Talk:A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military historiography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Ahem? 2 Funny Guy 3 POV (Neutrality) 4 Wrong title 5 NPOV cleanup 6 Footnotes?

[edit] Ahem?

At first, this is described as a four-volume history of Britain and the English speaking nations. However, soon after, it is stated that it was natural for [Churchill] to turn his hand to a history of both nations. The United States of America is not the only other English speaking nation. This could be taken the wrong way and seen as offensive to the others. Can we reword this? --Liberlogos 01:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Be bold! Go ahead! --Auximines 14:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've returned the initial description to say "English speaking nations", since the book does include Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. This leaves the second paragraph, referring to "both nations" a bit awkward. But since this paragraph does accurately indicate Churchill's advocacy of a strong UK-US alliance, I've not fiddled with it. Perhaps someone else can craft a better wording for that paragraph. 24.209.173.129 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the point that in Churchill's time, it was a commonplace that there were only two "English-speaking Peoples" - those who settled the Empire and Commonwealth versus those in the United States who had rebelled against the rule of their Sovereign? The American branch had indeed become a different "English speaking people" over the course of a century and a half of independent development and immigration from other nations. The people who settled the Empire and Commonwealth, however, whether in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Nova Scotia were regarded as a unitary people, united under the Crown. Since Churchill did indeed cover both branches and their historical development, his title is perfectly apt. Today, of course, neither Australia nor Canada etc. regard themselves as "British" but in the 1940s every Australian etc. passport stated the bearer's nationality as "British". It is silly to get offended in the twenty first century by what was a perfectly normal description in the 1950s.

[edit] Funny Guy

"However work was interrupted in 1939 when the Second World War broke out"

Alright, who's the joker. -- SiniStar 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

eh? Do you mean because he wasn't appointed PM until 1940? What's the joke?

[edit] POV (Neutrality)

This article has several opinionated and unverified statements. Here are examples:

• Churchill was a great British patriot with a love of history and a firm belief in the trans-Atlantic alliance between Britain and the United States, so it was natural for him to turn his hand to ahistory of both nations.
• The quality of the productions was judged to be so poor that Head of Drama Shaun Sutton declared them untransmittable.

[edit] Wrong title

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

[edit] NPOV cleanup

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

[edit] Footnotes?

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