Talk:Winston Churchill

Lead image

I think the article needs an image in the lead section, to show how Winston Churchill looks like. However, I have not found any copyright-free picture yet. If anyone does find such an image, please add onto the article, thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 17:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Please explain reverts

Please explain your reverts. We have a "zero unexplained revert" rule, which means you cannot simply undo a significant amount of work by someone else (e.g., several sentences)--or re-revert, to re-include them--without an adequate explanation. See this section of CZ:Professionalism, please. --Larry Sanger 12:17, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

we seem to have a philosophical dilemma. It is illegal to erase text but also illegal to restore it. (In this case I DID provide an explanation in the Summary line)> Richard Jensen

Droll, but untrue...the Law is not to erase text, or to restore it, without sufficient explanation. Explanation is almost never going to sufficient if limited to the space given by the summary line, IMO. --Larry Sanger 07:18, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I should have explained better - I was surprised to learn that Hitler had ordered the bombing of Berlin. I deleted text that seemed to include an embarrassing error without attempting to find the correct alternative.

There was a second problem in that the line conflated the Battle of Britain with the Blitz. These are generally regarded as quite separate phases; the Battle of Britain were daytime raids against airfields; this is generally regarded as being "won" when the balance of aircraft lost in daily sorties shifted critically in favour of the RAF; the Blitz involved subsequent night bombing attacks on London, (fighter defences were less effective at night, but precision raids on e.g. airfields not practicable at night).

There are two issues of interpretation; did the Briish set a trap, and was the Blitz simply retaliation? First, the lone raid on Berlin is said to be a retaliation for earlier sporadic attacks on London, not a conscious attempt to lure the Germans into bombing London. Second the Blitz went far beyond plausible retaliation but was rather a strategic shift to attack industrial capacity and demoralise the civilian population.

As this is an article on Churchill, it's probably worth mentioning that "The Battle of Britain" is the name given by Churchill, in his speech in June 1940, and the end is really defined by him in another famous speech ("never in the field of human endevour has so much been owed by so many to so few")

Gareth Leng 06:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

The historiography on Luftwaffe says Hitler ordered the shift to the blitz as retaliation for the raids on Berlin, and that this was a serious blunder because it relieved pressure on the RAF. The word is "trap" is problematical if it suggests Churchill knew ahead of time Hitler would make this blunder (no one could predict Hitler). Note from one study:(Levine, Strategic Bombing of Germany 1992 p 26):

On August 30 Hitler decided to retaliate on London. In this he was following

the advice of many Luftwaffe generals, who had long believed that an attack on London would force a decisive air battle under conditions that would favor the Luftwaffe. This was a miscalculation. The attacks on London, which began on September 7, lifted the pressure from Fighter Command's airfields in southeast England, and the RAF did well in the fighting over London. The decision to make London a target, however hard for the Londoners, gave Fighter Com- mand a welcome respite. It is doubtful that this decided the Battle of Britain, as was once widely believed. But the attacks on Berlin, along with Bomber Com- mand's attacks on the invasion fleet, certainly were to Britain's advantages." Richard Jensen 12:43, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I concur with Gareth's analysis. And the blitz was not limited to London (I live in Glasgow). But these are niggles in a fine article, RichardWahib Frank 15:10, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Coventry too. Chris Day 16:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Battle of Britain article, I hope in reasonably final form, for which I'd appreciate review. In that, I distinguish the Blitz as one phase, but also identify the next major phase as the Battle of the Beams. The point of transition, although it was not obvious to the cities being bombed, was the German decision to cancel Operation Sea Lion, the planned amphibious invasion of Britain. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Contradictions:

1. lead says he was a younger son, but text says he had 1 brother, born 1880, ie after him
2. lead says he crossed the floor in 1906, but text says 1904

At a quick glance through I can't see any mention of his knighthood (1953). Americans may consider such things unimportant, but I think it should be mentioned. Perhaps I missed it somewhere.

His speeches inspiring the nation were actually read on the radio by an actor.

As regards the discussion above about the start of civilian bombing, the account I read somewhere was this. A German bombing party, heading to attack a French military target, got lost in fog & accidentally bombed a German village. Hitler chose to blame the French & "retaliate". Peter Jackson 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the knighthood does at least appear in his full name. Peter Jackson 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Something seems to have got lost near the beginning of the family section. Peter Jackson 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New version

This version is, for the most part, the same one that I developed on another site up to 6 June last year. There have been some additions and other amendments but I think it should retain the attribution notice for the present and be classified as developing. The images need attention and I'll look at those soon.

If you spot any typoes and the like, please fix them. If you have any questions or suggestions about the coverage, please let me know. Thanks. John (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2023 (CDT)

John, I like it! Pat Palmer (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2023 (CDT)

Thanks, Pat. I'll keep an eye on it and see if I can improve it. I've got several of the source books. John (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2023 (CDT)

Opening 2-3 sentences

John, The opener for this article is classic Wikipedia style--listing all his dates and titles and jobs ever held in one long sentence. I've been migrating to a different style lately, in which I try to make the first 2-3 sentences a pithy review of whatever is MOST important about a person. See Donald Trump for example; it *could* start out saying he'd been a business entrepreneur and entertainer etc, where he was born etc. But years from now, I think what people will really want to know is that he was president, and when, and what he was known for as president. So *this* article, for example, could start out saying that Churchill is known for leading the British Isles through the emergency caused by the threatened invasion by the Germans in World War II, without which emergency he likely would never have become prime minister. And all those titles and such could be placed in a second paragraph. Since this wiki now has bubble popups for links to articles, think that what is in your first four dozen words or so is what readers will see if they mouse over a link to the article in certain browsers. Anyway, I didn't want to be high-handed and change your carefully worded opener, but ask that you think about it. This is a great article. I usually can't adequately understand how I want a opener--and closer--to read until I've written the whole article, after which I can say, yes, THIS should be the main theme. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2023 (CDT)

Other things that people widely remember about Churchhill are, of course, his dry wit and persuasive speaking during the toughest parts of the war. That he is particularly remembered for those would perhaps belong in a prominent position in the opener.

Hello, Pat. One thing I really want to do on here is escape from the so-called MOS and write articles in a way that people will want to read them. If you try to read a WP article of any length, you soon give up and just focus on whatever piece of information you wanted to find in the first place (assuming it's correct). Churchill is, I accept, still a WP article (even though I wrote most of it myself, ha!) but there's enormous room for improvement. You're absolutely right about the intro which needs some punch. I would not state his full name until well into the article because even the stories of his pre-birth and birth are worth telling. I'm sure we can achieve something with so much available material.

By the way, you're right that he could never have been PM without Hitler in general and Norway in particular. The Tories would have kept Chamberlain until, inevitably, Attlee and Labour won the next election. I've got articles on the Norway Debate and the War Cabinet Crisis that I want to bring in too. John (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2023 (CDT)

Actually, Pat's "different style" is, at least in part, the traditional CZ way: start by saying why the topic is important.

Aside. Reminds me of something I read a while back about the difference between US & UK ways of writing obituaries. One of the starts by telling you who they were, the other with the fact of their death. Can't remember which is which. Peter Jackson (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2023 (CDT)

I think coming straight to the point is definitely the best approach, Peter. I've always disliked the WP insistence on the intro as a summary of the article. John (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (CDT)