Talk:Neville Chamberlain

Unitarian?

I remember reading here that he was a Unitarian, and it is easy to find good sources for this. Why has any mention of the mans religion been removed from the article, especially when it was clearly an important influence on his politics. Bsdrevise (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

German version

I find this is a very good article and is currently very relevant due to the situation in the world. As I live in Switzerland, I speak German but I found the German article in Wikipedia on Neville Chamberlain to be very weak. Would it not be possible to simply translate the English article for the German Wikipedia. Just a friendly suggestion David Norman Ipsach Switzerland info@david-norman.ch 138.248.51.141 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

Which image should be used in the infobox?

• Option A (current)
  Option A (current)
• Option B
  Option B
• Option C
  Option C
• Option D
  Option D
• Option E
  Option E
• Option F
  Option F
• Option G
  Option G
• Option H
  Option H
• Option I
  Option I
• Option J
  Option J

Discussion

• Option B - Taken much closer to Chamberlain's premiership (during his second chancellorship), is high resolution, and looks towards the text per the Manual of Style. Chamberlain is too young in Option A and looks away from the text; the photograph is also of inferior quality. Not convinced by any of the alternatives either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• B, assuming the copyright is proper, as there's some mention on the image page of claims being made concerning it versus WMF. A,C,E and I show him much younger-appearing than during his prime ministerial career, his point of greatest fame. Remainder are either substandard shots, historical images that should appear at the proper point in the article rather than the infobox, or paintings. Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to go ahead and WP:BOLDly change it now; the all of two participants thus far have unanimously agreed on Option B. Anyone in disagreement can comment here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine, but keep in mind that articles that need to have polls on infobox images are very few. Most with large numbers of PD images have an adequate image chosen, or the population of editors interested enough to vote is thin. As here. Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  My motivation for starting the discussion was a recent edit summary: "Template:Tq". I thought the 1936 image was better, hence the discussion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option B Looks towards the text and is closer to the time when Chamberlain was Prime Minister. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WHY do so many of you who write entries on Wikipedia give such a loooooooong introduction before you get into the actual biography?! This is totally unneccessary, and appears on almost all of the entries. Simply get into the biographical information- beginning with place of birth- after a short, and I said SHORT, introduction! This introductory section runs for many paragraphs, and needs to be shortened! 98.123.126.45 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Since most people do not read the whole article, we put an executive summary at the top. Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rearmament

The article somewhat underplays Chamberlain's part, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in rearmament. His use of filmed speeches to camera, shown in cinemas, was also quite groundbreaking. (Churchill didn't like the microphone and hated the camera, preferring a live audience.) Chamberlain's 1936 newsreel address, explaining the need to rearm and the cost of doing it, is of some interest in terms of policy and personality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAHJt-Oi7lo Although he undermined himself at Munich by treating Hitler as a reasonable and appeasable negotiator, Chamberlain did fund massive rearmament for all three services as well as supporting Churchill in the May Debates of 1940. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Walker-Smith ref

I removed the Walker-Smith citation. I initially came to fix it, as it was giving a CS1 error, but the link as it stood went to a tiny fragment of the text which didn't seem particularly relevant. I found a complete copy of the book online (here), where I couldn't see any reference to Chamberlain's papers, nor to the Birmingham University archives. So I felt the best option was to remove the ref. Posting here since it seemed to require more explanation than would fit in an edit summary. RobertG ♬ talk 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTCh)

Chamberlain and SOE (reply to now archived talkpoint - Archive 1)

The statement that Chamberlain 'drew up the remit for SOE' is unlikely. Chamberlain resigned as PM in May 1940 and the SOE was founded 22 July 1940 under the Premiership of Churchill who was keen for it to "set Europe ablaze" against the Nazis. That month Chamberlain was in the course of terminal illness. The phrase is rather vague without mention as to how it was drawn up.Cloptonson (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead

The fourth para of the lead refers to opinion amongst historians. I'd like to amend but thought I'd sake a sounding here first since it's a mature and decent article. I don't dispute the influence of Foot et al, but there are more positive assessments of Chamberlain around today. It seems to me that since modern analyses have the benefit of the release of new information they should be more prominent than politically informed tracts of the day? Emmentalist (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead section too long

In my opinion the lead section is way too long. The manual of style states that "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words"; this article has 609 words in the lead. So, taking out about a third would get it into the typical range for a good article. Ike9898 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)