text:
DPE

DPE is an abbreviation for:

Organizations

 * Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
 * Department of Planning & Environment, department of the New South Wales government
 * Department of Public Enterprises, South African government ministry
 * Dis Politika Enstitüsü, Turkish think tank

Science

 * Downstream promoter element in genetics
 * Dynamic programming equation, as used in mathematical optimization

Other

 * Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, UK civil enforcement
 * Demilitarization Protective Ensemble, a one-piece disposable suit used in chemical weapons disposal
 * Designated Pilot Examiner — a person certified by FAA to conduct pilot rating
 * Dynamic Provisioning Environment - an automated server computing environment
 * Development - Printing - Enlargement - Japanese abbreviation for film processing.

title: DPE


text:
User talk:Paupower

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Paupower! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic  ' Acid  11:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Paupower


text:
Mandal (disambiguation)

A mandal is a local government area, similar to a tehsil, in parts of India.

Mandal may also refer to:

People

 * Mandal (surname), including a list of people and fictional characters with the name

India

 * Mandal tehsil, Bhilwara district, Rajasthan
 * Mandal taluka, Ahmedabad district, Gujarat
 * Mandal, Gujarat
 * Mandal, Uttarakhand

Mongolia

 * Mandal, Selenge

Norway

 * Mandal, Norway, Lindesnes municipality, Agder county
 * Mandal (municipality), a former municipality
 * Mandal Airfield
 * Mandalselva ('Mandal River'), a river

United States

 * Mandahl, U.S. Virgin Islands, or Mandal

Other uses

 * Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal, commonly known as Mandal, a historical institute in India
 * Mandal Commission, a 1979 commission in India on affirmative action
 * Mandal, a lever or latch on a qanun musical instrument
 * Mandal, a dialect of Nyimang language
 * Mandal, Rigveda has 10 books or mandals, Mandala 1 to Mandala 10.

title: Mandal (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Tabassum

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tabassum! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic  ' Acid  11:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tabassum


text:
User talk:Nidle

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nidle! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic  ' Acid  11:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nidle


text:
Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 2

FDR and the Depression
"Cured the depression" is fantasy; the 1937-43 depression was worse than the 1929-32, and most probably the result of massive government intrusion into the private economy which stunted growth. The Great Depression never was "cured" See New_Deal. Nobs01 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he cured the Depression. Adam 06:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Continue reading the New_Deal. What you have is in fact a Depression within the Great Depression  spawned by the aforementioned thesis.  None of these articles articulates that clearly. All (FDR, New Deal, and Great Depression) rather entreat us with the same old POV how grand and glorious it all was. President Truman's Fair Deal was in fact an admission the New Deal had not been fair. Nobs01 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are complaining about POV, and then you state as fact that "President Truman's Fair Deal was in fact an admission the New Deal had not been fair"? Are you for real? As for "the 1937-1943 depression," I'd always heard of the "1937-1938 Recession," which was, in fact, not worse than the 1929-1933 one... john k 20:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The 1929-1949 recession had within it another recession from 1937-1943; 1933 to 1937 were recovery years (stimulated by the New Deal, however by 1937 the nation had nowhere near recovered to where it was in 1929. Then the demand stimulated by WWII led to the 1943-1949 recovery, where finally, in comparison terms, the nation had emerged from the 1929-32 crash. And aside, I am not really complaining about POV, personally I think on the face of it anyone can see the contradictions within the articles. Nobs01 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an argument about nothing. The article doesn't claim that the New Deal cured the Depression. In any case the expression "The 1929-1949 recession" shows that you don't know what you are talking about. By 1942 the US had full employment, in fact a labour shortage, and rising living standards even given wartime shortages. Adam 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * duh, thanks for the help. Point is, record keeping and even economic definitions then where not what they are today.  By using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is practically the only measurement available in real time that scans the entire period) the Dow did not get back to the level it was at in 1929 til 1949 (160 pts on the Dow).  And conversely, most people who lived through the entire ordeal will agree, it was not til about 1949 that living standards and peacetime employment returned to something like it was prior to 1929.  As a testament, one can venture into virtually any American city and find a distinct gap in the building and construction trades in the decades of the 30's and 40's where virtually nothing was built except quonset huts, and what was built was either extremely expensive, or built by the government (usually for military purposes).  Again, thanks. Nobs01 00:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economics is not my field, but I recall that the definition of a recession is a certain number of consecutive quarters of negative growth. It think that is a more useful definition than the stock market. By that definition the US was most certainly out of recession by the beginning of fullscale rearmament in about 1940. The use of the word "peacetime" is rather pointless here. A booming wartime economy is still a booming economy, and by 1942 even illiterate black migrants from Alabama were earning good wages in factories in Chicago and Detroit. Of course there was very little construction during the war, because resources were being directed into armaments production. It may be true that some people did not regain their pre-1929 living standards until after 1949, but there were many others (ie, blacks, marginal farmers) who were much better off during the war, when there was full employment and guaranteed markets for farm products, than they had been during the 1920s. Adam 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Two illustrations: Actual http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/USDJINDlog.gif and Dow adjusted to constant dollars relative to the price of gold http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/USDJINDlog.gif. The second chart is probably more accurate vis-a-vis living standards.  See also "during the Great Bear Market from 1929 to 1942...on April 28, 1942, the DJIA was still at only 92.92, 76% below its September 3, 1929, high of 381.17.“
 * Yes indeed, most of the economic terms we use today were worked out over that period of time. And when wartime production ended, jobs were lost, not to mention the unemployment brought about by demobilization of 3,000,000 returning servicemen.  But America had a new role to play in the world as superpower and the factories were running again by 1950 to keep dad employed while junior went off to get killed in Korea and help the economic recovery continue.  The Keynesian formula had been so successful in the 40's and 50's by the 1960's the policy of perpetual war to keep dad working in the factory while the unemployed where exported via conscription kept the U.S. in boomtimes during the Vietnam war. Nobs01 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating with your leftist slogans. It does seem odd that someone who holds such views should place such emphasis on the stock market as an indicator of living standards. This surely is to confuse cause and effect and is very unmarxist. Adam 02:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting you should say that. I thought my criticism of Keynesian New Deal economics sounded more like Reagenomic supplyside trickle down economic theory.  In fact the man for whom it was named graduated from Eureka College in 1932 (at the pit of the Depression) with a degree in Economics, idolized FDR, was himself a New Deal Democrat, and in his adult life an eyewitness to the 1929-1949 (new) ordeal.  It is interesting to note that during the boomtimes of 1949-1966 the economic theories of Thomas Malthus reemerged (probably because the planet was minus 55,000,000 human beings after World War II), the Malthusian theorem is patently rejected by pro-growth supply siders whose fundemental premise is population growth and economic growth are invariably unseparable. Nobs01 03:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were a right winger, Nobs01. The Fair Deal quote kind of gave that away, I thought. john k
 * Well it is true that as time went on the popular enthusiasm for the New Deal diminished, as it does for any enterprise. In the Earl Browder article for example, it states Browder supported the New Deal in 1940; this is simply a modern editors writing style cause he couldn't fit it in earlier.  By 1940 New Deal programs were hardly new anymore and the only ones who seemed to have anything positive to say about them where government employees or others who got money out of them.  Of course those who got neither jobs nor money out of it, and those who had to pay those who got money and jobs out of it with higher taxes, didn't think it was very fair. Truman inherited a lot of discontent about New Deal economic policies and didn't run on a New New Deal, but frankly admitted it hadn't been fair to all and promised (or tried) to redress the grievances with a Fair Deal, essentially a New Deal that was "Fair". Nobs01 03:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link that actually works that shows the prosperity of the 1929-1949 New Ordeal ; one can see the Keynsian double dip in 1932 and 1937 (the 1937-1942 recession spanned 5 years unlike the 1929-1932 recession); followed by the classic Malthusian catastrophe evident from 1942 on; then the topping out from 1966 to 1982 with the classic Keynsian model of stagflation; again the classic Keynsian double dip is repeated from 1979-1982. After Keynsianism is rejected by economists ( Friedman, et al ) who lived through these economic theories applied as government policies, and Reaganism is applied, one can see relative growth without the Malthusian catastrophe; in fact, by 1989 roughly 350 million human beings, rather than being exterminated, (see Democide) were in fact liberated from Socialist slavery. Nobs01 16:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well at least we know now where you're coming from politically. I continue to reject your view that the Dow is the ultimate index of economic well-being. That Wall Street didn't like FDR or his programs, and usually does better under Republicans, is hardly surprising, nor an original observation. Adam 23:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not the ultimate index; it is perhaps the best contemporaneous overall index available that spans the time in question. Other indexes didn't exist, or were developed later, often by guess work. For example, unemployment. The 25% figure is just guess work, and that it was probably guessed at based on observations around New York City.  No one knows what it actually was in Arkansas or Oklahoma.  Or Gross output figures (GDP) etc.  But the Dow is uncorrupted by anyone tampering with the figures, and it clearly shows (1) when the country slipped back into recession in 1937 the country was no where near recovery from where it was in 1929; (2) the 1937-1942 five year slide was worse than the three year slide from 1929-1932.  None of these article clearly articulate that.  Most economic analysts agree, the New Deal, while it did benefit some Americans, actually prolonged the Depression. If you cut & paste this http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/115yeardowgoldratio.gif into the address bar you come close to the real picture. Nobs01 00:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider the Dow a better index, write a letter to your Congressman and ask him or her to introduce legislation mandating that the Commerce Department stop calculating GDP and go on the Dow instead. This is the proper channel for taking action based on your personal theories. An encyclopedia, however, is an inappropriate one. 172 08:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems another New Deal economist went to China in 1959 and experienced another Malthusian catastrophe there also. Frank Coe, Director of Monetary Research in the United States Department of the Treasury, and later held a high position in the IMF, moved to China in 1958 to work for Mao. The period following his arrival is known in China today as the Three Years of Natural Disasters (seems collectivization has always been the victim of drought, famine, etc). Quoting from the wiki article:
 * The official estimated death toll in this period is about 15 million dead of starvation of total 40 million death

between 1959-1961. Can anyone upload this picture for me. Thnks. Nobs01 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)Coe with Mao, Adler & Strong.

Here's some good Depression Era charts, close to being contemporaneous (probabably based upon 1958 data). They are a little disappointing in that they only cover the 1920-1940 period. Nobs01 20:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Left Liberals
I removed the term "left-liberals" because. in fact, left liberals hated him because he saved capitalism in America. He was much more of a hero to the more mainstream liberals.User:Morrison1917

Um, the last time I looked liberals are in favour of capitalism. People who oppose capitalism are socialists. Adam 07:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civil Rights and Refugeess
This sentence:
 * a refugee quota of 27,000 German and Austrian Jews per year, at a time when up to 5 million Jews were trying to escape from Europe"

may betray a POV. The subject is the quota on German & Austrian refugees, not "European" refugees, yet the two are linked together. FDR was not responsible for the 1927 Immigration Act that put quotas on Eastern European nations. The two subject perhaps should be separated.Nobs01 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This extract:
 * Roosevelt also forced several Latin American countries to send their German aliens to internment camps in the United States.
 * is an interesting tidbit, but can the term "forced" be sourced? Nobs01 20:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph about the Germans was imposed on the article by another user, whose name I forget, against my wishes. I don't know if the statements in it are true or not, but I gave up arguing about it. I would be pleased if someone (other than me) deleted it. Adam 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm one that put it in the article. As far as being forced, everything I've read about the subject mentioned that the Latin America countries were forced to send their Germans to the US, but i can't find any info on how they were forced, so you can change that. As far as deleting the whole section, I feel that the violation of the civil rights of up to a million Europeans and European-Americans is rather significant, and is at least worth a couple sentences. But I guess thats just me Morrison1917
 * Well if you can find a source that shows some sort of economic coercion, for example, I'd be very much interested in that; however, the term "forced" could imply violent threat. That's the problem with the word.  We'll give you time to find some reference, cause FDR's Latin American dealings are an important, underrated subject. ThanksNobs01 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted here to await sourcing:
 * In 1939 he suggested a refugee quota of 27,000 German and Austrian Jews per year, at a time when up to 5 million Jews were trying to escape from Europe.
 * Nobs01 01:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem with the above is it links two separate subjects as if they were one; as to Latin America, maybe FDR was in bed with United Fruit Company and used economic coercion, i.e. threatened embargos or tariffs to get them to comply with U.S. foreign policy objects. Cursory research provides Aviva Chomsky (eldest daughter of Noam Chomsky) as perhaps an acceptable source. Nobs01 02:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is a work by Aviva Chomsky being given as a source for the statement: "Roosevelt also forced several Latin American countries to send their German aliens to internment camps in the United States"? If so, could we have a link to the work, or a quote from it? I have to say I am skeptical about the factual reliability of anything emanating from the Chomsky family, but I am open to persuasion. Adam 03:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, I couldn't find exactly how the government "forced" Latin American countries to send their Germans to the camps so I changed it to the less aggressive "persuaded." Like I said, I haven't been able to find any info on what the nature of the "persuasion" was (I would assume it was economically related) so I might just take it out completely eventually. Also, i would like to mention that 56% of all alien internees were European and that many were actually sent back to Germany (including their American spouses and children) during the war in exchange for Americans in Germany and that many were then killed, but I fear some might find that too much for the article. User:Morrison1917

Sources? Are you seriously telling us that US deported American citizens to Nazi Germany in wartime? How exactly could the US deport people to Germany during the war? I will need to see some pretty good evidence for these claims. Adam 07:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Morrison: I hope you don't give up on the Latin American research, it could be very valuable; perhaps the word "induced" can still get the meaning across vs voluntary "persuasion". As to the reversion, if you were to lay the premise first (instead of treating it as a conclusion), something of this order:

"At a time when 5 million Jews were seeking emigration from Europe, Roosevelt proposed legislation that...(fill in the blank with proper sourcing)", or "Roosevelt issued an Executive decree that...(again, proper sourcing)". That may be acceptable. Nobs01 16:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam: Speaking off the cuff, I vaguely recall there may have been humanitarian exchanges through the Red Cross of German citizens, where there was no evidence of subversive or espionage activities, however their political views were suspect; and they were given the choice of internment or deportation. And an exchange could also be considered deportation. Again, speaking of only vague recollections on a subject I haven't considered for many years. Nobs01 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally with some other parallel work I found this from theNational Bureau of Economic Research with a brief extract:
 * The selection of countries to which the Exchange Stabilization Fund extended loans was obviously a political decision, made by the Treasury. Harry Dexter White’s memoranda supporting loans to various countries, attest to his influence on which ones the ESF selected between 1936 and 1944 . The countries included China, Mexico, other Latin American countries, and Russia.
 * "induced" may sound better than suduced, forced, or persuaded, cause there evidently was some quid pro quo.Nobs01 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no objection to Nobs's rewording of the refugee paragraph.
 * We have yet to see any source for the statement that Germans were transferred from any Latin American country to the US during the war. Unless such source is produced, I intend deleting that statement. Adam 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, theres lots of evidence of Latin American German Aliens being sent to our camps. Check or read "Nazis and Good Neighbors: The United States Campaign against the Germans of Latin America in World War II." Theres a great review of the book by Michaela Hoenicke Moore, Department of History, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at The book goes into great detail about how and why we interned Latin American Germans. As far as the deportation to Germany during the war i believe that page has info on it and try googling " Eiserloh Family" they're one of the more famous cases and they go into detail on how they were sent back to Germany. User:Morrison1917

In reply:

Thanks for those links. I note that the first link (Ebel) says that there were 60 million Americans of German ancestry during World War II. Of these, she says, 11,000 were interned, or 0.0002%. Your second link, the Moore book review, says that less than 1% of German immigrants (that is, people born in Germany) were interned in the US. Compared to the treatment of the Japanese-Americans, this is trivial, which has been my point all along. Further, Ebel makes it clear that these 11,000 were all German nationals. The US was at war with Nazi Germany, and Germany had active spy networks in the US. Some form of preventive detention of German nationals in those circumstances was perfectly justified, was provided for by law, and was the practice in every country (in Australia, where I live, all enemy aliens without exception were interned for the duration of both world wars, including Jewish refugees from Germany until 1943). No doubt individual injustices were committed. But this does not bear comparison with the mass internment of all people of Japanese descent, regardless of citizenship, in California.

I accept that Ebel is a source for the transfer of German nationals from Latin America to the US. Again, however, the numbers were very small. Your source, Moore, says that 4,000 Germans were transfered to the US, out of 1.5 million Germans in Latin America - where, let us remember, an active Nazi network operated, run by the AO in Germany. The large German communities in Argentina, Chile and Brazil were not touched. These measures applied only to the small Central American states which, in the view of the US, lacked the capacity to deal with the potential threat of German espionage. Again, in the circumstances, this seems to me to be in principle a justifiable action in wartime, however badly it was handled in practice. Bear in mind the crucial strategic importance of the Panama Canal in wartime. Your source Moore criticises the author of the book under review for ignoring the political context of these events, including the fact that at least some of the transferees were indeed Nazis.

I think in sum that these two sources support my case more than yours. I will try to write a more concise paragraph based on these sources - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a biographical article about FDR, not an article on Treatment of enemy aliens in the United States during World War II.

Adam 11:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its quite clear not all internees were German born, internees included the children of immigrants who were born in the United States, thus citizens, and also naturalized citizens. Quoting Arthur Jacobs, "Then my brother and I - American citizens and children at that - along with our father were thrown into a prison." And as far as the reasons for detaining Latin American Germans, it certainly was nothing so reasonable as hemispheric security, quote, "as late as 1944, Germans were still being apprehended, possibly as fodder for prisoner exchanges. Additionally, Germans in Latin America were interned in the United States, "a wholesale internment that took place under the guise of hemispherical security," Heitmann said, citing Hoover's zeal to build up the bureau and compete with the Office of Strategic Services and later the CIA for jurisdiction over the Western Hemisphere." Which would make sense if one looks at the history of American foreign policy. As far as many Latin American countries not sending their German nationals, its because they refused to, that may be in another article that I forgot to link, I'll read through them again and check. Remember, Japan also had an active spy network in Latin America but we did not intern the large Japanese populations of those same countries (Brazil, Chile, etc.) I believe that it was because it was not economically feasible for these countries to deport their large German immigrant populations (the same reason we didn't intern Hawaii's Japanese population). Certainly it does not compare to the racist and unjustifiable internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans but I think that it should be included because it gives yet another example for Roosevelt's failure to uphold civil rights (especially the treament of immigrants since most resident aliens held during the war were Europeans), which is probably his biggest failure, and the fact that some were actually sent back to Germany during the war, with their American citizen children, is particularly horrific. User:Morrison1917
 * Perhaps the subheading "The Japanese-American issue" should be renamed "Internments", seeing it also deals with German & Italian persons.Nobs01 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but your own source (Ebel) says they were German nationals. The US citizens were their relatives who chose to go into internment with them, as was clearly the case with Jacobs. This was all very sad, but must be viewed in the context of wartime. Don't you understand what was entailed in fighting a war against Nazi Germany? The democracies were perfectly entitled to defend themselves against potential espionage, and this necessarily required preemptive measures of a kind that would not be acceptable (or legal) in peacetime. As for Latin America, it is absurd to call 4,000 transfers out of 1.5 million Germans "wholesale." This was a trivial and minor incident. Your own source (Moore) says that this "issue" is being driven by left-wing authors of the Chomsky school who want to argue that everything the US has ever done is evil, and has more to do with current US politics (Bush Iraq yadda yadda) than with historical truth. This whole matter merits no more in this article than the passage currently there. If you want to write an article on this topic you are free to do so. Adam 22:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They "chose" to go into the camps with their parents ? They were children ! Jacobs was 11 years old. They were children who's parents were being seized by the government without charge and put into camps. So i don't think they were in a postiotn to make rational decisions and it certainly does not justify it. As far as being deported to Germany Jacobs himself said he had no choice, quote, "my brother and I were expatriated. We were minors and had no choice." They were Americans citizens and thus it was very illegal to deport them to a country they have never even seen before. I truly don't understand why you are attempting to justify this internment. As far as there being "only 4,000 Latin-American German" internees, i said earlier that this is because it was impractical to deport the huge German populations of nations like Brazil, the same reason the Japanese on Hawaii were not interned and there as much of a threat of Japanese espionage and there was of german, but no one accepts that an explaination for the japanese internment. Remember these people WERE NOT arrested, they were interned, there was absolutely no evidence ANY of these people had anything to do with any acts against the United States or had any intention of doing so. I don't care if its not expanded, but you said you would like to delete it completely which i think would be a mistake, because it was a violation of civil rights and it did effect millions of Americans (citizens or not), certainly not a "minor incident." BTW, if you do accept that not all of the interees were aliens i would like to change the article to say "mostly german born" from "all german born"
 * The internment of the Japanese was "race based"; this should be clearly stated.Nobs01 15:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Are the Japanese a race unto themselves? Chinese and others of the same Asian race were not interned. It seems that "national origin" was the main basis. -Willmcw 23:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

POV fighting
Edit warring is not helpful. I'm not sure I agree with Cognition's assertion that this [|this edit] makes the article more NPOV. Cognition's own admitted bias toward FDR doesn't help his case. I would like to suggest that those with strong emotional involvement take a break from editing here to read WP:POINT. Friday 15:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So by that reasoning should Adam Carr stop editing Michael Danby. I think that FDR was a great leader, but does not have anything to do with the merit of my argument that the intro is no place to include every accusation by every FDR-hating historian. Cognition 16:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting Cognition's edits because I revert all LaRouchist edits, not because I agree or disagree with any particular edit. In this case I disagree with his edits. What historians have said about FDR is a necessary part of the article. The LaRouchists' pretence of admiring FDR as means of smuggling their odious fascist cult into public respectability is particularly disgusting. Adam 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LaRouche is only a fascist according to Dennis King and Chip Berlet, and all the people parroting them. King and Berlet must have been "stoned" on lots of dope when they were coming to the absurd position that followers of FDR and MLK are "fascists." Cognition 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

image
The current main image of FDR is a bit blurry around the edges. The fireplace image is okay, but it's not a closeup of the face. Can we get a combination of the two? Perhaps some US government website has free images of former presidents? --Joy [shallot]   00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 2


text:
Brett Deledio

Brett Edward Deledio (born 18 April 1987) is a former professional Australian rules footballer who played 243 games over 12 seasons with the Richmond Football Club in the Australian Football League (AFL), and a further 32 matches over three seasons with the Greater Western Sydney Giants. He was a two-time All-Australian, two-time Richmond best and fairest winner and recipient of the league's Rising Star award in his debut year in 2005. Between 2013 and 2016, he served as Richmond's vice-captain. Deledio was drafted to Richmond with the number one overall pick in the 2004 AFL draft and made his debut in round 1 of the 2005 season.

Early life and junior career
Deledio was born in Kyabram, Victoria, in 1987 to Judy and Wayne Deledio. His father played a single game for in 1975, then spent a season with Brunswick in the Victorian Football Association before heading back to the country.

Deledio began playing competitive football at age 8. Playing well above his age bracket, Deledio starred alongside future teammate Troy Chaplin, who was one year his senior, in the local under-13 competition. At age 15, Deledio played his first game of senior football for the Kyabram Bombers in the Goulburn Valley Football League. He won best-afield honours for his performance in the match.

In 2003 Deledio was a joint winner of the Kevin Sheehan Medal as the best player in the under-16 national championships.

Deledio played for the Murray Bushrangers in the TAC Cup in 2003 and 2004, the leading junior competition in the country. In 2004, his final season, he kicked 21 goals from just 11 games and averaged 23.9 disposals as well. He was also named as a half-forward in the 2004 TAC Cup team of the year.

He went on to represent the Victorian Country side at the under-18 national championships, winning All-Australian honours in the process.

Deledio attended Kyabram High School prior to his AFL draft selection and subsequent move to Melbourne. He enrolled at Caulfield Grammar School to complete his year 12 studies in 2005, but pulled out after just two days.

Instead, he would complete his studies at Richmond, in private tutoring sessions alongside fellow underage club recruits Richard Tambling and Luke McGuane.

In addition to his footballing prowess, Deledio was also a promising young cricket player. A fast-bowler, he represented Victoria at the 2003–04 under-17 national championships. He was also highly capable with the bat, scoring an 85 in the competition's final and leading the Victorians to a national championship. Following this performance, the then coach of the Victorian Bushrangers David Hookes invited Deledio to join the state men's team. Deledio would however decline the offer, instead leaving cricket behind to focus on the prospect of a future career in the AFL.

Debut year (2005)
Deledio was selected by the Richmond Football Club with the first overall pick in the 2004 National Draft.

He made his debut at age 17 years and 343 days in Round 1 the following year, in a Richmond loss to. He recorded 9 disposals and 6 marks for the match.

He kicked his first career goal in a Round 4 game at the MCG against. Deledio was nominated for the Rising Star award following his Round 8 match against Collingwood in which he recorded 13 disposals.

He played all 22 games in his debut season and on 31 August 2005, he was rewarded with the AFL Rising Star award, receiving 43 of a possible 45 votes. Deledio followed this by also winning the Richmond Best First-Year player award and AFL Players' Association Best First-Year Player Award as voted by his peers.

He also represented the club at the 2005 AFL Grand Final Sprint and won.

Capping off his debut season, Deledio was chosen to represent Australia in the International Rules series for 2005, becoming the youngest Australian player in the competition's history.

An emerging talent (2006–2007)
Deledio played 21 out of 22 matches in 2006 and was again a consistent performer, only missing the one game with an injured knee. He was often the target of attention from opposition taggers due to his abilities, and found it difficult to break the tag. However he still produced impressive figures, averaging 18.8 possessions and 6.5 marks a game.

In 2007 Deledio developed into a highly versatile player, who often provided difficult match-ups for the opposition. He played multiple roles across the season, including stints in the midfield and on both the forward and back flanks. In the forward line he used his speed and judgement well to lead into space and take strong marks, kicking 21 goals for the season and placing third on the club's goal-kicking tally. Out of defence, he often used his electric pace to provide run and carry and deliver pinpoint passes into the forward line. Deledio's best game of the 2007 season came in Tigers' Round 19 win against Collingwood, where he kicked a career-high five goals and earned three Brownlow Medal votes. Deledio averaged 18.4 possessions and 5.4 marks a game for the season and placed fifth in the club's best-and-fairest, earning the Kevin Bartlett Medal.

Jack Dyer Medalist (2008–2009)
Deledio began the 2008 season in the forward line for the Tigers, but pushed up the ground later in the season. He surpassed 30 possessions for the first time in Round 6 against Hawthorn before doing so again in Round 10 against Sydney and in round 11 against Adelaide. He won the AFL Army Award for his courage shown in round 7 against the Saints when he flew backwards into a pack to take a mark and heavily collided with a Saints player. He topped the club for inside 50s that year, and averaged a club second 24.6 disposals per game. Deledio was rewarded for his consistent season with his first Jack Dyer Medal as the club's best-and-fairest player, polling 250 votes to take out the award. He was also announced in the 40-man All-Australian squad for 2008 though did not make the final team.

Deledio had another great year in 2009. His best game for the year came against Adelaide in Round 14, where he racked up 31 disposals and kicked one goal. He was the club leader for disposals and inside 50s that year, as well as placing second in tackles and third in clearances. He was rewarded with a second consecutive Jack Dyer Medal. Deledio finished with a total of 190 votes just ahead of Daniel Jackson (175) and skipper Chris Newman (162), thus becoming the youngest player to win the award back-to-back (at the age of 22 years and 5 months) since Kevin Bartlett in 1967–1968, and the youngest player in the AFL to win a best-and-fairest award back-to-back since Michael Voss at Brisbane in 1995–96. He signed a new 3-year contract in 2009, keeping him at Richmond until the end of the 2012 season.

A star of the club (2010–2012)
2010 saw Deledio have another solid year as he became a solid defence playmaker for Richmond alongside his captain, Chris Newman, averaging 25.3 disposals. Richmond began the 2010 season horribly, losing 10 of their first 11 games, their only win being in round 10 against Port Adelaide. The Tigers soon turned their season around, however, going on to win five of their next seven games, with Deledio playing a vital role in these wins.

Deledio was included in the 40 man All-Australian Squad for the second time in his career. He unluckily missed out on selection in the side to Collingwood's Harry O'Brien.

Deledio had his most consistent year to date in 2011, playing all 22 games and averaging 26.3 disposals, becoming acknowledged as an elite half back. Deledio was once again picked in the 40-man All-Australian squad.

Despite his fantastic year, Deledio unluckily missed out on an All-Australian side selection.

On 21 December 2011, at the club's Annual General Meeting, Deledio became the youngest life member in Richmond's history. Deledio qualified for the honour when he reached the 150-game milestone in Round 24, 2011 (at 24 years and 139 days old).

With his contract set to expire at the end of the 2012 season, Deledio was among the first to be able to explore free agency, with the midfielder being named by Richmond a restricted free agent prior to the 2012 season; however in March 2012, he signed a new five-year deal believed to be worth more than $3 million, keeping him contracted to the Tigers until the end of the 2017 season.

The 2012 season saw Deledio become one of the AFL's most valuable players, averaging 28 possessions per game. In the Dreamtime at the 'G clash against Essendon in Round 8, Deledio starred for the Tigers in the loss, racking up 35 possessions to win the Yiooken Award as the best player on the ground.

Apart from early in 2009, Deledio had consistently played good football, despite some critics citing that he hasn't lived up to expectations. However, after the Round 8 "Dreamtime at the G" Clash between Essendon and Richmond, Former Tigers head coach Damien Hardwick stated that he felt that Brett had finally become a “true AFL elite player” and was quoted as saying that: "His contested ball work has come on in leaps and bounds," [and] "That was probably the one area of his game that I thought needed work but he's just been enormous in that area this year. He's become an elite player of the competition."

Leadership and a first final (2013)
Deledio played all 23 games in 2013, averaging 23.8 possessions per game. He finished fourth in the club's best and fairest, winning the 'Fred Swift Medal'.

In Round 3 against the Western Bulldogs, Deledio kicked a goal within 8.9 seconds of the match starting, making it the fastest goal in AFL history, beating the former record of 9.1 seconds held by Gary Ablett, Jr. After 194 matches, Deledio finally played his first AFL final in Richmond's elimination final loss to Carlton at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. His 194-match wait until a maiden final is the longest of any current player in the AFL.

Injuries and a move to half forward (2014–2016)
Deledio had a slow start to the year due to an ongoing lower leg injury he was trying to nurse while playing, but as his fitness improved, so did he and so did Richmond as a whole. He played across the half-forward line in the latter half of the year and from round 15 and onwards he averaged 27 disposals per game, 1.4 goals per game, 6.2 marks per game, 5.5 inside 50s per game and least importantly he averaged 1.2 brownlow votes per game. His new position meant he had easier access to goals, kicked 11 goals in the last 5 Home & Away games of the year, and was a key figure in the Tigers rise from the lower rungs of the ladder to narrowly making the finals after nine consecutive wins to close out the season. He was a part of the team that lost to Port Adelaide by 57 points despite a very good individual performance of 29 disposals and 1 goal in the Elimination Final, just the second finals match of his career. He finished seventh in Richmond's best and fairest count.

In January 2015, Deledio was appointed joint vice-captain for the 2015 season, along with Ivan Maric. For the second year running Deledio went into the season carrying an injury. After struggling through the team's Round 1 clash victory over Carlton he faced four weeks recovery on the sidelines. He would return to the side for the team's Round 6 match against North Melbourne.

Deledio's second match back from injury against Collingwood earned him much praise as he helped Richmond get across the line to defeat Collingwood by 5 points, the first time they had defeated Collingwood since 2007. Deledio continued his varied role of midfield/forward, racking up 30 disposals, 13 marks and 2 goals/2 behinds, being arguably the best on ground. A talking point rose as Deledio now had 2 goals and 4 behinds for the season, fairly rare for Deledio who was known for his accurate kicking. The result of this was possibly due to a new kicking style he had been practicing in the off-season.

Deledio continued the season in fantastic form, stamping himself in as 'Richmond's most important player' as stated by many commentators, some of them being Bruce McAvaney and ex-player commentators Matthew Richardson and Matthew Lloyd. At the time of the Adelaide crows loss where Deledio was absent through illness, mMany experts also noted that statistics proved that Richmond had a significant winning advantage when Deledio was in the side. Stats read that Richmond played 9 games without Deledio over the 14 and 15 seasons, only managing to win 2. On the other hand, the 32 matches with Deledio had resulted in 21 wins.

Deledio's most notable performance was against in form top 4 side Hawthorn. Deledio booted 3 goals in the first quarter and then sealed the win with a goal at the start of the final quarter. It was the first time he had kicked more than 3 goals since the 2008 season, yet had many 3 goal games since then.

During the H&A season Deledio averaged 21.9 disposals, 6.2 marks, 1.5 goals, 0.9 behinds, 2.9 tackles, finishing off arguably his best season in his career despite an injury riddled start to the year.

Between Rd 7 and Rd 23, Deledio averaged 8.7 score involvements per game, ranked second in the league only to the 2015 Coleman Medal winner Joshua Kennedy.

Deledio was selected in the 2015 All-Australian team and the 2015 AFLCA All-Australian team.

Deledio was nursed through the 2016 pre-season, only making a half-game appearance against Port Adelaide in the NAB CUP. In this match he kicked a 9-point Super goal, meaning $500 worth of Sherrin footballs were donated to his junior club.

Deledio suffered a quad injury that put him out until Round 6 vs. Port Adelaide. In his return match he showed similar form to previous seasons, racking up 22 disposals, laying 6 tackles and kicking a goal.

Deledio continued to play good football, making the most of his versatility and playing numerous roles throughout the season. During the Rd 17 match vs. the Essendon Bombers his potential best on ground performance was cut short at half time due to a sharp pain in his calf muscle – a problem that had hindered his fitness for the third season straight. He sat out the remainder of the 2016 season as a precaution, deciding to rest and concentrate on remaining healthy for the 2017 season.

Deledio finished 2016 as the club's then all-time career tackles record holder, with 688 recorded across his 243 games. He also ranked 11th for games played for the club at this time.

Greater Western Sydney
At the conclusion of the 2016 season, he was traded to Greater Western Sydney. He struggled to overcome a calf injury early in the season, failing to play a match at any level through the first 19 matches until finally making his debut for the Giants in round 20 where he kicked a goal.

In 2019, Deledio began serving as a development coach with the Giants' AFL Women's team.

Player profile
Deledio is a utility, a very versatile player who adept at any position from half-back through half-forward.

As a junior, he played predominantly in the forward line, but due to his pace, fitness and elite disposal, he was shifted to the midfield in his latter days of junior football.

Early on at Richmond he alternated between playing as a midfielder and as a half-forward, playing well in both positions. In 2008 and 2009 he won Jack Dyer Medals in a predominantly midfield role. Upon Damien Hardwick's arrival in the 2010 season, Deledio had a move to the half-back line to make use of his elite kicking and prolong his career. In 2012 though, Deledio was moved again into the midfield where he earned All-Australian selection for the first time. Since 2014 Deledio has been contained to a mostly half-forward role. He won All-Australian selection on half-forward after a 1.5 goal per game season in 2015.

He is an elite ball user and was rated as Richmond's best kick by his peers and by numerous media pundits.

Statistics

! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2005 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2006 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2007 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2008 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2009 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2010 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2011 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2012 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2013 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2014 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2015 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2016 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2017 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2018 ! scope="row" style="text-align:center" | 2019 ! colspan=3| Career ! 275 ! 197 ! 149 ! 3255 ! 2857 ! 6112 ! 1459 ! 779 ! 0.7 ! 0.5 ! 11.8 ! 10.4 ! 22.2 ! 5.3 ! 2.8
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 22 || 14 || 10 || 186 || 159 || 336 || 86 || 37 || 0.6 || 0.4 || 8.4 || 6.8 || 15.3 || 3.9 || 1.7
 * || 3 || 21 || 5 || 12 || 241 || 154 || 395 || 137 || 35 || 0.2 || 0.6 || 11.5 || 7.2 || 18.8 || 6.5 || 1.7
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 19 || 21 || 10 || 188 || 161 || 349 || 102 || 36 || 1.1 || 0.5 || 9.9 || 8.5 || 18.4 || 5.4 || 1.9
 * || 3 || 22 || 28 || 10 || 255 || 283 || 538 || 155 || 48 || 1.3 || 0.4 || 11.6 || 12.7 || 24.4 || 7.0 || 2.2
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 22 || 20 || 15 || 254 || 279 || 533 || 118 || 78 || 0.9 || 0.7 || 11.6 || 12.9 || 24.2 || 5.4 || 3.6
 * || 3 || 22 || 2 || 4 || 302 || 254 || 556 || 116 || 54 || 0.1 || 0.2 || 13.7 || 11.6 || 25.3 || 5.3 || 2.4
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 22 || 9 || 11 || 281 || 282 || 563 || 91 || 65 || 0.4 || 0.5 || 12.8 || 12.8 || 25.6 || 4.1 || 3.0
 * || 3 || 22 || 17 || 15 || 339 || 266 || 605 || 110 || 102 || 0.8 || 0.7 || 15.4 || 12.1 || 27.5 || 5.0 || 4.6
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 23 || 10 || 15 || 317 || 230 || 547 || 118 || 86 || 0.4 || 0.6 || 13.8 || 10.0 || 23.8 || 5.1 || 3.7
 * || 3 || 19 || 20 || 16 || 258 || 225 || 483 || 102 || 52 || 1.0 || 0.8 || 13.6 || 11.8 || 25.4 || 5.4 || 2.7
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 3 || 17 || 26 || 15 || 213 || 159 || 372 || 105 || 50 || 1.5 || 0.9 || 12.5 || 9.4 || 21.9 || 6.2 || 2.9
 * || 3 || 11 || 9 || 7 || 124 || 130 || 254 || 58 || 39 || 0.8 || 0.6 || 11.3 || 11.8 || 23.1 || 5.3 || 3.5
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 7 || 7 || 5 || 2 || 49 || 49 || 98 || 29 || 24 || 0.7 || 0.3 || 7.0 || 7.0 || 14.0 || 4.1 || 3.4
 * || 7 || 11 || 4 || 1 || 109 || 113 || 222 || 59 || 31 || 0.4 || 0.1 || 9.9 || 10.3 || 20.2 || 5.4 || 2.8
 * - style="background:#eaeaea;"
 * || 7 || 14 || 6 || 6 || 129 || 115 || 244 || 71 || 36 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 9.2 || 8.2 || 17.4 || 5.1 || 2.6
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * }

Personal life
On 26 October 2012, Deledio married his longtime girlfriend Katie (née Chivers), an integration manager at Bauer Media Group Australia. The couple had their first child, a baby girl, in 2015.

Deledio and his wife Katie own a pet Staffordshire Bull-Terrier named "Boris".

Some of his favourite hobbies are golf, surfing and dirt bike riding.

Off-field work
In 2009, Deledio appeared alongside other AFL footballers in an AFL television advertisement titled "AFL: In a League of its Own", which featured prominent AFL players playing Australian rules football at famous sporting venues around the world, and in the middle of other sports being played, including basketball, Association football and American football. In the advertisement, Deledio receives a hitout from David Hille on a basketball court, where after evading a number of defending players, he handballs the ball to Aaron Davey.

Deledio has sporadically featured as a guest panellist on the AFL footy show on Thursday nights and on the AFL Tom show, Triple M Rush Hour show

Deledio competed in Rexona Australia's Greatest Athlete television show and finished 3rd with 1070 points, behind Jamie Whincup on 1085 points and Billy Slater on 1385.

His boot and apparel sponsor is Adidas. During Adidas' promotion for the 'Nitrocharge' boot, Deledio was painted to have his body appear to look like a machine or an engine.

One of Deledio's major sponsors over the course of his career has been sunglasses brand Oakley

Brett Deledio supports the Melbourne Stars in the Big Bash Cricket League. In 2012 Deledio as well as fellow Richmond player Shaun Grigg worked with Melbourne Star's player Bobby Quiney to promote the game.

He promotes cap and clothing brand 'New Era', therefore he has a large collection of the caps. In 2012 New Era released new AFL team caps, including caps for Richmond which Deledio promoted. In 2014 Deledio and New Era released a line of limited edition 'BD3' caps for Richmond fans to purchase.

In 2015, Brett and his wife Katie worked with the AFL Players' Association to promote their new 'Team Up' application.

title: Brett Deledio


text:
Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 2

Untitled
Paragraph 5 of "Young Man in a Hurry," first sentence is spam of some type, and I am unable to correct it.

Winston Churchill was a painter? I'd really never heard that. Any sources??

Try this Alci12

This article states that Lady Astor was the woman who told Winston he was drunk yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Quotes and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Transwiki:Winston_Churchill attribute that statement to Bessie Braddock. Which is correct? CountMippipopolous

General discussion
The folowing piece was put to talk: "One of these settlements was the boundary between the future East Germany and Poland at the Oder-Neisse line, which was rationalized as compensation for Soviet gains in Ukraine. As part of the settlement was an agreement to continue the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the area, which arguably had begun as a program after 1920 when Poland had been given the Polish Corridor by Britain and France.  The exact numbers and movement of ethnic populations over the Polish-German and Polish-USSR borders in the period between the end of World War I and the end of World War II is vastly difficult to determine. "

After WWI under the provisions of the Treaty in Versailles, Former citizens of Germany had the right to option, where they wanted to leave. There were no forced expulsions. In addition Poland had to sign speciall treaty that guaranteed the rights of minorities in Poland.

--

If his father was lord, then why was he only "Sir"? JeanneB

 * His father, as the younger son of a duke, bore the courtesy style of "Lord" before his name. He was not, however, a peer himself.  Churchill, as the son of the younger son of a peer, had no title, and was a mere commoner.  He received the "Sir" through being created a Knight of the Garter after the 2nd World War. john 01:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--- The following statement was inserted, but 'mysteriously disappeared' from the Winston Churchill article, therefore a copy is placed here in Discussion: A Quote from the 1946 Winston Churchill Iron Curtain Speech in Fulton, Missouri : "''From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone-Greece with its immortal glories-is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy." This statement by Churchill is in contrast to above Wikipedia entries. While Churchill addressed the wrongful inroads upon Germany by the Russian-dominated Polish Goverment and the mass expulsions, the current texts of nearly all Wikipedia articles dealing with eastern Germany and its people, are trying to portrait historical events differently from the factual happenings. For the full speech by Churchill please see External Link below. http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill go to full speech by W.C. on W.C. website. The referrence by Churchill to: The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place.'' is directly referring to Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, which was overrun by Soviet-Russian and Polish forces, who were before and after the end of WW II expelling all Germans in what is today referred to as 'Western Poland" or 'Regained Territory". -

I agree with the above. According to his own writings Churchill opposed the imposition of the Soviet-backed government of Poland, and the settlements were mostly imposed by the US and Soviets. Also I'm not even sure that he was responsible for the final settlements; weren't they finalised after he had lost the election? DJ Clayworth 20:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - They were never actually finalised. There was supposed to be, according to Potsdam Agreement a peace treaty, which due to the Cold War never happened. There were only military conquest realities, which international law states, can only be temporary military occupation. Keeping conquered land, removing populations and replacing them with others, is by international law, illegal. As we witness, time and time again, international law is often disregarded --

I removed an entire paragraph:

 * One of these settlements was the boundary between the future East Germany and Poland at the Oder-Neisse line, which was rationalized as compensation for Soviet gains in Ukraine. As part of the settlement was an agreement to continue the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the area.  The exact numbers and movement of ethnic populations over the Polish-German and Polish-USSR borders in the period at the end of World War II is vastly difficult to determine.  This is not least because, under the Nazi regime, many Poles were replaced in their homes by the conquering Germans in an attempt to consolidate Nazi power.  In the case of the post-WWII settlement, Churchill was convinced that the only way to alleviate tensions between the two populations was the expulsion of the Germans, despite the fact that many of these Germans had lived in these areas since the middle ages and had absorbed the native population, which lived there before. As Churchill expounded in the House of Commons in 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..." Even though made in "modern conditions" some 500,000 to 1,500.000 people died in these "transferences". Today these transferences would be named "ethnic cleansing".

which is a word-for-word copy (except for the last sentence) from here. DJ Clayworth 22:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Erm, beware of assuming that everything else has been there longer than Wikipedia: "[This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on Sir Winston Churchill]". It's just an out of date mirror of this very page! - IMSoP 22:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Oops. Sorry. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, does anyone know what Churchill was talking about when he made the speech quoted above? Could he have been talking about repatriating Germans from countries they had occupied? DJ Clayworth 22:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) He was talking about the germans who had been living in parts of poland and russia for more than three centuries Regarding the above paragraph, can anybody shed light on this sentence: "In the case of the post-WWII settlement, Churchill was convinced that the only way to alleviate tensions between the two populations was the expulsion of the Germans, despite the fact that many of these Germans had lived in these areas since the middle ages and had absorbed the native population, which lived there before.". Is it talking about post-WWII settlement, or settlement since the middle ages? DJ Clayworth 15:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I think what's confusing you is that there are two distinct meanings of settlement, which are both relevant: settlement as in a treaty, contract, etc - the Treaty of Versailles was part of the "post-WWII settlement" in this sense; and settlement as in the sense of people setting up their homes somewhere - in which case "post-WWII settlement" would mean something altogether different. I agree that the paragraph needs some serious work, though - it's full of grammatical errors for a start; I'm afraid I haven't really got time to go through it at the moment. - IMSoP 16:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to throw another spanner in the works, Versailles was WWI, you mean Potsdam or Yalta or ... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * D'oh! Right you are! Shows how much I was concentrating, doesn't it? - IMSoP 16:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to have real trouble with this paragraph. It seems to be trying to implicate Churchill in the deaths of ethnic Germans without actually coming out and saying to. If it is trying to do that, then I think whoever wrote it needs to answer some questions:
 * 1) Was Churchill advocating expulsion of all ethnic Germans, or just those that had moved there since the conquest by the Nazis?
 * 2) Given that Hitler used the presence of ethnic Germans in Sudentenland as an excuse for some of his conquests, isn't it reasonable to view such a presence as a dangerous flashpoint? It may sound horrible to our ears to forcibly move a few hundred thousand people, but if you've just finished fighting a war in which fifty million people died, it sounds a lot less horrible if that's what it takes to prevent a recurrence.
 * 3) Even if Churchill advocated these moves, he is not responsible for the manner in which they were carried out. It would certainly have been possible, even in the immediate postwar, to make these moves without loss of life or serious suffering. That it was not done needs to be laid at the feet of those controlling the area.
 * 4) Churchill argued strenuously that the Polish government in exile should return to Poland, rather than the Soviet backed regime that did eventually take control. Had his wishes been followed this problem might not have occurred.
 * 5) Churchill was only one of the leaders trying to agree on these points. And the practicalities of the situation was that whatever the Soviets said, in the territory they controlled, was what was going to happen, short of starting another war.

DJ Clayworth 21:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please reverse my edit re the tables? I'm not able to. Thanks Formeruser-83 19:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I see you managed it :-)
 * James F. (talk) 20:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an odd paragraph. Need more information about this if it is to stay.

(It has been suggested that some of Churchill's radio speeches, including "We shall fight on the beaches." were actually spoken by soundalike actors because Churchill was too busy to make them himself, but this has not been conclusively proven.)

Roadrunner 05:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * See here, or Google - Nunh-huh 05:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The first is an article in 2000 saying that there is a recording that is soon to be verified, and it's 2004. Also the article quoted heavily David Irving whose credibility leaves something to be desired.

Roadrunner 06:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Those are references about the assertion, rather than references that will decisively decide the truth. The assertion that some of Churchill's important radio speeches had been spoken by an actor can be attributed to actor Norman Shelley, and "historian" David Irving... The more-or-less official Churchill site can be quoted as denying it and calling it a popular myth. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to find out what it means that Winston was the leader of the opposition? Anyone know? Shaydebabe 07:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In Britain, and other parliamentary democracies (especially those modelled on the British system) the Leader of the Opposition is a title given to the leader of the largest party not in the government (usually the second largest party). It's an actual job, with pay and offices and such like, and the idea is that the opposition's job is to hold the government to account. In the US something like minority leader might be the closest analogy. DJ Clayworth 20:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

is there any reason to retain the "brutal and bloody" tag attached to the boer war battles in which C took part? if not, i think it the tag shld be removed. -- Doldrums 02:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"The only differane between Hitler and Churchill was that Churchill stook to the law, both were fascists" this article refuses to criticise a man whose sole achievment was been in the right place at the right time. I accept morale boosting he was an indespensible asset but tactically he made huge and costly mistakes in both wars. This artice refuses to mention his dubious election results and the fact that as a peace time Pm was pretty useless

Chart Rendered Incorrectly
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)

Timeline
"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)

 * 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)

Yes, the above is all correct. Churchill had been a Liberal MP for 18 years when he lost his Dundee seat in the general election of 1922. In the general election of 1923, he stood again as a Liberal, to no avail, then later that year stood in the Westminster Abbey byelection as an "Independent Anti-Socialist". For the 1924 general election (Britain underwent a lot of upheaval at the time, ergo the 3 general elections in 3 years), he stood as a 'Constitutionalist' in Epping, where the local Conservative association agreed not to oppose him. Winning the seat, he was as surprised as anyone else to be offeref the Chancellorship by Baldwin, even though not a Conservative. This is not as strange a move as it may seem. After the three elections, Baldwin wanted a stable majority. Churchill still had a great deal of sway among Liberals, many of whom had long tipped him as a future Liberal leader. In bringing Churchill into the Conservative government, Baldwin more importantly secured the defection or support of an extra 30 or so Churchillian Liberals for his government. The ploy worked, the Baldwin government continued until 1929, and Churchill remained Chancellor throughout. And yes, he didn't actually rejoin the Conservatives until 1929. 14:09, 20 Oct 2004

Infobox on main article (please comment)
I'd like to get ideas about the infobox on the main page. It's concept is under discussion, so your input as biography editors is invaluable. Thanks! -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Is a single quote a NPOV problem?

 * Does the inclusion of a single quote line (not the quote itself) conflict with the Neutral point of view policy such that it should be removed? Please comment, one per line.

 * These votes are from regular editors of the page:

 * These votes are from people which are already involved in the bigger discussion:
 * Yes - If you do keep the infobox, then a single quote is POV because the quote will be chosen and the editor's POV is sure to influence the choice. Vincent 09:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes (obviously). James F. (talk) 07:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes - the current one on Winston Churchill portrays him as somewhat heroic, contrary to some people's opinion. I challenge you to choose a quote in an NPOV manner. ed g2s  •  talk  16:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No - The NPOV policy relates to articles, not sections. If anyone feels the quote is POV, balance it in the main article text. Inevitably, some sections of articles are POV, it is impossible to write every sentence which balances all POV's. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Comments

 * My thoughts have been expressed on the template's talk page, but I wanted the editors of this page to judge the quote's impact. In short, the NPOV policy directs that articles be of a neutral stance - section of an article are inherently POV, to meet that larger requirement. I find that the quote give the page a "professional" appearance, and so long as the editors have agreement on which quote to use, there should be no problem. (Note, I did some minor refactoring to separate the discussion with the simple straw poll.) -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

However, do we need it? I would vote for deleting the infobox altogether. My comments are on the template's talk page. Vincent 09:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Having an infobox on the pages of British Prime Ministers is absolutely standard, and has been so for years. This is an alternative, and IMO, much neater presentation of the same box in a different light.
 * I agree about having a quote, though.
 * James F. (talk) 10:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You're right. The infobox is useful for office holders (e.g. Prime Ministers) and I've added to mycomments on the infobox page. But I don't think it's useful for individuals. Vincent 03:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Quotations are unncessary, and should not be included. The NPOV policy applies to the article, but the quotation is a part of the article, and contributes to the understanding of the subject. This whole infobox, as presently formatted, I also deprecate; the same format employed for other PMs should be employed. -- Emsworth 14:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur - no reason to use these new infoboxes, the old ones look great.Mackensen 15:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The infobox isn't bad, but the long list of categories at the top and the list of offices at the bottom look absolutely awful! --Auximines 23:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I notice the article doesn't mention Churchill's decision to use troops against striking miners in Tonypandy while Home Secretary, which is often quoted against him. It ought to be in there somewhere.Dbiv 23:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fixed up the box containing Churchill's biographical facts. It looked really good, but there was no way to fit it in that didn't contain some fatal page design flaws (i.e. pushing the text waaay down the page or breaking it up very strangely). It still looks a little weird with the picture of Young Churchill next to it, but I think it's better. If anyone wants to tackle getting it back to it's original form without messing up the text, or creating an actual box that works with the text that can be placed in all the UK Prime Minster's pages that would be really cool. After a few hours I find myself completely incapable of such a task, so I pass the torch.

Thanks, --TheGrza 23:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) -

I note a similarity between minor suggestive statements and insinuations eg " Alzheimers " which  appear to co-incide through   a link at the bottom to " The Churchill Centre "  and point one towards the  'winstonchurchill.org'  where several of these statements are contradicted. I suggest that they could rectify these within wikipedia itself rather than on their  apparently non-official  website. Flamekeeper 13:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War government - non Cabinet members
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)

Churchill and Eugenics
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)

Query re "Last Days"

 * It was Churchill's wish that, were de Gaulle to outlive him, his (Churchill's) funeral procession should pass through Waterloo Station

I would like to know the source for this comment. President de Gaulle did indeed attend the service at St.Paul's. The procession afterwards continued down to Tower Pier. From the moment the coffin boarded the barge, the public ceremony ended. The journey along the Thames, to Waterloo and then to Bladon for burial was private. I would question it for two reasons: first de Gaulle (and all the other dignitaries) were miles away; second the boarding of the train at Waterloo was not part of the public ceremony.

First state funeral for a commoner since Lord Roberts
Re:Funeral comment "first state funeral for a commoner since that of Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar" is surely wrong. Lord Roberts was a peer, therefore a noble. The last Commoner was I think Gladstone. Wiki's own definition of Commoner supports my contention. I won't edit for a bit to give someone time to come back re Gladstone.Alci12 18:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I suspect that what was meant was "first state funeral for a non-royal". --Auximines 21:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps but that wouldn't make much sense either. Roberts, Gladstone, Wellington & Nelson were all non-royal and all had state funerals. I'm happy to edit if we agree it's wrong as it stands 81.156.58.185 12:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * What I meant was, "first state funeral for a non-royal since Roberts". Anyway, the article is wrong as it stands, so go ahead and change it! --Auximines 18:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Pardon me, but i thought churchhill was a memeber of the peerage somehow, as he has ancestors that were.

 * No, because only the actual holder of the title is a peer. Winston's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough and never inherited his father's peerage. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This was the first state funeral for a commoner in the 20th century in Britain SNIyer12 19:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Surname
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)

 * 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)

The new paragraph is an improvement on my previous effort. This is a complex question. I have never been able to discover whether Andrew Bonar Law's surname was Law or Bonar Law. Note also that Lloyd George's father was plain Mr George. Adam 02:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what was Andrew Bonar Law's surname? I'll note that very often aristocrats with double-barreled surnames did not really use the first surname. For instance, Lord William Bentinck, whose surname was officially "Cavendish-Bentinck." Probably some others as well. john k 06:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither Law nor George were aristocrats, they were jumped-up provincial plebians. I suspect name-lengthening was a form of social climbing - it certainly was for Lloyd George. I recall now also that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman started out as Henry Bannerman, so it was obviously quite common. Churchill, as a real aristocrat, could afford to go in the opposite direction. (Like Tony Benn). Adam 07:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)

MacDonald was illegitimate so he basically made up his name. Adam 10:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whenever Churchill was named in the London Gazette his surname was given as "Spencer-Churchill", not "Spencer Churchill". (For example, from the Gazette of 20 November 1951: The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal bearing date the 7th day of November, 1951, to appoint: - The Right Honourable Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, O.M., C.H., ... ... to be Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury.) Proteus (Talk) 16:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peers need Royal permission to change their surname and the immediate heirs would probably be obliged to abide by the same rule. Therefore no doubt the official name (ie Spencer-Churchill) never changes but the commonly used name does.Alci12

 * 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)

Iron ore in Narvik
"Churchill advocated the preemptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron ore fields of Narvik early in the War." The iron ore is in Sweden, Kiruna, but the shipping port is Narvik, as northern Sweden has no winter port in Gulf of Bothnia. demo 08:01, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Polydacty?
Did this guy really have an extra finger? Where are the sources?
 * I have also seen Winston Churchill in the List of polydactyl people.

Lavatory Birth
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)

I shortened the section on the Polish border question, which before was nearly a third the contents of the WWII section. DJ Clayworth 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Table at the bottom?
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)

Chuchill Statue
Just a quick point. Another copy of the statue which stands in Parliament Square and in Oslo is in Australia. It is cast in fiberglass and resides on the campus of the Australian National University in Canberra.

Did Churchill criticise the Koran?
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)

"Last Days" - remark on Canadian PM
For the life of me I cannot see why the details of Churchill's funeral are concluded with a piece of clearly irrelevant trivia about the Canadian Prime Minister and his new flags. It simply doesn't belong here.
 * I agree. icut4u

Copyright question
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)

Expansion notice for World War II section
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)

 * As you'll note from the template wording, the template itself should be on this page. Pcb21| Pete 09:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Free recordings of his speeches
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)

title: Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 2