Talk:Leslie Howard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walter H. Thompson[edit]

A documentary on Churchill's bodyguard shown on BBC2 last weekend seemed to add weight to the theory that Howard's plane was shot down in attempt on Churchill's life. It suggested, or perhaps merely speculated, that Churchill (who was due to fly back to the UK on the same evening as Howard's flight) had been aware of a possible attempt to shoot him down through secret Enigma decodings and had ordered his bodyguard to disable one of the engines of his plane in order for there to be an apparently legitimate explanation for him not flying back that evening. Churchill had made it clear that there should always be an alternate reason to explain actions initiated by the interception of German secret messages, in order to prevent the Germans from guessing that their codes has been broken. The documentary contained apparently new insight into the mystery of the engine fault. Jooler 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Service[edit]

I can only find this in the London Gazette which suggest he served until 1916 Steiner&exact=&atleast=&similar= as an 2nd Lt Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't shellshock, as this article suggests. He received a severe wound to the buttocks and never sat down comfortably for the rest of his life. --90.242.112.201 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment re a wound is incorrect. Leslie's medical assessment of January 1916, from his military record in the National Archives, is reproduced as figure 11 of the Eforgan biography (chapter 2) Npaskin (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

The infomation on his death was supposed to revealed this year (2008) but has been held back till 2025... any thoughts on why :O should this be put in? it was on BBC radio 4 program on Howards death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.116.146 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This passage is very confused and lacks the specificity of reference to document the claim that all the cited books come to the conclusion that Howard's plane was targeted because of his presence. As worded the passage even ambiguously suggests that the Goss book may or may not endorse this theory:
Several exhaustively detailed books such as Bloody Biscay: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Only Long Range Maritime Fighter Unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and Its Adversaries 1942-1944 (2001 by Chris Goss) by (which comes to a slightly different conclusion), Flight 777 (1957 by Ian Colvin), and In Search of My Father: A Portrait of Leslie Howard (1984 by Ronald Howard, Leslie's son), conclude that the Germans were almost certainly out to shoot down the plane in order to kill Howard himself.[7]
Since I haven't read any of the books in question and don't have them, I have not attempted to edit the passage. However, it needs to be clarified. My own belief is that its highly probable that Howard was in fact targeted. But the article needs to analyze this problem with greater clarity than the present version does. Thanks to anyone who can supply details on this.--BenJonson (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim by Bloody Biscay: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Only Long Range Maritime Fighter Unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and Its Adversaries 1942-1944 (Chris Goss, 2001) is certainly not without controversy. Goss's book, quotes Oberleutnant Herbert Hintze, Staffel Führer of 14 staffels and based in Bordeaux, as remarking that his staffel shot down the DC-3 merely because it was recognised as an enemy aircraft, unaware that it was an unarmed civilian airliner. Hintze states that his fellow staffel pilots were angry that the Luftwaffe had not informed them of a scheduled flight between Lisbon and the UK, and that had they known, they could easily have escorted the DC-3 to Bordeaux and captured it and all aboard. This appears to be a total historical revisionist tact as the Luftwafffe had no qualms about shooting down civilian aircraft and had twice intercepted the "Ibis" with the intention of shooting it down.
The perception that Howard's DC-3 could be mistaken for Churchill's flight is a curious one as a massive problem exists with this theory in that Churchill did not fly via regular BOAC flights but had a specially designed RAF aircraft assigned to him, a converted Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber, a LB-30A transport. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Martin Gilbert in the official Churchill biography, Churchill was flying in a (quote) Liberator instead of the more comfortable Boeing Clipper flying boat to which they had intended to transfer (unquote) (Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol 7, p.426) - quote and citation comes from Eforgan page 237, where she also points out that Gilbert has the date and flight details wrong. Npaskin (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no thoughts on why the information has been continually covered up with extensions to the release date (presumably to go on indefinitely)? Are there more war crimes allegations/trials pending, or does the UK merely not want to upset its EU "allies" in the run-up to Brexit? 2.31.164.15 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is another angle to the Churchill theory - Howard's agent, Alfred Chenhalls, was a corpulent fellow who smoked cigars - prompting speculation there could have been a case of mistaken identity. Churchill himself dismissed the idea, pointing out that, with all the resources of the country at his disposal, he would hardly be tempted to fly across a sensitive war zone in an unprotected aeroplane.

Leslie Howard (actor)[edit]

89.164.231.121 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC) "using "Stainer" as less German-sounding" - but this surname sounds very German! Probably he used Leslie Howard instead Leslie Howard Stainer.[reply]

Cartoon parody of Petrified Forest[edit]

The third paragraph in the "Film Career" section mentions the movie Petrified Forest, and the fact that Howard insisted on Bogart as his co-star, rather than the studio's choice (Edward G. Robinson), and adds that Bogart remained grateful to Howard for the rest of his life. The last sentence adds that Fritz Freleng later made a cartoon parody of the movie. I removed that last sentence because it is irrelevant to Howard, and it was added back on the grounds that it is "not at all non-consequential", and had a reference.

Citing a reference does not make an irrelevant sentence relevant. Could the user who added it back please explain why it is relevant to an article about Leslie Howard's life, and why it would be part of his film career section (as opposed to "Legacy"), if it needs to be there at all?

It is certainly relevant to the article about the movie itself, and is in that article -- is that not where it belongs? Please enlighten me. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reply, I'm going to remove the irrelevant sentence later today. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are not improvements and an earlier version has been installed. Using the "no one answered" argument is moot. Wait for others to reply. Another editor felt that it was appropriate and had a ref to support it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)![reply]
1st: You cannot blanket-revert an entire series of edits with no explanation except that you don't like them; see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
2nd: How long is one supposed to wait? The other editor directed discussion to the talk page, and I took it there. He offered no rebuttal, nor did anyone else. So I said I was going to repeat my edit, then waited another 2 days -- still no response. "No response" is not "moot" at all -- it is what it is.
At least you moved the cartoon reference to the end, as a sort of footnote, so I will leave it there -- but I would still like to hear other opinions on whether it should be there at all. It is mentioned already on the "Petrified Forest" page, which is a far more appropriate place for it.
3rd: To repeat, citing a reference (and a poor reference to boot -- a movie database description) does not make an irrelevant passage relevant. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The typical "wait period" for major revisions, especially those challenged and have no consensus backing, is a week. You are darn right that I didn't like the pointless, semantically driven edits that were submitted. If there was a substantial edit to be had, I didn't see it. If you have a problem with the editing and offered actual cited references that backed up your "style", that would be different. The editors that worked on the article and made the major contributions still have not responded. I moved the article back to a pre-Doctoring. Bear in mind, the precepts of "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use" are still in place and sprinkling wikilawyering terms is not productive. I await your next volley. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
My next volley is to repeat, first, that not liking an edit is not grounds for reverting it. If you wrote some of the stuff that I'm trying to simplify and improve, I would quote back to you that "if you do not want your writing to be edited, do not submit it here." Second, I don't need to cite references from the style manual to improve form, style, and grammar. And I hardly think I need to cite a reference to remove the word "posthumous", when it's obvious that an award given 40 years after someone's death is posthumous.
I have no particular desire to get into an edit war, but I'm not going to stop trying to improve the article, and if we need to bring in an admin to resolve this, I'll be happy to do it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve is subjective; and fiddling with words is not a particular improvement. If you had some substantial edits with references rather than "drive-by" editing, then, that's different. What I meant by style is a particular choice of words, syntax, phrasing, paragraphing, and in other words, literary edits that differentiate an author's style, not a technical use of a style manual for spelling, punctuation or convention. I also don't need to editwar but I have no compunction about reverting changes that do not provide any particular benefit to an article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I never do "drive-by" editing, as you can easily ascertain by looking at my edit history. But I do edit a little bit at a time, because there are only so many hours in a day, and I have a day job. The preliminary edits I made were all I had time for; when I get done, the article will be better, I assure you. I have references, and I'll add them where necessary; but I will also "fiddle" with some words, because parts of this thing are clumsily written, as I'm sure you would agree. And if you're going to revert anything, I hope you will cite a good reason, because I have no compunction about defending my work when necessary. If we share the same goal -- a better article -- there should be no problem. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent bump[edit]

"The bumped passengers were the teenage sons of Cornelia Stuyvesant Vanderbilt: George and William Cecil, who had been recalled to London from their Swiss boarding school. Being bumped by Howard saved their lives."

No explanation previous to this about bumping.

In the article on flight 777, it says, "Three passengers seated on the DC-3 disembarked before departure. Derek Partridge, the young son of a British diplomat, and Dora Rove, his nanny, were "bumped" to make room for Howard and Chenhalls"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_777 Justaquick (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather Max talks about how he and his brother Jo boarded the fight, and were both disembarked before departure. Bens (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Leslie Howard (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Leslie Howard (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Subject has a place in history as a legendary performer and his entry, created by User:Deb on 10 September 2002, stood alone until 30 October 2005 when, upon the creation of Leslie Howard (musician), it was moved. Nearly thirteen years later, it should be returned to the standalone main header, Leslie Howard.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom, for this page's 1,200 views a day over a 90 day period compared with the musicians 22 views a day, and for the actor's performance as Ashley Wilkes (notable enough in that one role to ascertain primary and to pull the wool over Scarlett's eyes). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I tend to agree. Doesn't look like there was much discussion prior to the first move. Deb (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very illogical and probably wrong[edit]

Quoting: "He left the United States for the last time with his wife and daughter in August, 1939, and Cunnington soon followed. She appeared in "Pimpernel" Smith (1941) and The First of the Few (1942) in minor roles under the stage name of Suzanne Clair. She died of pneumonia in her early 30s in 1942, just six months before Howard's death. Howard left her his Beverly Hills house in his will.[28][29]"
In one's will, one cannot leave anything to a dead person. Ms. Cunnington died six months before Mr. Howard. Even if Mr. Howard neglected to change his will (in that much time?), the so-called bequeathal to her of his house in Beverly Hills was null and void under American law. Furthermore, she did not seem to have a husband or any children.
Also, even if the bequeathal were still valid here, it was meaningless because she was dead already. The whole thing sounds like rubbish, and it does not belong in the Wikipedia.24.121.195.165 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the will were written after Cunnington's death, it would be illogical. People often don't update their wills for years, and they often don't want to face any action that reinforces a devastating loss. According to his son, Howard was a complete wreck after Violette's death and only stirred himself to do his war work.
But as a genealogist of 20+ years, I can tell you I often find such bequests to dead people. I find mistakes in death certificates. I find mistakes in censuses. I find that there are no "Musts" when it comes to the documents of a person's life.
If you have a source for Howard's will or estate that contradicts the article's statement - which is sourced - please cite it. Obviously the house did not go to her, or even to her estate if she had no heirs; I'm sure it fell back to the rest of Howard's heirs. Otherwise, we might change the statement to "...[he] had left..." But it seems unnecessary as anyone with a brain would understand that a dead woman could not receive a bequest.
By the way, Howard's will would have been probated in Britain, so American law would not apply, no matter where the property lay.

History Lunatic (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Disjointed writing[edit]

It was at this time, while filming Pygmalion (1938), he met Violette Cunnington, a beautiful actress with whom he fell profoundly in love. As the Anschluss took place in Europe, the Nazis posed a serious threat to Howard's sense of democratic freedoms.

This writing is disjointed to put it mildly. First of all he falls profoundly in love, and then we are jabbering on about Howard's sense of democratic freedoms. Please improve this nonsensical tone.

HowardLeslie (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franco not interested[edit]

A 2008 book by Spanish writer José Rey Ximena claims that Howard was on a top-secret mission for Churchill to dissuade Francisco Franco, Spain's authoritarian dictator and head of state, from joining the Axis powers.

By 1943, Franco was in no need of 'dissuading' from entry into WW2. The Americans had driven through Morocco and Tunisia, and Hitler was too preoccupied with Russia to concern himself with Spain. Franco was looking ahead to postwar trading with France and Britain. Valetude (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leslie_Howard&oldid=1194905054"