# Talk:Winston Churchill

I have reverted an edit that removed one of the five children with no reason. Do not remove it again without giving a good reason. Bduke (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

In part, the reason that you were given but ignored was WP:EGG. Also, we generally do not treat every child of a figure as automatically constituting a key fact that should be included per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a fact if writing a biography and it may cause people to use different browsers. 14.202.80.254 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel as though WP:SDDATES would suggest we should note Churchill's terms of office in the short description. He's certainly well-known for being a politician and author, but I think the more important point is that he was prime minister. Векочел (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. "Dates or date ranges are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation" - do we really need dates to "enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation" for WC? And I would suggest that if Churchill had kicked the bucket, rung down the curtain, and joined the quire invisible on 9 May 1940 he would still have been a highly notable figure without ever being PM.  DuncanHill (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
But his greatest significance comes from his terms as prime minister, arguably his first term. The reluctance to list his tenure seems to come from the fact that Churchill had multiple terms of office. But then they are listed for Grover Cleveland in his short description. Векочел (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Based on Grover Cleveland, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1940–1945, 1951–1955) is the most appropriate short description. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have an open mind on the dates, but they do sort of complete things for most subjects. I do not agree that the SDESC should be limited to WSC's terms of office, and so the description as is should remain. ReturnDuane (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider adding William Manchester's 3 volume biography to the bibliography. 142.190.118.142 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be good if all his life achievements where all rounded up at the bottom so we don’t have to look specifically for his achievements. 14.202.80.254 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi!
Please change the order of "In office" in chronological order, so first 1940 then 1951!(at the right side bellow his picture).
Thank you! 86.120.238.219 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Everything else in the "in office" section of the infobox is in reverse chronological order.  If you think about it, this is logical.  The infobox design is meant to work for current politicians as well as dead ones.  So for Kier Starmer and Liz Truss older things are at the bottom - readers probably want to see the most recent office first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to propose to add a new subsection to his article called Controversies. So I would like the opinion of some admins. What do you think ?? ---- SakNar2011 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Controversy sections are not generally recommended. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Churchill diverted food from India declining it to starving Bengali's leading to deaths of between 25-40 million Indians. When told that Indians were dying of starvation, he arrogantly asked "Is Gandhi dead yet"?
This was one nasty person in the history of India. This must be reported. 2601:282:8684:2F20:A03F:AE3E:88D4:45DB (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a flat out lie and exaggeration. Even by Wikipedia's own article the Bengal famine lead to 800,000 - 3 million deaths so where this 25+ million figure has come from is ridiculous, clearly just a biased opinion trying to smear an important historical figure for some kind of political belief. The population of Bengal rose by 43% between 1901 and 1941, an increase of 20 million... regardless of policy and decisions made the famine was predominantly a result of rapid population growth. 213.31.40.239 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

We could do with a separate article about this topic one of these days, but I don't have time at the moment so I'm not volunteering.
The claim which somebody just tried to add that he "wrote in support of EEC entry in 1961" was often quoted by pro-EU people in the 2016 referendum but needs considerable qualification. It was a prearranged letter concocted by the government and his secretary Anthony Montague Browne, and Andrew Roberts says that there is no evidence that WSC or any member of his family ever saw the letter. If memory serves, it was drafted in 1961 and was released in 1962 after Field Marshal Montgomery visited WSC in hospital (he had just broken his leg or hip and was largely what we nowadays call "a wheelchair user" for the rest of his life). Monty announced to the press that "Sir Winston entirely agreed with me" that we should not join the EEC, so Macmillan or one of his minions ordered AMB to release the letter. By the early 1960s WSC was almost, if not quite, senile and AMB had had to ask Tory MPs to stop asking his endorsement for things as "Sir Winston is no longer capable of forming opinions about new topics" or similar words. See the 2018 Roberts biog and AMB's mid 1990s memoirs called "Long Sunset" I think. Regards, Paulturtle (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I see this topic is covered in greater detail in the spin-off article "Later life of Winston Churchill" so it can be worked on there. Have added some further comment there.Paulturtle (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Think that's the best option, given the length of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I had an edit reverted (itself a reversion) which added a citation needed to "Churchill remains popular in the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere" - while I understand that re WP:LEADCITE, claims in the lead do not necessarily require a citation if the claim is evidenced in the body, and this article appears to be avoiding citations in the lead on principle, I was unable to locate in the article where exactly this claim was cited.
I would argue that considering this is a claim which could be considered controversial, it should either be cited inline, or the section where it is cited be worded more explicitly? Maybe I wasn't searching for the correct terms, but the Legacy section (where one would assume this would be discussed) mentions only individual assessments of his character, and no overall characterisations. Blaithnaid (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blaithnaid - I would say that the UK portion of the sentence is correct. In the Death, funeral and memorials section - "In a 2002 BBC poll that attracted 447,423 votes, he was voted the greatest-ever Briton, his nearest rival being Isambard Kingdom Brunel some 56,000 votes behind." - could possibly be interpreted as a way to saying he remains popular in the UK. I couldn't find any sources about the Anglosphere. So I would suggest basically just shortening that part of the sentence to "Churchill remains popular in the UK." (removing reference to the Anglosphere). I don't know, that's just my suggestion. It's also easier to find more sources on the internet about him remaining popular in the UK. DDMS123 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
That definitely makes sense to me - I couldn't find any decent sources for his popularity or lack thereof outside of the UK, so either way it seems to make most sense to simply mention the UK. Blaithnaid (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Blaithnaid - If you're happy with the suggestion, I guess we could change the sentence now. DDMS123 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
sorted! Blaithnaid (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! DDMS123 (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)