Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

India

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 ."

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)

I re-wrote a great deal of the “Political Isolation” section, . My first and most over-arching complaint was simply that the quality of the writing was execrable; that is why I removed the Amritsar bit in spite of recognizing that it’s an event worth citing. The section was also one-sided and inaccurate. (Unfortunately, is almost entirely based on the writings of Rhodes James [sic] whose antipathy to Churchill is well known.) Take, for example, the Gandhi-as-fakir misquote. I put in the actual quote, with citation, which added the word “nauseating” – lest any feel that I was trying to whitewash – but also noted that later WSC modified his position (all of 4 years later, and while continuing to disapprove the plans for Indian independence). The suggestion that an intelligent man couldn’t change his opinions over the space of 30 years, especially when he was studying India deeply and had spent years at the Colonial Office – at which place, by the bye, he met Gandhi who, in 1935 praised WSC for his “sympathy and goodwill” – is absurd.

The statement that WSC’s “supporters ‘stacked’ the back bench Conservative India Committee” is risible. How did the “isolated” WSC managed to control, even indirectly, Committee membership? While Amery and others opposed to WSC complained that his supporters were “in the majority”, it was Baldwin and the party elders who did the picking. And to suggest that it was to his supporters’ efforts in a party committee, rather than to his own efforts, that Baldwin was replying is fatuous. And as to Baldwin on Amritsar, would anything in the previously worded version suggest that WSC had, in the 1921 speech Baldwin was quoting, defended the Government decision to censure General Dyer for the massacre? And what is meant by “challenging his critics to depose him if they wished”? That’s what I mean by poorly written.

The bit on Duff Cooper, too, I will excise now. While WSC was addressing the India Empire Society in London, the text as written suggested that he had gotten his cronies to attack Cooper and did so himself. Since he had been and remained against Government policy, the fact that this anti-Baldwin speech came the night before the by-election is merely coincidental. Why not cite every other anti-Baldwin speech for the previous month? My efforts are merely a beginning, but they made a significant improvement.Czrisher 00:21, 2 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)

Comment The level of information in this debate is commendable. However I have only a limited knowledge regarding WSC and India and am unable to side with either one of you on an aspect. I do however have some thoughts. I propose that one of you create a sandbox page on your useraccount and then both of you rewrite the India section in the sandbox, compromising on the topic and adding those references for which you believe are truthful and needed. My best advice is dont make any more reverts or edits on the actual article page until you have both decided on the finalised text, however difficult that might be. LordHarris 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I invited Lord Harris's input as he had previously added material and as one the tasks he sets out on his pages is to bring this to a 'good article' standard. I am happy to create a sandbox page if Czrisher is prepared to contribute. If you are please leave a message here.Again I have left a message on your talk page drawing your attention to this.Backnumber1662 20:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed the Sandbox it is on my talk page atUser talk:Backnumber1662/Sandbox Backnumber1662 10:10, 8 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)

His views on India are well known and he was an avowed imperialist - what's the point in denying it? This article reads like a hagiography of Jesus Christ himself. DemolitionMan 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I would like to see

1 the wellknown quote Czrisher removed restored (Ghandi being crushed under the Viceroys elephant)

2 emphasis that in fact Churchill had not changed his views about India since he was a junior cavalry officer (and that can be seen in his books published in the 1930s)

3 that those ideas came from politicans like John Morley(its obvious from some of his speeches he did take his ideas from there)

4 That even at the time -1930s- he was regarded as a reactionary

Something would also have to be said about his economic ideas about which most sources- at any rate all those I have read- are silent. Though they note his commitment to free trade and to the insurance ideas of social welfare, they dont deal with on what basis he predicted (as his speeches and paper articles did)widespread unemployment and ruin in England should India become independent.

I would welcome more comments I want this article to be a featured article. To do so it needs to be accurate and comprehensive Backnumber1662 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's actually spelled "Gandhi" - and yea - please put the quote about the elephant back - then we can begin working on the section. DemolitionMan 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so with the spelling. Would you like to put the quote (with appropriate reference on the sandbox I created..see the link above? Then we can make this a better section. Looking forward to your helpBacknumber1662 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd just like to add one point here: the section on his isolation wrt to India in the 1930s is important, naturally; the quote about "half-naked fakir" walking up the stairs of Government House "to treat on equal terms with HM representative", or whatever, is possibly the best-known Churchill quote in India, and should certainly be included.

Whatever the claims that are made that Churchill 'changed his mind' are a little doubtful to me: it is extremely important that the sections dealing with his premiership do not exclude his role in delaying Indian independence for the duration of the war (the second best-known Churchill quote is "I have not become the King's first minister to preside over the liquidation of the Empire"). Leo Amery's diaries are a mine of material that are quite often quoted in studies of Indian independence: in particular the "beastly people with a beastly religion" line. Finally, some note should be made of the Bengal Famine of 1943; Churchill famously denied the request that preferential quotas for the Army be scrapped, sending a telegram to Wavell asking if a million people had indeed died of starvation, why Gandhi hadn't been one of them. Relata refero 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A fairly useful first guide to the two phases of Churchill's views on India is this article, in one of India's largest papers, and written by the historian Ramachandra Guha, who's just published what is likely to be, for the next decade or so, the standard text on independent India. Relata refero 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the link but how about you give me a hand too and edit what you like on my sandbox see the link above. The more who help the better the article should be. Backnumber1662 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I will look at the sandbox, but my concern is that the way that this is set up is limited to the early 1930s, without mentioning his policies as PM. That will need another section. Relata refero 06:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed. But lets deal with it this way. The Indian section as it is now, another section on imperial affairs in war time (its not just India that needs to be dealt with- for example Churchill's diversion of the Australian Imperial Forces against the direction of the Australian government to Ceylon and his attempt to divert other AIF units to Burma and an expanded section (based on the Mau Mau section as it is now) in his post war government.Backnumber1662 07:42, 27 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? - seanLed125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a quotes section?

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)

Quotes are covered via the wikiquote project which is linked to the article. LordHarris 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

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)

His own definition of himself was "an imperialist abroad and a radical at home." Relata refero 09:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest we include radical in the lead? There can be no other purpose to putting Imperialist in the lead than to use it in a pejorative sense. With a quick check around the articles of the usual suspects I cannot find an article in which Imperialist is used in the lead in this way. Jooler 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the purpose is to indicate that he was, for much of his career, the most stalwart defender of Empire in Westminster, and that that part of his career was also tremendously influential. If you have an alternate word to suggest that makes that point, please do; otherwise we'll have to go with what the sources say. Relata refero 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can summarise that in the lead with the single word Imperialist, linked to the article Imperialism, where is the context you speak of? Churchill's position is explained in context in the body of the article. The word Imperialist without context, as it would be in the lead is generally perceived as a pejorative. Jooler 12:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is accurate, but considered pejorative today, there's nothing much we can do about it. Nobody claimed leads have to be hagiographic in nature. Relata refero 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not, but nor should it be a character assassination. It should be neutral in tone, and 'imperialist' without the context does not come across as neutral. Jooler 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we frequently eschew context in the lead. That is its purpose. Churchill was an imperialist, he was a proud imperialist, people respected him as an imperialist, he was a major imperialist, and imperialism was a major factor in his life. Leaving it out of the lead is what is non-neutral. As I said, find an alternative formulation. And try not to accuse people of character assassination for providing links. We are writing an encyclopaedia, and we are required to provide an all-round view of people's lives and legacies. We can't leave things out because they do not 'come across' as neutral, if referencing demonstrates they are. Relata refero 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

try not to accuse people of character assassination for providing links. - I didn't you accuse you of 'character assassination'. I was just using an antonym for hagiography, to help explain that the article should be neutral. I didn't think you were accusing me of hagiography in excluding the word 'imperialist'. As it stands there is no consensus to use the word 'imperialist' in the lead, with two users (myself included) reverting its addition and another user commenting against its inclusion here on the talk page. Should more people choose to discuss the matter then you might achieve such a consensus and that would be the end of the matter. Jooler 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a matter of headcounts. If you choose not to engage, compromise or negotiate, then consensus will not evolve. To repeat: Churchill was an imperialist, he was a proud imperialist, people respected him as an imperialist, he was a major imperialist, and imperialism was a major factor in his life. Explain how leaving it out of the lead is permissible in that context, even if it sounds pejorative to your ears, when ample references have been provided as to its importance. Or, as I have suggested several times before, find an alternative that is not pejorative in your opinion that meets the references and does not change the style of the lead. Relata refero 08:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) since no alternative has been forthcoming, I will restore the original wording shortly. Relata refero 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "original" wording, you mean not the original wording before your addition which does not have consensus. If you restore this I will refer you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents under point 5. of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors Jooler 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original" as in "before I ever edited". See this. And do go ahead to AN/I, where I fancy you will be told to engage and attempt compromise on the talkpage rather than to rely on a misreading of WP:Consensus. While you're at it, read WP:OWN. Relata refero 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have chosen as your "original" - an addition made just a few days ago by a editor noted for tendentious edits who has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Jooler 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For obvious incivility, not tendentiousness. And my point, that I used 'original' to indicate 'as I first saw it', still stands. Please attempt to engage with my points instead of continually attacking me personally, WP:NOT a battleground and all that. Relata refero 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean about continually attacking me personally. I have only used an antonym for 'hagiography' and pointed out that the addition that you are restoring was made just a few days ago by someone who has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. In no way have I made any comment about you personally. My view is that the word 'imperialist' nor any synonym does not belong in the lead. As far as I am concerned the current consensus is to not include the word 'imperialist' in the lead. Any edits made against the consensus are liable for reversion whether you believe you have a valid argument for its inclusion or not. I have no wish to debate the matter unless the consensus changes. I have no more to say on the matter. Jooler 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt to engage and compromise as everyone else is doing in good faith; as WP:OWN tells you, you can't control content in the manner you suggest. Relata refero 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Relato please understand that you cannot just disregard other users opinions. Firstly Jooler has attempted to discuss changes with you on the talk page. Secondly, you seem to misinterpret what a consensus is, when I concur with Jooler that summing up Churchill as a staunch imperalist is misleading in the lead section, you disregarded rudely my comments. Imperalism is a complicated subject and something that definately should'nt be attached as a label to any one person, especially in the lead section. If however you wish to write a historiography section in the article then please do so. You may state that REFERENCE A asserts Churchill was a staunch Imperalist, so long as you balance it with REFERENCE B who asserts he was merely acting in accordance with the political trend etc. Labels in whatever their case are wrong. However if you wish to point out specific examples where Churchill say prevented independance of parts of the British Empire then please do, placing in the MAIN article. I think people should have the right to make up their own mind about what Imperialism should be, and whether he was an Imperialist according to what we consider the term to be. As Jooler observed Imperialism without context is misleading. It does not belong in the lead. LordHarris 17:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To take your points one by one i. "It shouldn't be attached as a label to any one person" - I am not sure where it says that in policy. If it is a label he himself chose, and academic opinion is comfortable with, I fail to see why not. ii. I see no reason to write a historiography section; the question is not how he was viewed, but what his political opinions and ideology was. Even if I did, I would not need to balance it with claims that he was 'acting in accordance with the political trnd' if a vast majority of RSes say he wasn't. Note also that the Lead for Neville Chamberlain uses the word 'appeasement' even when there is considerable historical debate. iii. People do not have the 'right to make up their mind about what Imperialism should be'. Well they do, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of words with a common meaning. iv. 'Imperialism' without context is not misleading: Jooler is concerned it is pejorative. That is a very different thing. Even if you believe it to be so: Please also note that WP:LEAD specifically enjoins us to include a description of 'notable controversies'. In my opinion, this isn't either pejorative or controversial: its how he was, and it was notable. Finally, I did not disregard your brief line: I noted that they were not helpful in building consensus. Please do read my note on your talkpage about how it isnt in keeping with consensus building as we practice it here. Relata refero 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach. Why dont you write here or in your sandbox, what you would like added to the lead and we can try and reach some sort of compromise so as all our concerns can be acknowledged? LordHarris 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Joolers argument. LordHarris 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Concurrence without additional argument strengthens it not at all. Relata refero 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why repeat what has already been argued so well. My concurrence was to show support that you cannot just sum up a person with the label imperialist etc. Wikipedia is a community. I was agreeing with one of its members. Its called reaching a consensus. FYI Wikipedia:Don't be a dick LordHarris 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See above for why you're wrong about consensus. Relata refero 08:44, 1 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)

Perhaps, though that seems strikingly redundant to my ears. Though I welcome suggestions incorporating it; I do note that he opposed all forms of decolonisation, not just the end of the British Empire, so I am not sure that it is even valid. Relata refero 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He was part of the Liberal Government which granted self-government to New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa, opposed giving back Germany its confiscated colonies in the 1930s, and he forcibly removed Italian rule from Abyssinia and restored that country's independence. His imperialism was to protect British interests.--Johnbull 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I fancy his opinions on South Africa were not pro-Independence, the 'giving back' to Germany of colonies under British mandate was naturally a non-starter, as was Fascist aggression in Ethiopia. He worked for British interests, certainly; but your objection is like saying that Napoleon was not patriotic because he tended to invade other people's countries. He was not imperialist because it suited British interests alone; he was an imperialist, and that helped shape how he viewed British interests. Relata refero 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

His opinions on South Africa are described by his biographer Roy Jenkins as: "The Liberal government, from an early stage and partly under the vigilant pressure of Churchill, was in favour of taking an important step away from Lyttelton and conceding responsible government" (Jenkins, Churchill (Pan, 2002), p. 113). The return of Germany's colonies was seriously suggested in the 1930s and the Italian invasion was not a "non-starter": it didn't end until they were removed by guns and bombs. I'm not sure why you think Churchill would be an imperialist for any other reason than for the promotion of British national interests. You said earlier, in trying to justify including the word, that he was known as a "stalwart defender of Empire". That is the context of his imperialism: defending the British Empire, not defending empires of foreign countries (he actually was pro-war against rival European empires during the two world wars).--Johnbull 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not replied to my point that you are getting things backward. In any case, if you find a few citations that suggest that he was an imperialist to defend British interests rather than saying that he saw the Empire as the central BRitish interest because he was an imperialist, please do bring them here for discussion. We shouldn't try and interpret the historical record ourselves. Relata refero 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no response to my concerns; unless you do provide citations or an alternative, I will restore the wording to the lead. Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just ride roughshod over other peoples views and think that because people refuse to re-engage in what they believe is a dead debate, that you have the right to re-instate material that clearly goes against the established consensus. Above all it's very rude. Jooler (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can ride roughshod over other people's views if I have reliable sources behind me. Of course, I wouldn't do that. Which is why I waited for a response. Please attempt respond to my concerns, by clearly explaining why the sources I have brought to the table are inappropriate. Note also that WP:CONSENSUS points out that consensus can change. For your reference, they're right at the top of this section, and you have not yet responded. Relata refero (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You cannot. If you think you can just ride roughshod over other peoples views as you say you can, you are seriously misguided about the nature of WP:consesnsus. Jooler (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you attempt to engage by discussing the specific sources and/or suitable phrasing on the next post, I will be forced to make the change unilaterally. Discussion of my personal failings is irrelevant on this page. Relata refero (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting: I'm thinking of adding and expanding the "statesman, orator and strategist" thing a bit. 'Statesman' is clearly a term that we shouldn't be using, even though WC qualifies, as a dead politician. I think I will replace 'statesman' with 'statesmanlike'; orator with 'wartime oratory', and add 'imperialism' in the mix, suitable qualified with sops to the misguided such as "defence", "British Empire", and "of his time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata, it is unwise to use use terms like "absurdly fawning" - Winston Churchill is regarded as one of the most influential and important figures in the history of Britain. It's also not really proper to apply 21st century judgements about imperialism to a figure whose views of empire were firmly rooted in the 19th century. Imperialism as presently understood is very different from defence of empire as understood by someone who served in the Boer War. Imperialist is not normally used as a defining term in describing Churchill; statesman, historian and orator undoubtedly are. I don't think anyone pretends he was a flawless character, but his reputation is overwhelmingly positive. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if 'absurdly fawning' hurt anyone. Influential and important figures in public memory are perhaps not treated with quite as much respect by academic historians, so naturally the lead would strike me as a little unbiased in that manner. (The word 'statesman' is particularly weaselly, in my opinion. The bar's low.)

I wouldn't dare apply 21st century judgments about Imperialism to Churchill; it would be most inappropriate. I do fear that is instead what those who find the mention of his opinions and beliefs in the lead so questionable are doing. Imperialism as Churchill defined it - when he returned from the Boer War to become and India to become a bulwark of the Liberal Imperialists. My references - and I can find more that discuss it - quite clearly spell out that Churchill defined himself and was defined at the time as an imperialist in the sense that the word is commonly understood, then and now. (It is merely more pejorative to use it now, though it is becoming less so these days.) As I pointed out, backed by the articles I mentioned (survey articles of his career, not random ones) Churchill was an imperialist, he was a proud imperialist, people respected him as an imperialist, he was a the most major of modern imperialists, and imperialism was one of the most major factors in his life. In some non-trivial and quite notable parts of the world he is remembered solely in terms of how his words and actions affected the Empire. No schoolboy in India knows the wartime quotes, but everyone knows the "half-naked fakir" one. Certainly scholarship on the subject does not cease by describing his wartime contribution; any major work (not put out by the Churchill Trust, which is strangely reticent on the subject) will clearly and precisely, with the minimum of fuss, spell out this detail of his life, without giving it undue importance or attempting value judgment.

I would not press for the inclusion of a mention in the lead if, for example, like Jefferson's slave-owning, it was merely a matter of modern study and not part of his self-definition and notability to history; I would not press for it if it was the reverse, either. In this case it is both, and it is a little unseemly that an endeavour that he spent fifteen of his most productive years on - the preservation of the Empire and of Imperialism as a viable ideology in England - and which has been similarly studied and acknowledged as central to his impact and personality by many reliable sources, be kept out of the lead because we believe that his reputation was overwhelmingly 'positive'.

Naturally I will accept that this is a difficult article to change; I have for years watched the Gandhi article, for example, which is extremely difficult to change, as that is a similarly venerated individual. (There's a bit of flummery on there right now about the title.) I am also aware that in such articles the consensus of the local editors is hardest to change, which is why I am battering my head (slowly) at a brick wall. The moment people start discussing alternatives, is when the process starts working. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you say is perfectly reasonable, it just doesn't live in the lead. Yalta was statesmanship, I think. But go with the reliable sources. What doe Britannica say in the first paragraph, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It includes the line "Churchill acquired a reputation for erratic judgment in the war itself and in the decade that followed. Politically suspect in consequence..." which is completely unlike anything in this lead.

About belonging in the lead, I'd like to remind you that WP:LEAD lowers the bar for 'negative' material, precisely to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. ("Briefly discuss notable controversies, if any.") I happen to not think that this is controvesialk, but since others would prefer to view it as such, that is also applicable.

I wouldn't like to comment on Yalta; Churchill is not loved in Greece or Iran because of it. Also Eastern Europe doesn't look back on it with fondness. Relata refero (talk) 05:37, 26 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.

Churchill's artworks and "Charles Morin" pseudonym

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's Imperialism

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

Great Contemporaries: Truncated Quote

The quote in Churchill's attitude to fascism is truncated. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/files/public/Spectator_Article.pdf

Early life?

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)

It is true Churchill was born during a dance at Blenheim Palace but he was born in a bedroom, or at least that is how most references give it. At Blenheim palace you can walk through the room on the tour and its pointed out to you. I do think the beginning is long, but no more than other large biographical articles and the information contained is relevant. LordHarris 08:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Abdication speech

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)

I havent been able to locate a source saying he wrote the whole thing, rather that he helped/influenced. What are your sources on full authorship? LordHarris 08:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a book reference, but I don't particularly trust the book! If anybody has it at hand, it is Citadel of the Heart: Winston and the Churchill Dynasty by John Pearson (published 1991).

However, I have found:

The pity in this piteous affair is the earnestness, and the naïveté, of Edward VIII, whose abdication speech, partly written by Churchill, is a testament to the virtue of wedded love. New York Times

Contrary to reports once generally accepted (TIME, Jan. 2), the Duke insists that he wrote the speech himself, although he gives Winston Churchill full credit for turning several phrases. Time Magazine, 1950

While I appreciate those two do not back up my original argument, perhaps Churchill should be given credit in the abdication crisis section of this article for at least helping to write it? Whitstable 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems though sources do give valdiity to Churchill at the very least helping to write the speech. At the very least I know Roy Jenkins comments on how Churchill spoke to the King with useful words about the abdication. Perhaps you would care to write a sentance or two and add your sources above to the article? LordHarris 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

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)

 Done Have amended to blockquotes. Thanks for pointing that out! LordHarris 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Repetition in "German Rearmament"

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)

 Done I removed the duplicate quotes and reworded a few sentences in the paragraph to make it flow a little better. Let me know if you are unhappy with the change. HeadSnap (talk) 14:28, 12 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)

Thanks for you completely unhelpful comments 212.139.109.113. Firstly who is this Churhill... Secondly if you disagree with something in the article or think its too critical, then give examples; cite sentances and paragraphs which you think could be improved. Just criticising editors is not helping the process, instead propose changes and improvements which will ultimately improve the article. LordHarris 14:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

whoever he is does have a point. as the person most responsible for the additions to the inter war period I have been worried that dealing with distinct topics (India/ German rearmament/Abdication) instead of "linear" (to use the writers words) is confusing. But so would be jumping from topic to topic. Any ideas people?Backnumber1662 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories

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... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing articles from all but "the most important" categories has a tendency to remove some of the most notable from the other categories. Churchill had a lengthy career, held multiple offices and was distinguished in several fields. Taking him out of many of these categories would diminish their usefulness - what specifically are you suggesting removing him from? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the categories there would diminish the usefulness further. The main use of categories is to allow the reader to travel through similar articles; not as decoration for the page or to dictate every single bit of the page. You would hardly put Churchill in Category:People because he is a person... The categories that should be removed are ones which do not show notability for a person, and are not integrated and discussed in detail in the article. As example, being an Anglican was hardly an important part of his life was it? Many people (such as myself) are unfamiliar that he is a racehorse breeder and owner. It wasn't mentioned in many of his letters or speeches; nor was an important aspect of his life. On the point of having a long career, so did Roosevelt and Chamberlain, but the categories there are manageable and easy to read. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a few categories like horse racing and so forth could be trimmed but most of them are specific US politics is somewhat different and Roosevelt held far fewer distinct offices (and didn't sit in Congress) so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Chamberlain had a shorter career (only 22 years in Parliament) and only held three other Cabinet level posts (Health, the Exchquer and the Lord Presidency of the Council), tending to specialise, whereas Churchill was rather a jack of all trades. Chamberlain also didn't receive anywhere near the number of honours Churchill did (indeed Chamberlain specifically declined honours) or have a notable career outside politics, whereas Churchill was a significant historian etc... Yes Churchill seems to hold the record number of categories - see Special:Mostcategories but note that other highs include Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, another person notable in multiple fields who received numerous honours, and Éamon de Valera who had an equally lengthy political career in a similar system.

Again which specific categories do you have in mind? Removing him from anything relating to ministerial office, parliament or most of the honours is just going to result in the category being diminished by not containing one of its most prominent members. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:British racehorse owners and breeders, Category:English Anglicans, Category:English journalists (Category:War correspondents should supersede the journalist one...) There are other categories that, although I would prefer it to be kept, would need integration into the actual article and not just stand as a category. The main one is Category:Cold War leaders. The phrase "Cold War" is not mentioned at all in the article, with the exception of a template concerning it. I'm not terribly concerned if anyone choose to leave the categories there, but I, personally, find it very difficult to navigate around the categories. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there's a 19 category difference between Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and Churchill; and a 21 category difference on Éamon de Valera. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Timrollpickering. Churchill is in so many categories because he had an exceptionally long and notable career in politics, accompanied by some notability for his writing etc. However, he was not notable either as an Anglican or for his involvement with horseracing, so Category:British racehorse owners and breeders, Category:English Anglicans should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree - remove Category:British racehorse owners and breeders, Category:English Anglicans as I do not think are notable enough. I recommend keeping the war correspondents and journalists category; as this period of his life had a formative impact on his future writings. LordHarris 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For the journalist categories, I recommend keeping the "war correspondent" whilst removing the "english journalist". The reason is that being a war correspondent infers that you are already a journalist, so it is pointless to keep both. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 22:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Extensive GAN Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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:

• Churchill's birth name was Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

 Done added a reference for name. LordHarris 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• He, like his father and his immediate family, used the surname Churchill in public life

 Done Roy Jenkins biography was already quoted for the Churchill name, but after the sentance talking about the 1st Duke and Blenheim. I have however added an additional reference to the Jenkins book after the public life, to reinforce the use of the surname Churchill and its origins. LordHarris 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Last paragraph under “war correspondent” section needs more references, particularly talking about his loss of faith in Christanity and impressed by Darwinism

 Done Added a reference for the article from which this information was found. LordHarris 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Under "early years in paraliment", provide a reference for "As a Liberal, Churchill played an instrumental role in passing a law that established labour rights, and a minimum wage in Britain."

 Done I was unable to ascertain what the passage was speaking of in terms of a minimum wage, the first liberal reform that introduced standard wages, was only in the form of unemployment wages/benefits in 1911. However I was able to locate in Jenkins book, mention of Churchill and the trade disputes act - which was the most significant labour right improvement of the year. I have changed the sentance to reflect this and added the reference. Churchills greater impact on the liberal reforms came when he was promoted to cabinet; beginning chiefly at the board of trade. LordHarris 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The quote “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate...I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed”

 Done Have added a reference for the quotation. LordHarris 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• “First lord of admiralty” needs more references

 Done I have added more references and expanded. LordHarris 12:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Under “return to power” “As the Presidenmt of the Air Council, he advocated the use of tear gas against insurgents, arguing that it was ridiculous to "lacerate" a man with lead but "boggle" at making his eyes water.”

 Done This is referenced. LordHarris 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Chancellor of the Exchequer" needs more references

 Done Have added more references. LordHarris 12:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• No source for the quote “we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans…”, “the type of leader the world needs when it needs him most.”

 Done Have added a reference for the fight on the beaches speech, as well as a reference for their finest hour speech. LordHarris 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• No reference in “Malayan Emergency”

 Done Added references from new book on Malaya and the end of British Empire. Also removed some redundant info and edited the section. LordHarris 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

These sentences are unclear, ambiguous, contain weasel or peacock term:

• Under “growing prominence”, “In 1910, Churchill was promoted to Home Secretary, where he was to prove somewhat controversial.” Somewhat controversial? Controversial according to his party members? Oppositions? Or general public?

 Done I have rewritten and clarified the sentance by mentioning the sidney street and tonypandy incidents, which are given in more detail later in the paragraph. It now reads "In 1910, Churchill was promoted to Home Secretary. His term as Home Secretary was to prove controversial for public opinion, after his responses to the Siege of Sidney Street and the dispute at the Cambrian Colliery caused a degree of tension."

LordHarris 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• 2 usage found in “Indian independance” “Perhaps the incident that damaged Churchill's reputation within the Conservative Party the most was his speech on the eve of the St George by-election. In this normally very safe Conservative seat, the official Conservative candidate Duff Cooper was opposed by an independent Conservative supported by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook and their respective newspapers” This sentence is very awkward.

 Done Seems to be fixed. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• In “Abdiction crisis”, “After some months in which English newspapers remained silent the Crisis became public on 1st December.” What does it mean by “some months”?

 Done I have clarified and cleaned up the sentance. It now introduces the coming paragraphs and rest of the section. LordHarris 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Retirement and Death: “Upon his resignation, the Queen offered him a dukedom; he declined, sometimes voting in parliamentary divisions, but never again speaking in the House”

 Done I have rewritten the sentance, added a reference for the dukedom (including a note). It is now more clear. LordHarris 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• “Churchill himself suffered a number of minor strokes”. How many?

 Done There were two strokes, but I removed the minor as any stroke is serious to ones health. Suprisngly Churchill had over half a dozen strokes in his later life (mostly in the mid 50s) but was only finished by a cerebral thrombosis, many years after his first stroke. LordHarris 17:47, 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):

• 1, 4, 6, 8, 123 (format)
• 19, 25, 109, 110 (needs a link to source)
• 28 (awkward)

NOTE: These numbers may change constantly as more references are added, hence take it with a grain of salt.

 Done I have made an attempt to redo a lot of the references, to change the style and to change the format. LordHarris 12:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous:

• Fix the external links, too long

Could you please provide suggestions as to how to make the external links section more concise? I dont see any spam etc in there, but the section is long? Could you please help? Thank you. LordHarris 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! LordHarris 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Concern: He got a lot of titles, but do we have to show every single position he was in the form of an expanded template?

I do think this is one of the longest list of template boxes, but then he had such an extensive life and career that all these template boxes are in some way relevant. Of course his time as Rector of the universities are less important than say his time as Prime Minister or chancellor. However the template boxes are there to show the succession of people who have fulfilled a certain job or role, readers can click on one time man of the year, and the view the next man of the year the year after etc. I think to remove the succession boxes would affect the flow of other articles. But I am open to suggestions, what template succession boxes do you think could be removed? LordHarris 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Churchill’s cabinet position section seems unnecessary? It’s covered in the templates already

I made an edit a while ago creating the cabinet section, rather than having a list of extended template boxes of each individual cabinet (given that these are on the sub articles themselves). So instead of having the templates, only links to the individual cabinets remain. Is this okay? LordHarris 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you the extensive review. I will get to work on these, doing most by the end of the weekend. Please give me until after the weekend before taking the article off hold status. I will respond to each individual point when I address them. A lot of the point should require only a minor rewrite/correction, but for some of the references I may have to get some books out from the library tommorow. I will keep the progress updated here. Thank you again. LordHarris 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your points raised, including adding references, expanding, clarifying sentances etc. I have also responded to your concerns, but welcome some more feedback in regards to the template and external links. I hope however that the article is now worthy of GA class? If not please let me know your concerns. Thank you! LordHarris 12:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I went over the references and did some adjustments myself. I am concerned about reference #65 (Paul Addison, 'Churchill, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer (1874–1965)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2007 http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk:80/view/article/32413, accessed 10 September 2007). When I clicked on the link, it asks for University of London library card (which I don't have, of course!) I suggest to find a similar reference and swap. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah - this is probably a side-effect of the way the online DNB automatically generates a reference, including a URL. I assumed it would be a stable link that anyone signed into the DNB could access, but it seems to instead be subscription specific. This may be a wider problem as quite a few articles are using the DNB as a source and for some less well biographied figures there aren't many other sources that can be easily checked by others. Does anyone know a better way to cite the online BND? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the reference. I was also unable to access the Oxford link. The Irish treaty negotiations and Churchills role was luckily covered over a few pages in Roy Jenkins biography so I have added that reference. Thank you for adjusting some of the references. LordHarris 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

External websites requiring subscription should normally not be linked onto an article. See Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 22:03, 22 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)

I take it that your comments on the procedure investigation relate to the Hoare and Derby incident in April 1934. I have added some thing about thatBacknumber1662 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your changes on the Tonypandy section and I do not see any conflicts with your edits. Most importantly thank you Czrisher for your kind works and thank you for all your efforts in improving the article over these past months; your contributions have been both substantive and sourced to an excellent standard. Thank you again. LordHarris 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am flattered by the compliments though, it seems, the work is never done since now someone -- I think it will not be me -- must drag out the countless proofs that the new libels about how WSC was wrong in suggesting malfeasance -- he was much more politic in expressing it, of course -- on the part of Hoare et alia. Someone once said you could learn most about a man based on his enemies and, probably, how vile their calumnies about him. And here I had been hoping that my earlier dismay was misplaced. Alas.Czrisher (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I suggested that Churchill was right or wrong on the privilege issue. I have reported what the debate in Parliament was. Where are the countless proofs? And for that matter where were those proofs when the matter was debated in Parliament? Please add the material you say shows Hoare and Lord Derby to be guilty and Chamberlain, Amery and the whole House wrong in not finding them so. Like Amery let me use the venacular "Put up or shut up" Backnumber1662 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this all about? LordHarris 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crzisher wrote above "I remain troubled by Indian section, particularly the prominence given the Duff Cooper speech over the procedure investigation " I added the paragraph beginning "The second issue also affected his reputation within the Parliament as a whole and the nation at large". That deals with the issue. Crzisher then says in the paragraph above starting 'I am flattered' that the paragraph is biased that it 'libels' Churchill. It doesn't, it is referenced, it is neutral language and more importantly Crzisher hasnt given any evidence that Churchill's claims (unanimously rejected by the investigating committee and by the Commons as a whole) were trueBacknumber1662 (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought this matter had been resolved? If is still ongoing, Crzisher, do you have a source that states Churchills claims were true? LordHarris 17:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this matter to you guys. I'm not over-concerned about tiny matters like this would affect the quality of the article significantly. This article is now GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, mind if you archive this page? It's way too long. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you OhanaUnited for your GA review and for promoting it. I have archived the talk page and will archive the GAN review when comments have finished. Well done everyone! LordHarris 10:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)