Talk:Racial views of Winston Churchill

Bias

There is a clear intention of proving Churchill's racism in this article. Some of the sources used are much more complex and ambivalent towards Churchill's position, but that ambivalence is not contemplated by the authors of this wikipedia article. The BBC article used here says the following:

"The mitigation would be that he wasn't particularly unique in having these views," says Richard Toye, author of Churchill's Empire, "even though there were many others who didn't hold them." Soames thinks it is ludicrous to attack Churchill. "You're talking about one of the greatest men the world has ever seen, who was a child of the Edwardian age and spoke the language of [it]." And Churchill's views on race were incomparable to Hitler's murderous interpretation of racial hierarchy, Toye says. "Although Churchill did think that white people were superior, that didn't mean he necessarily thought it was OK to treat non-white people in an inhumane way."

This article is also entirely based on quotes. But quotes which point to a different direction, such as: "The old idea that the Indian was in any way inferior to the white man must go. We must all be pals together. I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.” or “British government is associated in the Boer farmer’s mind with violent social revolution. Black is to be proclaimed the same as white…. nor is a tigress robbed of her cubs more furious than is the Boer at this prospect.” are ignored.

WTH

Why does Churchill alone get a (poorly cited) page dedicated to his racial views? Why isn't this in the main article? And why does it always seem to be leaders from the (perceived) right side of political spectrum that get this treatment? Why doesn't Marx get a page dedicated to his thoughts on the inferiority of Slavs, Africans and others? You are poisoning the credibility of this site.

Per this discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Agreed. Also, the article is very poor. It lacks sources, makes unsourced assumptions (such as that Churchill's policies were a result of comments he may have made), does not present contrary evidence (he said has many quotes which contradict each other), and uses quotes from the 1900's to talk about policies in the 1940's, making it appear as he was a monolith of ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This article might be low-quality, but this recent flurry of activity is clearly due to the statue vandalism. Since a vote for deletion apparently failed, I see no reason Knoterification should vandalize/partially delete it rather than improve it. Wacketeer (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry for deleting it. I just think it is dangerous to keep such a biased, unfactual, and ideologically motivated article in the times we live in. It is is amusing how this article goes completely contrary to Churchill's main article, so I reproduced exactly what is written in the segment about his racial views in it.

Knoterification Deletion with no context or explanation is not the way to do this -- you know how to use the talk page, engage in the discussion here and reach consensus rather than removing other people's work. Coreymwamba —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is a disaster. In its construction it is clearly politically-motivated (see for example the wholly-disingenuous links to Nazi Germany's racial policy and Donald Trump's racial views), and nearly every one of its "sources" are links to tertiary-source media outlets that carry no sources themselves and were clearly written with the aim of getting a rise out of their readership by presenting Churchill quotes with no context, no explanation, and no analysis.

There is certainly much that can be said for Churchill's racial views, see for example, Andrew Roberts' Churchill: Walking With Destiny. This article says less than nothing.--109.246.33.158 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are what we call "reliable sources" and this is fine to write Wikipedia's article by the help of those sites. A WP:See also section is: "A bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles." Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Racial views of Donald Trump are "related Wikipedia articles". Aryzad (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Would like to get community opinions on substantial revision I started on article

can be viewed here and compared to current version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill&oldid=927524863

I do not support, espoecially you wanted to hinder his opinion on the Arabs.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

I have three comments: 1. I have no idea what "hinder his opinion on Arabs" means. 2. Everything I wrote is backed up by sourced quotations from a book written by an academic historian. The relevant portions can be viewed online. 3. I'm reverting it to the version I made since you've yet to provide a valid argument against what I wrote.

1. It means you deleted an infromation Churchill considered about them. 2.-3. Please read WP:BRD, you should first gain consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

The art of writing an an encyclopedia is about deciding which information is important and which is superfluous. I deleted some information, but on net actually added more. Is there something I missed that you consider important? And if so, why?

Well, you removed the quote, but will repair it by your concerns.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC))

source has no references

The article sourced ""The darker side of Britain's most iconic wartime hero". The Independent. 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2019-11-03." contains no references, and could potentially be fabricated or exaggerated (hearsay). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.192.176 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He also described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation of humanity" than the Jews who he treated a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam".[22] This line is a joke, the reference does not like to a documented cse of Churchill saying this but to a secondary source with out follow up reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.225.209.114 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

"He had a hierarchical perspective of race, believing white people were most superior and black people the least." - Requires citation "Churchill advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Americas and the Caribbean" - Requires Citation "Churchill held views on the British populace that were eugenic in perspective, and was a proponent of forced sterilisation to preserve "energetic and superior stocks"." - Statement is biased "Historian John Charmley has argued that Churchill's racialised denigration of Mahatma Gandhi in the early 1930s contributed to fellow British Conservatives' dismissal of his early warnings about the rise of Adolf Hitler." - citation required Chriswhit9065 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:LEAD - information in the lead, if it is properly sourced in the article, doesn't require that the citations be needlessly repeated. Also, lame attempts at whitewashing are not productive, either... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Many citations required. Suggest deletion until citations/sources can be provided. 81.153.234.55 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Each section needs two sub-sections: 1. Public Statements; 2. Second-Hand Attributions

Need to distinguish between verified public and/or published statements by Churchill and 2nd-hand or 3rd-hand claims made by others. Each section should have two sub-sections: "Public Statements" and "Second-Hand Attributions." Churchill published millions of words and gave thousands of speeches during his long life. There is plenty of material from which to choose. If he was a racist it will be easy to find many public/published examples 2601:18D:8801:8120:E836:9A93:968E:F42A (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-protected request

This article is facing persistent vandalism that semi-protection doesn't seem to be resolving, and I think it's best for it to have extended-protected status. Apologies if I'm not bringing this up in the right way.

Issues that should be brought up on the Talk page by editors are instead being presented through section blanking and content removal. It's completely valid to have a discussion about the validity of this article's existence and the content therein, but persistent edit warring isn't enabling this whatsoever, and neither does the status of semi-protected seem to be doing its job. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtually every quote is a recollection of a private conversation with Churchill. Where's the Beef?

This article is basically other people claiming Churchill said something in a private conversation (either with the person quoted or with someone else who told the person quoted). If you remove all these quotes of alleged conversations with Churchill there's nothing left. This would never hold up in a court of law. This is definitely not encyclopedia material. Imagine an article on Martin Luther King, Jr's racial views that was composed entirely of his alleged statements in private conversations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8801:8120:CC9C:F06:D7CA:4E26 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But the conversations were published and backable by citations. Comments made in the context of parliamentary debates would be recorded by Hansard.Cloptonson (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"Racist Winston Churchill" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Racist Winston Churchill. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Racist Winston Churchill until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Lindemann insinuations

I removed material on Churchill's friend Lindemann, as irrelevant to the section on India and as it contained no evidence of Churchill's own views on race or India. This was reverted instantly (under 1 minute time difference; diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill&type=revision&diff=979949740&oldid=979949632 ).

That the article is being monitored to such an extent is interesting, but in any case I am opening a talk page section to discuss the Lindemann material.

In addition to the lack of relevance to a section on India, the removed material simply insinuates, without evidence from any source, that Churchill had views on eugenics or race that came from Lindemann, and claims that Churchill was a "follower" of Lindemann. I searched around a bit for online material on a possible relation between Churchill's and Lindemann's views and the only thing specific that came up is that Churchill in his youth supported sterilization of the mentally retarded and changed his views later, while Lindemann never wavered in his support. No indication that Churchill arrived at his original views with any help from Lindemann.

Essentially the whole section is an irrelevant tangent and unsupported insinuation. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there was no edit explanation on the reversion, I have reverted the undeletion of the Lindemann material, and directed the editor to discussion here. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The link that should be in the citation is here (though this has page numbers and, for me, more content). I agree with the removal; there is no discussion there of Churchill subscribing to these views. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

"Like many of his contemporaries he held a hierarchical perspective of race" - That's an interesting way to say Churchill was a racist. Can we stop pretending there isn't a 50,000 pound, 40 foot tall elephant in the room and call him for what he is - a racist? PailSimon (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We cannot ignore contemporary conditions, views etc. At the Roman Era, homosexuality regarding men was commonly accepted, meanwhile it did not mean any would be (only) homosexual, as today the one would address it, since even it was practised if the subject was heterosexual, etc. Not getting into "academic details", average men next to having regular wife, and children and ordinary life, often were having relation with young men. It does not save neither Churchill or any of his contemporaries, but we have to a little bit give the scope to the reader (similarly to those who believed in the old ages the earth is flat, and other "heretics".(KIENGIR (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

That's not comparable at all. Homosexuality is not the same as gay sex but saying one race is better then another is the same as racism. That's pretty much a textbook racist view. PailSimon (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary common views or acceptance is the linking point. The information is valid and sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

hillsdale.edu absolutely is a reliable source.

PailSimon, I understand from your recent section in this talk page that you are biased beyond sense. And to claim my sourcing of WinstonChurchill.org is unreliable, yet fail to edit out the 2-3 others using that source, which have been present for significantly longer, seemingly due to them mentioning Churchill's more controversial statements, is a very clear sign of that. But Hillsdale college is a perfectly reliable source.

I've sourced Churchill's statement on advancing equal rights, but you can't have people realising people change their opinion in such matters, so you remove it. I've provided & sourced a direct refutation of the idea that he was both, unequivocally opposed to Indian independence and of the belief they were of an inferior race, so you remove it.

This entire wiki article is a garbage dump for ideologues to spew their half sourced hate for the guy, now all I'm doing is showing people the other half. So stop undoing my edits or explain in detail as to why you think the scholars at Hillsdale college are unreliable sources.

Be sure to read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Xepicxmonkeyx (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• User:Xepicxmonkeyx, I need you to stop yelling at people. (And if you go back in to edit this or that, correct your external wikilinks, and sign your post.) PailSimon, whether this Hillsdale outfit is a reliable source is an interesting question; I have a feeling that if this came up at RSN it would be judged "biased but factually reliable". In other words, it might could be trustworthy for, for instance, Churchill's words, but any opinions or interpretations would have to be ascribed. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hillsdale College is an avowedly Conservative institution so using it as gospel doesn't make sense to me. As for the other uses of HillsDale in the article, I was unaware that they were there and you'll notice I have not readded them since your removal of them. PailSimon (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• User:PailSimon, whether Hillsdale's 'avowedly conservative' matters not in the least. The reason for the linked Wiki-page on 'reliable sources' was precisely to point that out. It states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or [even] objective". Moreover, bias doesn't even come into play. As Drmies pointed out, the only use of the college's work was to source quotations. So since your only defence of their removal is to reiterate their 'bias' ; lest you believe 'conservative' implicitly means 'unreliable' therefore making the quotations untrustworthy, please reinstate my editions. Xepicxmonkeyx (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hillsdale College's explicit purpose is to push a conservative agenda. Furthermore he piece is by Richard Langworth who isn't even seemingly a historian and you were using it for more then a source for quotes. You were also adding comments like "Churchill changed his opinion" etc.PailSimon (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, who cares about the political leanings of the college? What you need to prove to me is that the information they provide is unreliable. You have not done that. As for Langworth, you have linked to his page, I assume you've read it. He's worked on numerous historical books on Churchill, specifically, since '91, he's been made 'Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire' by the Queen of the United Kingdom for his services to history. And just as importantly, he's a senior fellow at Hillsdale college, who are willing to put their name behind his words.

And when it comes to me editorialising, that's because when people make claims about Churchill's opposition to Indian self Governance between around 1929 & 1940, then I can provide a 1943 quote where he describes such views as 'old' and elaborates on his new found ideals; that kinda shows a change of heart.

Though, while the second quote does show Churchill's belief that "white people were most superior...", did at least change to "white/Indian people were most superior...", the first of my quotes did precede the 1937 quote by the BBC source. Maybe that could've been made more clear. I wouldn't be against the changing of the first to "None the less, he had still articulated the following, in a speech to the House of Commons, that his position on human rights were thusly:" and change the second editorial to "This may have changed later, as he...".

Xepicxmonkeyx (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with Hillsdale is not that they have certain leanings, the problem is that they have an avowed agenda as its article states "that is based on the Western heritage as a product of both the Greco-Roman culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition". The Indian self governance quote from 1943 is open to interpretation given Perfidious Albion at the time was trying to woo India into joining the war effort.PailSimon (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what it's Curriculum is based on... I.E. It's a curriculum that studies Western Culture, and how it was influenced throughout history by Greco-Roman culture and Judeo-Christian values. That's a field of study, how do you get 'Agenda' from that? Is it the words "Western Heritage" you don't like, or something? As for him trying to woo India, they had been in the war for 3 years already by that time. Xepicxmonkeyx (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Xepicxmonkeyx, that is an agenda: it is a clear statement on what they consider "Western culture" to be. Note that you paraphrased "a product of both the Greco-Roman culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition" (which strongly suggests it's these two and no others) as "it was influenced throughout history by Greco-Roman culture and Judeo-Christian values", which is more suggestive of being open to considering other influences. PailSimon, let me note that all of a sudden Hillsdale ads are appearing on my Instagram--the walls have ears. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies If you are willing to accept that it was 'Influenced by...' then by definition it is a 'product of...'. Whether it sounds less inclusive or not. Just as the phrase "I am a product of my upbringing" doesn't exclude the affects of a persons more recent experiences, it merely means that their 'upbringing' had one of the more significant affects on them.

And lets be very clear, those two things did have some of the most significant affects, the wiki article on Western Culture emphasizes as much in the first paragraph. Which is why the west is, and historically has been, a massive majority Christian/Judaic and why we are currently writing in the Latin Alphabet; I could go on. The Liberal Arts curriculum "that is based on the Western heritage as a product of both the Greco-Roman culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition" would merely be a curriculum looking into how those two things influenced the west. Funnily enough, the same way the Western Culture article looks at it. It's not by any necessity a course about how they were the only things that changed the west, fairly certain they wouldn't have been ranked in the 100 Best National Liberal Arts Colleges if that were the case.

And quite frankly, analysing the differences between the article & my phrasing becomes all the more redundant when you consider that the source of the quote on the Hillsdale College article doesn't even state anything about their liberal arts curriculum, much less give their exact wording. It may very well be that they worded it no differently than I did, but that it was rephrased by the person who added it to the wiki. Xepicxmonkeyx (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Right--anything that verges into interpretation should be treated with the greatest circumspection. "Conservative" doesn't mean "unreliable": the two terms function in different spheres. "Unreliable" points at factual accuracy, and interpretation doesn't really do that. An interpretation can be good or bad, biased or unbiased, etc., and that means, on Wikipedia, that interpretations need to be properly contextualized and ascribed, or can be thrown out if they are too biased, or useless, or very inaccurate. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

W.R.T my recent edits

PailSimon claims WP:UNDUE on a reinterpretation of Churchill's quotes with respect to Indian people, where Tirthankar Roy says:

"The context for almost everything he said about Indians and the Empire was related to the Indian nationalist movement.".

This seems to me to be an important interpretation that should be presented, and is one held by (I believe) both Andrew Roberts & Richard Langworth.

He also asserts that the "breeding like rabbits" claim is cited. However, it comes from Leo Amery's diaries, and nowhere does Leo Amery quote him. Thus is should not be presented as a quote. Furthermore, it says that Churchill denied aid because of this, but this interpretation seems to be confused: it is not mentioned by Amery, and Langworth specifically contradicts it. Would it better to simply include both interpretations?

I'd like to get a deeper understanding of both PailSimon's reasoning, and the thoughts of my fellow Wikipedians. Thanks! PersistentMadness (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Roy is an economic historian so this wouldn't be his topic of expertise, as for Langworth he is not an academic historian and as far as I'm aware holds no academic qualifications in history. As for the breathing like rabbits quote I agree the the source is inadequate and should probably be replaced with a better one. PailSimon (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require the RS to be "academic historians." In fact major biographies are more like to come from non-academic scholars. See the Wiki page on Richard M. Langworth for his strong credentials regarding Churchill--he also has an academic appointment. His work has been well received-- Andrew Roberts says: "Citing all the most important and relevant contemporaneous sources, with impeccable logic and scholarly footnoting, Langworth takes a massive wrecking ball to the libels and slanders of more than a century."[in Commentary Oct 2017 p 52] In 2008 Roberts writes: "Langworth is second only to Sir Martin Gilbert himself, Churchill's biographer, in his encyclopaedic knowledge of Churchill's published words and their historical context. Editor for a quarter of a century of Finest Hour, the magazine of the Churchill Centre, Langworth is the man to whom historians go in order to track down a possible Churchill quote. Not merely a Churchill expert, he is more of an oracle". [in Evening Standard 9/1/2008, p26.=

W.R.T the breeding like rabbits quote, I think a suitable middle ground would to include it, then include Langworth's interpretation of it as well as the original one Something like:

Leo Amery wrote in his diary that "Winston, after a preliminary flourish about Indians breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing about the war, asked Leathers for his view". The Independent interprets this as a dismal for aid, whereas Langworth argues "So, after spouting about Indians, he asked the transport minister if they could send food".

I maintain that T. Roy's quote should be included, but perhaps with a cautionary note (a minority of historians, such as T. Roy, take the view that: ...).

Would something along these lines be acceptable? PersistentMadness (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean Wikipedia doesn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate a minority opinion. PailSimon (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This particular opinion is an important interpretation of Churchill's statements, and one that is held by people who have written books on the subject, such as Langworth. I think clarifying it's a minority opinion would go some way to capturing the broader viewpoint of scholars on Churchill's views of Indians. PersistentMadness (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Then shall it be attributed as written above to Leo Amery, the qoute should presented in th article.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC))

View on India - when was this comment made?

It would be helpful to context if this cited and positive comment of Churchill about India could be dated, so readers have a clearer idea of what point in his political career he expressed this:

"The old idea that the Indian was in any way inferior to the white man must go. We must all be pals together. I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia."

Cloptonson (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Pleased to see that a time and date and context has been put to this quote, in 1944, which may show his views - at least publicly - about Indian independence were mellowing.Cloptonson (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparent year discrepancy about quote

This is twice mentioned on this page but it appears different years are assigned to when it was said:

“I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

It first appears in the section about Africans and Asians when it is assigned to 1927. The second appearance is within a larger passage under Palestine, when he was criticising Arab resistance to Jewish immigration but I have the impression (correct or not) this was in the context of parliamentary debate in 1937.Cloptonson (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Churchill advocated inhumane treatment of non whites

The article contained a Toye quote claiming that Churchill did not advocate inhumane treatment of nonwhites in spite of his open white supremacist views. This is simply false. I edited the quote and was reverted, with a claim that my edit was based on my original research. It was not. This article provides numerous well sourced examples of Churchill advocating or engaging in racist violence. He proposed using chemical weapons against native tribes. He deliberately moved food away from bengal during a famine that killed countless people, saying that Bengalis procreated too much. He repeatedly justified the ethnic cleansing of American Indians based on white racial superiority. It is fair to contextualize Churchill’s violent racism and to include examples where he argued against violent oppression. It is simply false to say that he did not advocate inhumane treatment of non whites. He did that a lot. That’s the whole rest of the article. Rocketfairy (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See more generally https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-dark-side-winston-churchill-2118317.html citing numerous examples of Churchill advocating or engaging in atrocities against non whites. Rocketfairy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That Independent article, which does seem to skirt the WP:TABLOID line (making a single newspaper article our source) does consider Toye an accurate historian w.r.t Churchill. Why should we use Toye when he discusses atrocities Churchill allegedly supported, but not use Toye (same source) when he says that Churchill wanted human treatment of all races? Samboy (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Racist?

Winston Churchill was not a racist. -2600:1005:B126:D014:F598:E269:ED58:F0E3 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

He absolutely was a racist and made numerous racist statements. This fact is not in dispute. पदाति (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

He was not a racist. Learn your history. -2600:1005:B126:D014:3D87:2545:C3D8:7210 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you want changed in the article? Can you provide WP:RS to back that up? --पदाति (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Struck sock edit. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed to note other criticisms of Churchill?

The article talks about the common criticism on Churchill we see today: his government's response to the Bengal famine – and also for his imperialist views, including comments on race. Given how he had critics in his days, with some of his cabinet members accusing him of being a reckless warmonger and before his views on race became the big criticism we know today, he had been criticised for the wartime bombing of German cities. Should we perhaps rename the article "Criticism of Winston Churchill" as we have an article called "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt", that looks at criticisms made against him on both war and race made back then and now. I can't find the paragraph and reference as the main Winston Churchill article is long but one of Addison (I think) sources that could be used if we were to address every criticism (not just race but war) on one of the previous revisions say that throughout the 1980s, historians were either prejudiced for or against Churchill they had no interest in assessing him as an historical figure or something like that. Churchill was a complex man, there's no denying that. 80.47.43.173 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I responded to your message about this at my talk page. I don't think it's the best idea because it would likely present a one-sided view for the reasons explained at WP:CRITS. This article is about a specific controversy/debate/issue so is fine as a standalone, but generally it's best to integrate criticism directly into the relevant articles so that all major views on Churchill's actions (criticism/praise/more nuanced arguments etc.) are included roughly in proportion to how widely they are held. Jr8825 • Talk 15:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Tear Gas

Tear gas in his time was known to kill the children and the ill, as mentioned by Wikipedia, but judging from the words he talked, he seemed to not know as such, wikipedia seems to be trying to stretch things a bit for minor support of the anti churchill side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.110.215 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To make sure I do not commit slander, I think wikipedia's article here has been fairly nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.110.215 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

IrishCentral is not a reliable source -They just make stuff up.

Current text

"However, four years after the Easter Rebellion of 1916, Irish republicanism had reached new heights and loyalism in Ireland was diminishing. In March 1920, as Secretary of State for War, Churchill ordered British-recruited 'Black and Tans' into Ireland as an attempt to put an end to the proclaimed Irish republic. The Tans were temporary recruits to assist the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) in maintaining control over Ireland from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the Anglo-Irish War.[41] Churchill had also considered starting a bombing campaign in Ireland against the IRA and its commander-in-chief Michael Collins.[42]"

The black and tans were permanent recruits to the RIC, dublin authorities requested an expansion of the RIC this was approved by the war cabinet (churchill was not a member) in september? 1919 the first recruits arrived in dublin for training in jan 1920 and were first deployed in March 1920.

• they were not ordered into ireland
• churchill had nothing to do with the decision
• they were permanent recruits.

Note: The Auxiliaries were suggested by churchill but his idea was turned down by a cabinet committee and the idea was later resurected by the Dublin authorities.

Current text

"Overall, Churchill and the Black and Tans (British ex-soldiers who fought in the Anglo-Irish war) are viewed very negatively in Republic of Ireland.[39]"

Another claim from IrishCentral based on this junk history "He invented the Black and Tans and was responsible for sending them to Ireland to force the Irish rebellion into surrender."

All this junk is also off topic. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Relationship of racial views to eugenics?

I think this article would be incomplete without examination of how much his more lately publicised enthusiastic views on eugenics, a fashionable science pre-WWII, influenced his racial views, for example did he talk up potential advantages for the English speaking peoples in relation to other races and rival powers. He seems to have been at his most eloquent about them in his younger days in politics pre WWI.Cloptonson (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead issues

I'm not comfortable with the Andrews Roberts paraphrase in the lead. Presented as a outright rejection of the subject matter on the page, he's actually using that language to criticise a specific paper, so I think some synthesis may be involved, although it might be Robert's actual view. Also, as Roberts' criticism doesn't appear in the body (he is mentioned in two specific contexts, but his broader rejection of discussions of Churchill's racism isn't), per MOS:LEADREL the sentence shouldn't really be in the lead. Roberts' appearance appears to be an attempt to balance out criticism in the lead, particularly the controversial/subjective claim that Churchill's policy was affected by his racism. I'm not sure that claim should be in the lead either. I'm concerned about false balance, and the fact we seem to prioritise potentially fringe (or at least particularly partisan) sides of the argument in the lead, rather than a more detached summary of the general controversy. Jr8825 • Talk 12:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I see there's been some scuffling over Andrew Roberts in the lead and want to again draw attention to this thread. Andrew Roberts' views are definitely not the median academic position in this area (he is a notably fierce defender of Churchill) and additionally, the cited text was specifically an attack on the Cambridge University panel "The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill", not explicitly criticism of all recent commentary about Churchill's personal views, so we appear to be misquoting/misusing him. Jr8825 • Talk 10:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Caption of statue picture

There is an "inexactitude" in the caption, given the citation used for the quoted slogan. During the Black Lives Matter protest, the slogan said (capitalised emphasis is mine) "WAS a racist". The slogan "Is a racist" was put up by climate change protesters a few months later in September 2020 if the date of the Sky News report is something to go by. However I am in a dilemma about which way to proceed: - do I delete the citation and change the "is" to "was" to fit in with the date of the BLM protests? - or do I amend the described timing of the "is a racist" slogan to "climate change protests in September 2020", keeping the citation intact?Cloptonson (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange Introduction - imperialist and monarchist?

This article has a rather strange introduction. It is titled 'racial views of Winston Churchill' and yet the first sentence tells us that he was a staunch imperialist, monarchist, and supporter of Elizabeth II as if those three things are the same as being a racist. Why are they in the introduction? Why are his views on monarchy relevant to the subject at all? LastDodo (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a revised lead. Please give your feedback:

Throughout his life British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made numerous controversial statements on race, which some writers have described as racist. It is furthermore suggested that his personal views influenced important decisions he made throughout his political career, particularly relating to the British Empire, of which he was a staunch advocate and defender. In the 21st century, his views on race and empire became amongst the most discussed aspects of his legacy. Some academics, such as Kehinde Andrews, go so far as to suggest Churchill was "the perfect embodiment of white supremacy", while others like historian Andrew Roberts, say that Churchill could certainly be accused of paternalism, but not race-hatred.LastDodo (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay with no response, I am making the change.

Okay nevermind I see someone has already done it!LastDodo (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Imperialism might have bearing on racial views, but I can't think monarchism would - forms of monarchy have existed among all races, likewise, on the other hand, republican systems of government which became the majority form in the 20th century that he lived 65 years into.Cloptonson (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Views on Chinese

The section on his views on the Chinese could do with more exploring. He has been quoted saying that if he "came back" (ie reincarnated) "as a Chinese coolie, I would protest most strongly". This was quoted at the end of a 1980s TV documentary on the subject of reincarnation and history. This deserves looking up to find out what context he said/wrote this in, was it a parliamentary debate. I understand early in his days as an MP under Balfour's government one of the topics of controversy was the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa post Boer War, which the Liberal Party he joined protested against - did he have any views on that? I am tempted to think he may have said this in connection with the issue in sympathy for them, as they were being employed generally on worse terms than white colonials or Africans.