This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The section on his attacks on the government's India policy in the 1930s just underwent some major correcting. In addition to misquoting, it was a very one-sided attack with a lot of details thrown in which conveyed little correct and a bit of incorrect information in the lack of context and writing with which they were presented. The section could use a great deal more work, but I hope that my improvements are a start. Some bits, like Baldwin's quoting WSC after Amritsar, are good material that deserve better presentation that they had. Czrisher 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC
So far as I can see the only major differences are the omission by Czrisher of Baldwin's quoting Churchill's Amritsar speech (which he says is 'good material') and of the following
"He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back." His views on India were set by his experience as a junior cavalry officer stationed in India in the 1890s and are shown in his book My Early Life which was published in 1930 [1]."
This is not 'incorrect information." R R James is a recognised Churchill scholar (As well as an authority more generally on English Conservative politics in the inter war years). I take the references in turn 1 Churchill's quoted words on Gandi This is documented widely. It is accurate reporting. It deserves to be included. there are many similiar quotes (See for example James op cit at page 254
2 Churchill's view on India. The book "My Early Life" was published in 1930 . Churchill sets out his ideas in that book. They are those of a man who was in India in 1890s and had not been there since. Read the book.
I propose to revert the text unless Czisher can give good reason why not. I have sent Czisher a message advising him of this Backnumber1662 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Czrisher firstly please state your sources for saying the Baldwin and the party elders (who are they?) selected a back bench committee. You are quite right Amery did complain and the view of the back bench committee was a minority view- that can be seen as the majority of the Conservative party supported the official line (that is perhaps why it was the official line).
Secondly the quotation you omitted is accurate. I have given one source. There are other sources. Google lists over 360 here http://www.google.com.au/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=ought+to+be+laid%2C+bound+hand+and+foot%2C+at+the+gates+of+Delhi+and+then+trampled+on+by+an+enormous+elephant+with+the+new+viceroy+seated+on+its+back&btnG=Search&meta= Your quote is also accurate, it happens to be at a different time.
Thirdly The article is not based on Rhodes James though he is a major scholar. You say he has an antipathy to Churchill where is your source for that. Other sources include "Baldwin" H Montgomery Hyde, "The Aristocratic Adventurer" D Cannadine (which I cited in prior sections) Lord Lloyd and the decline of the British Empire J Charmley (which I cited in the next section. Charmley is a particuarly good source for Conservative policies on India during the period - Lord Lloyd was not only like Churchilll a "diehard " in his opposition to Dominon Status for India but had been govenor of Bombay), "End of Empire" B Lapping, Volume 81 Australian Law Journal (on Churchill's speech against General Dwyer).Perhaps you might present your sources for your edits.
Fourthly, Churchills speech the eve of the Westminster By election was (so far as I am aware) Churchill's only public speech in the month before the by election. He had spoken in January (Manchester) February (Liverpool and the speech you cite) and 5th March- thereafter nothing in a public meeting- though he did address a private meeting of the Constitutional Club on 26th March -until the election eve speech' Whether it was coincidental (as Rhode James says) or not Churchill could have, but did not, cancel or postpone it when he found it was on the eve. He certainly campaigned strongly for other candidates opposed to the Conservative Party during that time (Eg the Master of Balliol in Oxford University by election when opposed to Q Hogg (later Lord Hailsham)
Can we work towards an agreed text. In my view such a text would be based on 1 He opposed the official (and majority) view within the Conservative Party (and for that matter within the United Kingdom as a whole) which was to move toward Dominion Status
2 He did so because he believed it was in British interests to do so. He also had a personal antipathy towards Baldwin (see his comments after Baldwin's death on the page for Baldwin) (though this may be more relevant elsewhere then in this secton) . He disregarded Indian interests.(see for example his exchange with A W Benn in parliament on 26 January - you have cited Martin Gilbert, for your reference while I do not have a copy of that volume of his biography you can check the exchange yourself- it is reported in Rhode James)
3 He attacked Gandi and other Indian leaders (even if he later changed his view on Gandi)
4 He expressed his views in Parliament, in the Press and in speeches.
5 In doing so he had the support of Lord Beaverbrook (who also disliked Baldwin - see A J P Taylors biography and who was Churchill's personal friend) and Lord Rothermere and their respective newspapers (e g the Daily Mail pre election posters reading "Gandi is watching Westminster) and he had had the support of Lord Birkenhead before he died in 1930 (should we perhaps list the other leading 'diehards ' in the Conservative Party or is that another issue for another page?)
I should add that Churchill's speech on the election eve was not to the "India Empire Society." IT was to the India Defence League. I again ask you to give us your sources so we can verify the rest of your alterations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backnumber1662 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your thoughts (and those of any one else with an interest) please. Again I have left a message on your page Backnumber1662 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As to my sources, all that I have written of late on the subject comes from Gilbert, than whom I know no more authoritative source, as I do not have other references to hand. Alas, I lack the time at present to thrash this out as seems necessary. I will state that I consider the Sandbox'd version a significant improvement over the India section I found ere this kerfuffle began and certainly a legitimate beginning in the move towards an acceptable version. That said, I vehemently disagree with the conclusion that the Duff Cooper election was of any great significance. If I were to pick a single event from the period, it would certainly be the procedure investigation. I would add that the presentation of Rhodes James allegations of misleading quotations deserve a much more nuanced presentation but I would not embark on that without the material to hand. If others can improve the Sandbox'd version, well and good, but I shall only register my disapproval, not caring to carry on the fight at this time. Czrisher 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no denying it: Churchill was an imperialist who opposed Indian Independence. He also disliked Gandhi's quest for Indian independence. However this does not mean he didn't have a single good thing to say about Gandhi: "Mr. Gandhi has gone very high in my esteem since he stood up for the untouchables… I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain… Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success."-Letter to G.D. Birla (1935); published in Winston S Churchill: Volume Five: The Coming of War 1922-1939 (1979)' by Sir Martin Gilbert We should also mention how his opinions of Indian changed after the war. See Churchill by Ian Wood. he became close friends with Nehru, lavishing him with praise such as "he is the light of the east". On one occasion he sai to Nehru's aughter "gosh, you must have hated us [British]", to which his daughter replied that Nehru never hated Churchill. Amritsar and Churchill's reaction to it are important. It may be worth mentioning that he supported Gandhi's campaign for rights for the Indians in South Africa as well.
Is not the picture of Gandhi irrelavent? Why is it on an article of Winston Churchill? Does there really need to be a picture of him to say such a thing? I don't think the picture adds any content to the article. What do you others think? - sean Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
He has alot of quotes, I think they deserve a section of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 ( talk) 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As I promise in my edit comment, see the review essay in the "WC as Historian" issue of Sage's Society, 2003; "The Political Beliefs of Winston Churchill". by Paul Addison, in Trns of the Royal Hist Scty, 1980; and the Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism, which calls him the last arch-imperialist. Remember, this is not a pejorative word in context; our duty is to provide the context. Relata refero 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) since no alternative has been forthcoming, I will restore the original wording shortly. Relata refero 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be put that Churchill wanted to preserve the British Empire, that is in the context in which Churchill was an imperialist.-- Johnbull 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
'A noted statesman' seems absurd in the context of Churchill. I hardly think wiki's neutrality policy prevents the article saying (for example) 'a great statesman' or words to that effect. The current wording puts him on a par with (say) Kenneth Clark. It looks out of place and should be changed.
How substantive are the claims that Churchill was in such a financial crisis in the 1920s, that he forged the name of "Charles Morin", a French painter who died in 1906 and sold his paintings (Churchill was the author of the works, ie. he painted them) to galleries in Paris? When Churchill visited the USA, an art expert tried to gain an audience with Churchill via a letter, cheekily addressed to "Charles Morin", but the letter never reached Churchill, as the White House mail room did not know of such a guest. Apparently, there is a letter from Roosevelt that FDR wrote after the letter came his way, where the President playfully calls Churchill out on this. Churchill also recieved $1000 per time for writing heavily abridged versions of War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and many others for the Chicago Tribune. There is also his involvement in the secret slush fund group, called, "The Focus" in the mid-1930s, which raked in vast sums of money, of which Churchill recieved substantial amounts and furthered his career in the Cabinet, when "The Focus" group was disbanded when he became First Lord of the Admiralty. Any ideas of where to find the strongest sources for these events? Proof Reader 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Are his finances an issue? They might be in connection with his friendship with the media barons and the Cassels. But its a side issue surely. We want the entry to be comprehensive but not exhaustive, this is not a biography. Comments please??? Focus wasnt a slush fund group. It was a group of people opposed to German rearmament See the main page and the footnotes. 203.32.82.40 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Churchill was an imperialist. Although he have to be clear about his imperialism. He was an imperialist in that he believed that British imperialism was benign and a success. However that did not mean he was imperialist on every imperial issue e.g. he supported the Tibetans during Curzon's excursion into Tibet. Led125
The quote in Churchill's attitude to fascism is truncated. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/files/public/Spectator_Article.pdf
Does anyone else feel the intro to the article should be shortened and a section titled "Early life" or something of the sort should be added? I just happened to come across this page and noticed the begining is rather long. MagicBear ( talk) 09:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the fact about his birth from this article have any truth to it? http://www.anxus.com/the-coolest-35-facts-youve-never-heard/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.64.141 ( talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Abdication Crisis article claims Churchill helped Edward VIII "polish" the abdication speech - but other sources would suggest he wrote the whole lot. Thoughts Whitstable 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to head off the issue for the upcoming GA review (I'm not doing it), I'd like point out some errors with the quotations in the article. Per WP:MOSQUOTE and the template instructions, {{ cquote}} is never to be used for block quotes (like it is here). The cquote template is for pull quotes. Please use either the {{ blockquote}} or <blockquote> format, and remember that block quotes need no surrounding quotation marks. Also, please note that quotes of less than four lines (or multiple paragraphs of any length) should never to be blocked out (i.e. keep them in-text). Good luck with the review, looks good otherwise. VanTucky talk 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The last sentence in this paragraph is an exact repetition of a quote two sentences earlier and should be removed. The article is protected - so I would be greatful if a registered user could do it.
23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
( LordHarris, I'm reusing your Done graphic. I like it!)
Has the author really any knowledge of Churhill?
It seems to float from era in a non-inear way (see the interwar years).
Also, whilst Churchill was not without faults this article makes him sound like a permenant disaster area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.113 ( talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is getting way too overcategorized. From my count, I see around 70 categories, which is extremely tedious to look over. My suggestion is to just keep the most important category, and dispose of the not-so-important ones. The article cats at the moment are nauseating and serve only as a nuisance to read... -- DarkFalls talk 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This review is for GAN, not peer-review. I have checked this article against the good article criteria. Details for improvements will be given after this list
This article is probably the longest GA I will ever review. A little bit more work will send it into FA category. But for now, there seems to be an extensive list of minor problems that needs to be fixed.
These statements/sections are unsourced/undersourced:
These sentences are unclear, ambiguous, contain weasel or peacock term:
LordHarris 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there're a huge varieties of styles in reference section. They should be in the same style. These references include (number as in the number in the order they appear in reference section):
NOTE: These numbers may change constantly as more references are added, hence take it with a grain of salt.
Miscellaneous:
OhanaUnited Talk page 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that it will be neither pretentious nor out of place for me to praise the job that OhanaUnited and Lord Harris have done in reviewing and tightening this article. Having volume II of the Official Biography to hand, I have done a bit to supplement. I have added in the minimum wage bill after Lord Harris's mention of the Trade Disputes Act. FWIW, this was all part of what WSC called a Minimum Standard and a much larger scheme including ending child labor and, as the OB terms it, "Churchill's determined attack on sweated labour". I have also made significant changes to the Tonypandy section. Part may, perhaps, have retained traces of the original, leading to some small conflict. I've cited the OB, but WP's Tonypandy page concurs that troops were never in action. Mentioning whether troops came at a later date, after trial, seems to confuse the issue. Would it be right to link Tonypandy to Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, in which it was used as an example of a known fact -- that WSC sent troops in -- that wasn't true? WSC was, apparently, fond of the book. I remain troubled by Indian section, particularly the prominence given the Duff Cooper speech over the procedure investigation -- I equate that to trying to impeach an MP, rather than just trying to help to defeat a prospective one -- but am most gratified by the hard work of so many in improving this. Czrisher ( talk) 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The section on his attacks on the government's India policy in the 1930s just underwent some major correcting. In addition to misquoting, it was a very one-sided attack with a lot of details thrown in which conveyed little correct and a bit of incorrect information in the lack of context and writing with which they were presented. The section could use a great deal more work, but I hope that my improvements are a start. Some bits, like Baldwin's quoting WSC after Amritsar, are good material that deserve better presentation that they had. Czrisher 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC
So far as I can see the only major differences are the omission by Czrisher of Baldwin's quoting Churchill's Amritsar speech (which he says is 'good material') and of the following
"He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back." His views on India were set by his experience as a junior cavalry officer stationed in India in the 1890s and are shown in his book My Early Life which was published in 1930 [1]."
This is not 'incorrect information." R R James is a recognised Churchill scholar (As well as an authority more generally on English Conservative politics in the inter war years). I take the references in turn 1 Churchill's quoted words on Gandi This is documented widely. It is accurate reporting. It deserves to be included. there are many similiar quotes (See for example James op cit at page 254
2 Churchill's view on India. The book "My Early Life" was published in 1930 . Churchill sets out his ideas in that book. They are those of a man who was in India in 1890s and had not been there since. Read the book.
I propose to revert the text unless Czisher can give good reason why not. I have sent Czisher a message advising him of this Backnumber1662 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Czrisher firstly please state your sources for saying the Baldwin and the party elders (who are they?) selected a back bench committee. You are quite right Amery did complain and the view of the back bench committee was a minority view- that can be seen as the majority of the Conservative party supported the official line (that is perhaps why it was the official line).
Secondly the quotation you omitted is accurate. I have given one source. There are other sources. Google lists over 360 here http://www.google.com.au/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=ought+to+be+laid%2C+bound+hand+and+foot%2C+at+the+gates+of+Delhi+and+then+trampled+on+by+an+enormous+elephant+with+the+new+viceroy+seated+on+its+back&btnG=Search&meta= Your quote is also accurate, it happens to be at a different time.
Thirdly The article is not based on Rhodes James though he is a major scholar. You say he has an antipathy to Churchill where is your source for that. Other sources include "Baldwin" H Montgomery Hyde, "The Aristocratic Adventurer" D Cannadine (which I cited in prior sections) Lord Lloyd and the decline of the British Empire J Charmley (which I cited in the next section. Charmley is a particuarly good source for Conservative policies on India during the period - Lord Lloyd was not only like Churchilll a "diehard " in his opposition to Dominon Status for India but had been govenor of Bombay), "End of Empire" B Lapping, Volume 81 Australian Law Journal (on Churchill's speech against General Dwyer).Perhaps you might present your sources for your edits.
Fourthly, Churchills speech the eve of the Westminster By election was (so far as I am aware) Churchill's only public speech in the month before the by election. He had spoken in January (Manchester) February (Liverpool and the speech you cite) and 5th March- thereafter nothing in a public meeting- though he did address a private meeting of the Constitutional Club on 26th March -until the election eve speech' Whether it was coincidental (as Rhode James says) or not Churchill could have, but did not, cancel or postpone it when he found it was on the eve. He certainly campaigned strongly for other candidates opposed to the Conservative Party during that time (Eg the Master of Balliol in Oxford University by election when opposed to Q Hogg (later Lord Hailsham)
Can we work towards an agreed text. In my view such a text would be based on 1 He opposed the official (and majority) view within the Conservative Party (and for that matter within the United Kingdom as a whole) which was to move toward Dominion Status
2 He did so because he believed it was in British interests to do so. He also had a personal antipathy towards Baldwin (see his comments after Baldwin's death on the page for Baldwin) (though this may be more relevant elsewhere then in this secton) . He disregarded Indian interests.(see for example his exchange with A W Benn in parliament on 26 January - you have cited Martin Gilbert, for your reference while I do not have a copy of that volume of his biography you can check the exchange yourself- it is reported in Rhode James)
3 He attacked Gandi and other Indian leaders (even if he later changed his view on Gandi)
4 He expressed his views in Parliament, in the Press and in speeches.
5 In doing so he had the support of Lord Beaverbrook (who also disliked Baldwin - see A J P Taylors biography and who was Churchill's personal friend) and Lord Rothermere and their respective newspapers (e g the Daily Mail pre election posters reading "Gandi is watching Westminster) and he had had the support of Lord Birkenhead before he died in 1930 (should we perhaps list the other leading 'diehards ' in the Conservative Party or is that another issue for another page?)
I should add that Churchill's speech on the election eve was not to the "India Empire Society." IT was to the India Defence League. I again ask you to give us your sources so we can verify the rest of your alterations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backnumber1662 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your thoughts (and those of any one else with an interest) please. Again I have left a message on your page Backnumber1662 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As to my sources, all that I have written of late on the subject comes from Gilbert, than whom I know no more authoritative source, as I do not have other references to hand. Alas, I lack the time at present to thrash this out as seems necessary. I will state that I consider the Sandbox'd version a significant improvement over the India section I found ere this kerfuffle began and certainly a legitimate beginning in the move towards an acceptable version. That said, I vehemently disagree with the conclusion that the Duff Cooper election was of any great significance. If I were to pick a single event from the period, it would certainly be the procedure investigation. I would add that the presentation of Rhodes James allegations of misleading quotations deserve a much more nuanced presentation but I would not embark on that without the material to hand. If others can improve the Sandbox'd version, well and good, but I shall only register my disapproval, not caring to carry on the fight at this time. Czrisher 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no denying it: Churchill was an imperialist who opposed Indian Independence. He also disliked Gandhi's quest for Indian independence. However this does not mean he didn't have a single good thing to say about Gandhi: "Mr. Gandhi has gone very high in my esteem since he stood up for the untouchables… I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain… Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success."-Letter to G.D. Birla (1935); published in Winston S Churchill: Volume Five: The Coming of War 1922-1939 (1979)' by Sir Martin Gilbert We should also mention how his opinions of Indian changed after the war. See Churchill by Ian Wood. he became close friends with Nehru, lavishing him with praise such as "he is the light of the east". On one occasion he sai to Nehru's aughter "gosh, you must have hated us [British]", to which his daughter replied that Nehru never hated Churchill. Amritsar and Churchill's reaction to it are important. It may be worth mentioning that he supported Gandhi's campaign for rights for the Indians in South Africa as well.
Is not the picture of Gandhi irrelavent? Why is it on an article of Winston Churchill? Does there really need to be a picture of him to say such a thing? I don't think the picture adds any content to the article. What do you others think? - sean Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
He has alot of quotes, I think they deserve a section of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 ( talk) 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As I promise in my edit comment, see the review essay in the "WC as Historian" issue of Sage's Society, 2003; "The Political Beliefs of Winston Churchill". by Paul Addison, in Trns of the Royal Hist Scty, 1980; and the Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism, which calls him the last arch-imperialist. Remember, this is not a pejorative word in context; our duty is to provide the context. Relata refero 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) since no alternative has been forthcoming, I will restore the original wording shortly. Relata refero 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be put that Churchill wanted to preserve the British Empire, that is in the context in which Churchill was an imperialist.-- Johnbull 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
'A noted statesman' seems absurd in the context of Churchill. I hardly think wiki's neutrality policy prevents the article saying (for example) 'a great statesman' or words to that effect. The current wording puts him on a par with (say) Kenneth Clark. It looks out of place and should be changed.
How substantive are the claims that Churchill was in such a financial crisis in the 1920s, that he forged the name of "Charles Morin", a French painter who died in 1906 and sold his paintings (Churchill was the author of the works, ie. he painted them) to galleries in Paris? When Churchill visited the USA, an art expert tried to gain an audience with Churchill via a letter, cheekily addressed to "Charles Morin", but the letter never reached Churchill, as the White House mail room did not know of such a guest. Apparently, there is a letter from Roosevelt that FDR wrote after the letter came his way, where the President playfully calls Churchill out on this. Churchill also recieved $1000 per time for writing heavily abridged versions of War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and many others for the Chicago Tribune. There is also his involvement in the secret slush fund group, called, "The Focus" in the mid-1930s, which raked in vast sums of money, of which Churchill recieved substantial amounts and furthered his career in the Cabinet, when "The Focus" group was disbanded when he became First Lord of the Admiralty. Any ideas of where to find the strongest sources for these events? Proof Reader 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Are his finances an issue? They might be in connection with his friendship with the media barons and the Cassels. But its a side issue surely. We want the entry to be comprehensive but not exhaustive, this is not a biography. Comments please??? Focus wasnt a slush fund group. It was a group of people opposed to German rearmament See the main page and the footnotes. 203.32.82.40 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Churchill was an imperialist. Although he have to be clear about his imperialism. He was an imperialist in that he believed that British imperialism was benign and a success. However that did not mean he was imperialist on every imperial issue e.g. he supported the Tibetans during Curzon's excursion into Tibet. Led125
The quote in Churchill's attitude to fascism is truncated. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/files/public/Spectator_Article.pdf
Does anyone else feel the intro to the article should be shortened and a section titled "Early life" or something of the sort should be added? I just happened to come across this page and noticed the begining is rather long. MagicBear ( talk) 09:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the fact about his birth from this article have any truth to it? http://www.anxus.com/the-coolest-35-facts-youve-never-heard/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.64.141 ( talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Abdication Crisis article claims Churchill helped Edward VIII "polish" the abdication speech - but other sources would suggest he wrote the whole lot. Thoughts Whitstable 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to head off the issue for the upcoming GA review (I'm not doing it), I'd like point out some errors with the quotations in the article. Per WP:MOSQUOTE and the template instructions, {{ cquote}} is never to be used for block quotes (like it is here). The cquote template is for pull quotes. Please use either the {{ blockquote}} or <blockquote> format, and remember that block quotes need no surrounding quotation marks. Also, please note that quotes of less than four lines (or multiple paragraphs of any length) should never to be blocked out (i.e. keep them in-text). Good luck with the review, looks good otherwise. VanTucky talk 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The last sentence in this paragraph is an exact repetition of a quote two sentences earlier and should be removed. The article is protected - so I would be greatful if a registered user could do it.
23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
( LordHarris, I'm reusing your Done graphic. I like it!)
Has the author really any knowledge of Churhill?
It seems to float from era in a non-inear way (see the interwar years).
Also, whilst Churchill was not without faults this article makes him sound like a permenant disaster area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.113 ( talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is getting way too overcategorized. From my count, I see around 70 categories, which is extremely tedious to look over. My suggestion is to just keep the most important category, and dispose of the not-so-important ones. The article cats at the moment are nauseating and serve only as a nuisance to read... -- DarkFalls talk 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This review is for GAN, not peer-review. I have checked this article against the good article criteria. Details for improvements will be given after this list
This article is probably the longest GA I will ever review. A little bit more work will send it into FA category. But for now, there seems to be an extensive list of minor problems that needs to be fixed.
These statements/sections are unsourced/undersourced:
These sentences are unclear, ambiguous, contain weasel or peacock term:
LordHarris 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there're a huge varieties of styles in reference section. They should be in the same style. These references include (number as in the number in the order they appear in reference section):
NOTE: These numbers may change constantly as more references are added, hence take it with a grain of salt.
Miscellaneous:
OhanaUnited Talk page 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that it will be neither pretentious nor out of place for me to praise the job that OhanaUnited and Lord Harris have done in reviewing and tightening this article. Having volume II of the Official Biography to hand, I have done a bit to supplement. I have added in the minimum wage bill after Lord Harris's mention of the Trade Disputes Act. FWIW, this was all part of what WSC called a Minimum Standard and a much larger scheme including ending child labor and, as the OB terms it, "Churchill's determined attack on sweated labour". I have also made significant changes to the Tonypandy section. Part may, perhaps, have retained traces of the original, leading to some small conflict. I've cited the OB, but WP's Tonypandy page concurs that troops were never in action. Mentioning whether troops came at a later date, after trial, seems to confuse the issue. Would it be right to link Tonypandy to Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, in which it was used as an example of a known fact -- that WSC sent troops in -- that wasn't true? WSC was, apparently, fond of the book. I remain troubled by Indian section, particularly the prominence given the Duff Cooper speech over the procedure investigation -- I equate that to trying to impeach an MP, rather than just trying to help to defeat a prospective one -- but am most gratified by the hard work of so many in improving this. Czrisher ( talk) 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)