Talk:Randolph Churchill

First photo on page

This photo has an editor's crop marks; isn't there a better one, or could this photo be cropped/retouched to eliminate the marks? Autodidact1 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

"Randolph was often portrayed as the bête noire of the Churchill family ..." - the writer clearly means "black sheep", a beast of an entirely different stripe ...

Religion?

What was Randolph's religious views. I know that many atheists such as Richard Dawkins use his quote "God, isn't God a shit!"[1] in their rhetoric. --Pordaria 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please could someone translate the first sentence above? Millbanks (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't tell for sure about his personal beliefs, but he isn't very fond of Christian beliefs according to Dawkins in The God Delusion:

"[...]in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire Bible in a fortnight: 'Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud "I say I bet you didn't know this came from the Bible..." or merely slapping his side and chortling "God, isn't God a shit!"'

He references "Mitford and Waugh (2001). I believe it could be worth noting. Ericleb01 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Randolph's sketch in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), states the bet was to read "certain books" of the Bible - implying it was not the entire book - without talking, and that he made his first comments before reaching the end of Genesis. It adds (on basis of "Private information".) that he lost that bet but never paid.Cloptonson (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

{ Churchill }

Why does the info box for Sir Winston Churchill appear at the bottom of this page. This should really be in Sir Winston Churchill's page...
Enquire (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not an "Honourable"

In the infobox he is titled "Major the Honourable" Randolph Churchill. The "Honourable" is surely incorrect - it is given to the children of peers of the rank of Baron and to those of Viscounts and Earls who do not already hold a courtesy title (only given to first sons in fathers' lifetime). His father refused a peerage; had Winston accepted the suggested dukedom, Randolph would have been a courtesy Marquess before inheriting the Dukedom.Cloptonson (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

His mother was a life peer. Proteus (Talk) 11:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I stand enlightened, I forgot her peerage.Cloptonson (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation Need Removed

I have removed the Citation Needed against the statement that Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister for "less than a year". His office term at 10 Downing Street began on 19 October 1963 and ended on 16 October 1964, just 3 days short of his term's first anniversary.Cloptonson (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have also removed other Citation Needs put against references to Duncan Sandys becoming his brother in law same year as Norwood By-Election, and against reference to his opposing Malcolm Macdonald at Ross & Cromarty, adding for clarification:

The month of marriage and the name of the sister of Randolph that Duncan Sandys married.

Specifying that he stood at Ross & Cromarty as a locally adopted Scottish Unionist candidate (to dispel any impression he was imposed on the constituency from Conservative headquarters in London, the Conservatives being partners in the National Government coalition). As the page on the by-election bears out, Macdonald was a rival candidate in a 3-cornered fight - and its ultimate victor - so it cannot be doubted he was an opponent.Cloptonson (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war

Scatman.27, IP editors - let's avoid an edit war and discuss the subject here. With the sentences combined to make clear the connection, I don't see any reason for changing it further, given what the sources say. Scatman.27, would you mind explaining what your thoughts are here? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 My thoughts are that we should refrain from adding sources with a humorous tone or adding a humorous tone to the page. Reading a book to someone does not prevent them to be pregnant in any way, so to add "Despite" makes no sense other than to add humor, wikipedia is not a humor website, Thanks Scatman.27 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but disagree. I actually wrote an opinion piece in the Signpost a while ago laying out why I think humor can be valuable on Wikipedia. In this case, in short: the sources approach the anecdote in this mildly humorous way, and we should not be afraid to follow the sources. Readers aren't robots and there's no need for us to strip our writing of all liveliness, as long as the material is accurate and verifiable (which it is). —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, however the greater wikipidea community agrees that adding intentionally humorous edits(even while factually correct) diminishes the reputation of wikipedia. If you absolutely must edit a page in a humorous way see the official guide on when it is acceptable and how to add it responsibly linked below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHumor?wprov=sfla1 Scatman.27 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction on the official guide part, it not official but rather a community essay Scatman.27 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there's a wide range of opinions, but no actual guidelines about what we should do. In this case, I don't think the article itself is intentionally trying to be funny; the anecdote is funny, and it's given that way in the sources for a reason. Humor is part of life and there's no reason to expunge something from Wikipedia just because it's funny. As the essay you linked states, "if humorous content is included in an article, it must be done in such a way as to meet all the usual article requirements, including: Verifiability, Neutral point-of-view, No original research, and Reliable sources. This meets those criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 There is no such anectdote in Lovell's The Churchills:In Love and War. There is however that anecdote in a book a about the founders of the Savoy Hotel by Olivia Williams wich now becomes an argument about which is a more relliable source about Randolph Churchill, and certainly no one would say that a book about the Savoy Hotel is a more reliable source than a book explicitly and exclusively written about the Churchills including Randolph.

So no, i wouldn't say it meets those requirements. Scatman.27 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, the anecdote appears on p.421 of the Lovell book, which states that Pamela told the tale years later (she did not say which passage he read - I dare say she was bored witless and/or wasn't listening at the time and could no longer remember), and that the wedding night "had not been what she expected".Paulturtle (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paulturtle There is no anecdote

in Lovell where it's said that "despite that she got pregnant". Scatman.27 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your comment above implies that there is no such anecdote at all, which isn't the case.Paulturtle (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The above sentence was written by me, as was a lot of the rest of the article. A lot of Randolph's life story is blackly comic, particularly after the war when his drinking and foul temper got completely out of hand. He is like a character out of novel by somebody like Evelyn Waugh or Anthony Powell.Paulturtle (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paulturtle Wikipedia isn't a place to add personal comic embellishments, please stick to the facts of this historical (not out of a novel) person. Scatman.27 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. De haut en bas lecturing of others about what they must "please" do or not do - never a good sign. As for your opinion about what wikipedia "is" or "isn't", at least three editors including me disagree with you on this occasion, and the consensus is what was there before you tried to change it. So you are edit-warring. Kindly desist.Paulturtle (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paulturtle Refer to my other reply. The facts are simply that. Sorry. Scatman.27 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not you are "sorry", the consensus is what was there before you tried to change it, and at least three editors disagree with you. The subject of the dispute is trivial - a single dry phrase to which I didn't give more than a second or two of thought when I wrote it. Your insistence on getting your own way and edit-warring isn't. You seem uninterested in having any kind of discussion or respecting consensus. If the article were patently factually incorrect (eg. if it said he became a brigadier and worked as a barrister) or remiss in failing to address significant academic literature on the man in question then there might be grounds for bending the rules, but not in this case. Stop it, or I don't see that there is going to be any option but to report you.Paulturtle (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paulturtle Wikipedia is a serious site indented for information, not humor. Adding not factual "humor" to a site is going to be considered vandalism if continued. Scatman.27 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)