Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 2

message: The first section of the article renders really awkwardly. Is this happening to anyone else? It looks fine in the preview, but it messes up when you actually look at it. I think this is caused by the new "Category" thing on the right side. cryptfiend64 20:51, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
----
Nearly a quarter of the section on Churchill in the War is devoted to the question of Polish borders. This strikes me as being way too much. I believe we should cut this down and move a more detailed description elsewhere. Even if this is an important decision it's not one Churchill was personally closely involved with, more than Roosevelt or Stalin. DJ Clayworth 12:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart Rendered Incorrectly

message: "Churchill stood for the Liberals again in the 1923 general election, but over the next twelve months he moved towards the Conservative Party, though initially using the labels "Anti-Socialist" and "Constitutionalist". Two years later in the General Election of 1924 he was elected to represent Epping (where there is now a statue of him) as a "Constitutionalist" with Conservative backing. The following year he formally rejoined the Conservative Party, commenting that, "Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to rerat." He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924..."
Something wrong here? Rich Farmbrough 16:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean, but a reference to the 1924 Westminster Abbey by-election (where he stood as an Anti-Socialist) could be added. Appointing a non-party member to a senior Government post does seem surprising, but it did happen (and raise eyebrows at the time). Timrollpickering 11:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Given the small size of the War Cabinet and the importance of ministers outside it, can I suggest adding a section detailing the key ministers not in the War Cabinet, similar to those for David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain. I would add it myself but don't have a full list to hand. Timrollpickering 00:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: War government - non Cabinet members

message: In response to the reversion. Churchill in 1910 as home secretary drafted a never proposed, law to use forced sterilization on "degenerate" Britons, and was director of a 1912 conference. He also pushed the idea in a well known quote to Asquith. For context the 1911 EB defined Eugenics as "the modern name given to the science which deals with the influences which improve the inborn qualities of a race, but more particularly with those which develop them to the utmost advantage, and which generally serves to disseminate knowledge and encourage action in the direction of perpetuating a higher racial standard." and at the time the movement was about promoting more of the "right" people to breed. It, of course, rapidly degenerated because of the prevalant racial bigotry of the times. 
This wave of the eugenics movement (which included AG Bell, T Roosevelt and founders of Britain's Labour Party) died not long there afterward, but the 1910-1914 activities are often used as a way to attack Churchill later. Yes, WSC had some racial attitudes that we would describe as regressive today, however, trying to engage in equivocation by confusing early with late support for the movement is incendiary POV. If the information must be included - and it probably should in some form - correct context as to the meaning ascribed in that time and place to such efforts, as much as we condemn them now - should be in place. Stirling Newberry 21:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill and Eugenics 

message: I *think* his full surname was Spencer Churchill not Spencer-Churchill - the hyphen does make a difference. It was Winston's father who dropped the Spencer (claiming that double barrelled surnames were an impediment - this wasn't all he got wrong!) and Winston generally only used it for his books as a way of distinguishing himself from the American writer. I don't think we can say he treated "Spencer" like a second name in the modern context - at the time there was rather more fluidity about some names (witness the way people are often still confused about exactly where the division between first name and surname comes for Andrew Bonar Law) and it was actually relatively common for people to have longer surnames than they used. Timrollpickering 00:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just checked my copy of The Second World War I note there is no hyphen in the introduction at the start of each volume, so I've deleted it here. A lot of editions from Britain also truncate the name to "Winston S. Churchill" or even "Winston Churchill" - presumably because the books were now famous enough and also Winston Churchill the American was now obscure. Timrollpickering 00:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Law's son is always called Richard Law if that's any help. Churchill himself didn't actually make the change - his father was universally known as "Churchill" so the descendents carried on using it. Benn seems to have reinvented himself - for many years he was widely known as "Anthony Wedgewood Benn" until he reinvented himself (his Who's Who entries are notable for shedding things that go against the image of a common man like his old school). You also get people who delete first names - the first Labour Prime Minister was "James Ramsay MacDonald", although his birth certificate says James MacDonald Ramsay (a point of controversy during the First World War). Names seem to have been used rather more fluidly in those days. Timrollpickering 09:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm - the hyphen has just popped back in. It's possible the London Gazette may be in error. It is very common for hyphens to slip in and out, especially in periodicals. The Churchill Centre website appears not to use a hyphen  and a trivia page giving the names of both his brother and grandfather. I suspect caution would err towards removing any and all hyphens on pages for all members of at least the Lord Randolph branch of the Churchill family if not all of them. Timrollpickering 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname

message: This is a rumour that has been around for decades, but it seems to be unverifiable. http://www.snopes.com/history/world/churchill.asp is a whole page about it.
Nice story but you can't really present it as fact at the start of an encyclopedia article. nick 09:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lavatory Birth

message: I know nothing about winston, which is why I wiki'd him. This is a good article, but what is the table at the very bottom? What does this have to do with winston churchill? If you leave it, explain/label it...
:Depending on which table you are referring to: the very last thing is just a list of Categories to which this article belongs - so Churchill is in the Category of UK Prime Ministers, etc. The table immediately above that is a list of the offices that Churchill held, one row per office, each one saying who held the office before and after him. For offices he held twice there will be two entries. I hope that helps. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table at the bottom? 

message: I've read a few citations of Churchill calling the Koran, the "Mein Kampf of War". I've also heard it that he actually said "Mein Kampf is the Koran of War". Which one, if any, is correct and does this deserve to go into the article, as it would be a huge statement to make, especially in todays times.
: I don't know, but Churchill didn't live in "todays times" so it is not important unless is caused major ructions at the time, and if it had I would probably know about it. Introducing contemporary controversies into historical articles is generally a very bad idea as it creates disputes that are disporportionate to the significance of the controversy in relation to the subject of the article. Calsicol 17:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Churchill criticise the Koran? 

message: Are there any copyright issues or other restrictions on the use of Churchill's wartime government correspondences, or are these public domain or otherwise free to reproduce under UK law? More precisely, can we cite passages from the many telegrams printed in The Second World War verbatim? Albrecht 16:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I would assume they are public domain under the 50 year rule for release of public documents, though I'm not an expect on the matter. Calsicol 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright question 

message: The World War II section is too short in relation to other parts of the article. Churchill's role in the war is one of the most important examples of charismatic leadership in world history, and it is the main reason he is so important. The section is also tilted too much towards the negative. Calsicol 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll note from the template wording, the template itself should be on this page. Pcb21| Pete 09:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion notice for World War II section

message: Can anyone point to free downloads of recordings of his speeches? I cannot get the ones in the external links to work. Trollderella 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free recordings of his speeches