Talk:Neville Chamberlain

Unitarian?

I remember reading here that he was a Unitarian, and it is easy to find good sources for this. Why has any mention of the mans religion been removed from the article, especially when it was clearly an important influence on his politics. Bsdrevise (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

German version

I find this is a very good article and is currently very relevant due to the situation in the world. As I live in Switzerland, I speak German but I found the German article in Wikipedia on Neville Chamberlain to be very weak. Would it not be possible to simply translate the English article for the German Wikipedia. Just a friendly suggestion David Norman Ipsach Switzerland info@david-norman.ch 138.248.51.141 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

Which image should be used in the infobox?

• 
  Option A (current)
• Option B
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G
• 
  Option H
• 
  Option I
• 
  Option J

Discussion

• Option B - Taken much closer to Chamberlain's premiership (during his second chancellorship), is high resolution, and looks towards the text per the Manual of Style. Chamberlain is too young in Option A and looks away from the text; the photograph is also of inferior quality. Not convinced by any of the alternatives either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• B, assuming the copyright is proper, as there's some mention on the image page of claims being made concerning it versus WMF. A,C,E and I show him much younger-appearing than during his prime ministerial career, his point of greatest fame. Remainder are either substandard shots, historical images that should appear at the proper point in the article rather than the infobox, or paintings. Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to go ahead and WP:BOLDly change it now; the all of two participants thus far have unanimously agreed on Option B. Anyone in disagreement can comment here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine, but keep in mind that articles that need to have polls on infobox images are very few. Most with large numbers of PD images have an adequate image chosen, or the population of editors interested enough to vote is thin. As here. Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  My motivation for starting the discussion was a recent edit summary: "consensus needed to change long-standing image". I thought the 1936 image was better, hence the discussion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option B Looks towards the text and is closer to the time when Chamberlain was Prime Minister. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WHY do so many of you who write entries on Wikipedia give such a loooooooong introduction before you get into the actual biography?! This is totally unneccessary, and appears on almost all of the entries. Simply get into the biographical information- beginning with place of birth- after a short, and I said SHORT, introduction! This introductory section runs for many paragraphs, and needs to be shortened! 98.123.126.45 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Since most people do not read the whole article, we put an executive summary at the top. Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rearmament

The article somewhat underplays Chamberlain's part, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in rearmament. His use of filmed speeches to camera, shown in cinemas, was also quite groundbreaking. (Churchill didn't like the microphone and hated the camera, preferring a live audience.) Chamberlain's 1936 newsreel address, explaining the need to rearm and the cost of doing it, is of some interest in terms of policy and personality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAHJt-Oi7lo Although he undermined himself at Munich by treating Hitler as a reasonable and appeasable negotiator, Chamberlain did fund massive rearmament for all three services as well as supporting Churchill in the May Debates of 1940. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Walker-Smith ref

I removed the Walker-Smith citation. I initially came to fix it, as it was giving a CS1 error, but the link as it stood went to a tiny fragment of the text which didn't seem particularly relevant. I found a complete copy of the book online (here), where I couldn't see any reference to Chamberlain's papers, nor to the Birmingham University archives. So I felt the best option was to remove the ref. Posting here since it seemed to require more explanation than would fit in an edit summary. RobertG ♬ talk 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)