Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: Quotes are covered via the wikiquote project which is linked to the article. LordHarris 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a quotes section? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Churchill's artworks and "Charles Morin" pseudonym

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Early life?

message: 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,  is never to be used for block quotes (like it is here). The cquote template is for pull quotes. Please use either the  or  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)
replies: text: Have amended to blockquotes. Thanks for pointing that out!  LordHarris 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Repetition in "German Rearmament" 

message: 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)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#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): 
#:: 
#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
: added a reference for name.  LordHarris 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Seems to be fixed. --DarkFalls talk 09:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's been fixed. --DarkFalls talk 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  LordHarris 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: External websites requiring subscription should normally not be linked onto an article. See Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. --DarkFalls talk 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yeah, mind if you archive this page? It's way too long. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Extensive GAN Review