Talk:A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

message: Could someone please add a "Reception" section that talks about criticisms and responses to this book?-- And Rew 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception Section 

message: "However work was interrupted in 1939 when the Second World War broke out" 
: Alright, who's the joker. -- SiniStar 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny Guy 

message: Just thought I would tell you that this article was titled wrongly for over three years until I came and corrected it. Isn't that amazing? (A major piece by a Nobel Prize–winning author and politician...) Skinnyweed 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong title

message: Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. One sentence about the TV show removed/edited. Since the rest of the disputed text seems to have been edited, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with  and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV cleanup 

message: Interesting that he starts the book with Caesar's invasion, (well it wasn't an invasion really a raid but I digress) of Britain. Quite what that is to do with "English Speaking Peoples" I don't know?
It's a bit like writing the history say of the British Afro-Caribbean Community and instead of starting with Empire Windrush- starting with the Battle of Bosworth field- about the same gap in time really.
If he wanted to look at the question of English Speaking peoples- surely the place to look at the time of Caesar would be what is now the Netherlands and Germany, at that point we are still about half a millennium from Britain becoming part of the English speaking World. 
My point really is not so much critique I made- but surely academics in the period when the book was written must have made these types of very obvious critique. Churchill may well have answered them too- and I would suggest all this sort of discussion would be an interesting and relevant addition to the article- provided it is accurately sourced of course.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.186.173 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting Point

message: There are two "notes" links, neither of which leads to any note and, as far as I can tell from going through earlier revisions, neither one ever has. This strikes me as odd; both of them, if it's any help, were modified from "Citation needed" templates... 86.11.124.189 11:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes? 

message: "Social history, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution hardly get a mention."
EXCUSE ME!?  Has anyone here actually read the volume in question?  The entire theme of his coverage of the first half of the 19th century is how poorly the British Government was able to respond to the pressures brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions.  And one might easily defend the proposition that a major theme of the  entire four-volume work is the development of government due to the pressures of social advancement.  Perhaps this 'view' is that of the cited critic, but to state it in text as the prevailing opinion does a disservice to any would-be reader, to say nothing of the author himself.  
Besides, the American Civil War was a HUGE development in modern history, especially in modern warfare which is the perspective - both before and after "WWII" - in which Mr. Churchill writes. 
If no one is willing to stand by the, to my mind ignorant, prose of this section, I will shortly undertake to alter it.  Dmforcier (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social history, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution hardly get a mention." 

message: This refers to the bond between the UK and the USA (as the linked-to page confirms), and is not to do with the Commonwealth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.226.105 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it. The original intention of the sentence (as shown here in 2006) was to talk about the special relationship between Churchill's two "divisions" of English-speaking people, the Commonwealth (stayed under the Crown) and the United States (broke away). It's meaning was broken sometime over the last 12 years. --Inops (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "special relationship" between the people of Britain with the Commonwealth of Nations

message: In David Miles (archaeologist)'s book The Tribes of Britain (2006), he has this curious footnote on p. 26:
* ... the words concocted mainly by the team of underpaid and under-credited writers who put together Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples". Churchill was a brand as much as an author.
Is there any truth to this claim? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His other great text on the Second World War was known to have had a team of assistants, although how much they were researching vs writing is unknown. This isn't unusual for writers though, especially non-fiction writers. It isn't necessary to mention it, especially if we have no citation.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncredited co-writers?