3 to Bordeaux and captured it and all aboard. This appears to be a total historical revisionist tact as the Luftwafffe had no qualms about shooting down civilian aircraft and had twice intercepted the "Ibis" with the intention of shooting it down.
The perception that Howard's DC-3 could be mistaken for Churchill's flight is a curious one as a massive problem exists with this theory in that Churchill did not fly via regular BOAC flights but had a specially designed RAF aircraft assigned to him, a converted Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber, a LB-30A transport. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
According to Martin Gilbert in the official Churchill biography, Churchill was flying in a (quote) Liberator instead of the more comfortable Boeing Clipper flying boat to which they had intended to transfer (unquote) (Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol 7, p.426) - quote and citation comes from Eforgan page 237, where she also points out that Gilbert has the date and flight details wrong. Npaskin (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another angle to the Churchill theory - Howard's agent, Alfred Chenhalls, was a corpulent fellow who smoked cigars - prompting speculation there could have been a case of mistaken identity. Churchill himself dismissed the idea, pointing out that, with all the resources of the country at his disposal, he would hardly be tempted to fly across a sensitive war zone in an unprotected aeroplane.

Leslie Howard (actor)[edit]

89.164.231.121 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC) "using "Stainer" as less German-sounding" - but this surname sounds very German! Probably he used Leslie Howard instead Leslie Howard Stainer.

Cartoon parody of Petrified Forest[edit]

The third paragraph in the "Film Career" section mentions the movie Petrified Forest, and the fact that Howard insisted on Bogart as his co-star, rather than the studio's choice (Edward G. Robinson), and adds that Bogart remained grateful to Howard for the rest of his life. The last sentence adds that Fritz Freleng later made a cartoon parody of the movie. I removed that last sentence because it is irrelevant to Howard, and it was added back on the grounds that it is "not at all non-consequential", and had a reference.

Citing a reference does not make an irrelevant sentence relevant. Could the user who added it back please explain why it is relevant to an article about Leslie Howard's life, and why it would be part of his film career section (as opposed to "Legacy"), if it needs to be there at all?

It is certainly relevant to the article about the movie itself, and is in that article -- is that not where it belongs? Please enlighten me. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any reply, I'm going to remove the irrelevant sentence later today. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Your edits are not improvements and an earlier version has been installed. Using the "no one answered" argument is moot. Wait for others to reply. Another editor felt that it was appropriate and had a ref to support it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)!
1st: You cannot blanket-revert an entire series of edits with no explanation except that you don't like them; see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
2nd: How long is one supposed to wait? The other editor directed discussion to the talk page, and I took it there. He offered no rebuttal, nor did anyone else. So I said I was going to repeat my edit, then waited another 2 days -- still no response. "No response" is not "moot" at all -- it is what it is.
At least you moved the cartoon reference to the end, as a sort of footnote, so I will leave it there -- but I would still like to hear other opinions on whether it should be there at all. It is mentioned already on the "Petrified Forest" page, which is a far more appropriate place for it.
3rd: To repeat, citing a reference (and a poor reference to boot -- a movie database description) does not make an irrelevant passage relevant. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The typical "wait period" for major revisions, especially those challenged and have no consensus backing, is a week. You are darn right that I didn't like the pointless, semantically driven edits that were submitted. If there was a substantial edit to be had, I didn't see it. If you have a problem with the editing and offered actual cited references that backed up your "style", that would be different. The editors that worked on the article and made the major contributions still have not responded. I moved the article back to a pre-Doctoring. Bear in mind, the precepts of "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use" are still in place and sprinkling wikilawyering terms is not productive. I await your next volley. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC).
My next volley is to repeat, first, that not liking an edit is not grounds for reverting it. If you wrote some of the stuff that I'm trying to simplify and improve, I would quote back to you that "if you do not want your writing to be edited, do not submit it here." Second, I don't need to cite references from the style manual to improve form, style, and grammar. And I hardly think I need to cite a reference to remove the word "posthumous", when it's obvious that an award given 40 years after someone's death is posthumous.
I have no particular desire to get into an edit war, but I'm not going to stop trying to improve the article, and if we need to bring in an admin to resolve this, I'll be happy to do it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Improve is subjective; and fiddling with words is not a particular improvement. If you had some substantial edits with references rather than "drive-by" editing, then, that's different. What I meant by style is a particular choice of words, syntax, phrasing, paragraphing, and in other words, literary edits that differentiate an author's style, not a technical use of a style manual for spelling, punctuation or convention. I also don't need to editwar but I have no compunction about reverting changes that do not provide any particular benefit to an article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC).
I never do "drive-by" editing, as you can easily ascertain by looking at my edit history. But I do edit a little bit at a time, because there are only so many hours in a day, and I have a day job. The preliminary edits I made were all I had time for; when I get done, the article will be better, I assure you. I have references, and I'll add them where necessary; but I will also "fiddle" with some words, because parts of this thing are clumsily written, as I'm sure you would agree. And if you're going to revert anything, I hope you will cite a good reason, because I have no compunction about defending my work when necessary. If we share the same goal -- a better article -- there should be no problem. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

inconsistent bump[edit]

"The bumped passengers were the teenage sons of Cornelia Stuyvesant Vanderbilt: George and William Cecil, who had been recalled to London from their Swiss boarding school. Being bumped by Howard saved their lives."

No explanation previous to this about bumping.

In the article on flight 777, it says, "Three passengers seated on the DC-3 disembarked before departure. Derek Partridge, the young son of a British diplomat, and Dora Rove, his nanny, were "bumped" to make room for Howard and Chenhalls"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_777

Justaquick (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My grandfather Max talks about how he and his brother Jo boarded the fight, and were both disembarked before departure.

Bens (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leslie Howard (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leslie Howard (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)