Was Churchill a myth?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Was Churchill a myth?
Jimme 2/12/2008 1:42:36 PM

LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real. ADVERTISEMENT The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth. And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist. Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself. Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths. Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles. UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ha you goofy brits, nice to see Americans arent the only ones to to make fools of themselves on these silly surveys. This is really surprising thought because how can someone who actually existed not that long ago be thought of as a myth by a quarter of your population while half believe Sherlock Holmes was real.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

bob the brit 2/12/2008 3:05:22 PM

LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
ADVERTISEMENT

The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.

And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.

Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.

Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.

Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.

UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha you goofy brits, nice to see Americans arent the only ones to to make fools of themselves on these silly surveys. This is really surprising thought because how can someone who actually existed not that long ago be thought of as a myth by a quarter of your population while half believe Sherlock Holmes was real.

you just made yourself look like a muppet... it says UKTV gold surveyed 3,000 people [current brit population around 60,700,000] it also said 23 % [of those surveyed lets remember] thought Churchill was a myth [thus almost a quater of those surveyed]. then you translate that into 1/4 of all britons. i personally would't call 3000 people a fair sample representation of a 60,700,000 population [thus a 0.044% reresentation of the entire pop'] , would you? i'd call that a rather good example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. just jabbin' at you jimme

Quote Reply

Jimme 2/12/2008 4:04:27 PM

Actually 3000 is a LOT of people for a survey, most are usually less then 1000. If this was scientifically conducted then 3k is way more then enough to represent you entire population. US polls usually use 500-1000 people. I'm sorry to say but even fanboy AdamB can't save you guys from this one!

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Sampling the Human animal 2/12/2008 4:52:53 PM

In a population set you want to obtain 1 out of 10,000 verified responses to reduce your smear to something manageable like +/-3%.

You want trained interviewers who personally interview the subjects and you want a numeric scale questionaire to quantify confidence measures as to the certainty of the answers.

Human animals are SMART. They catch on to this polling nonsense very quickly. They LIE to pollsters. The current polling fiascoes in the US elections should be a heads up warning.

Herald

Quote Reply

flamingknives 2/12/2008 5:32:22 PM

Yes, UKTV Gold essentially means that the survey was not scientifically conducted. A similar skewed set of results conducted by telephone at the start of the 20th century was likewise flawed because the method of picking people for the survey specified a demographic rather than a true representation of society.

AdamB, however, can go and jump in a ditch. Any situation that requires him for a rescue isn't a situation I'd want to be rescued from.

Quote Reply

bob the brit 2/12/2008 5:53:52 PM

i don't care if 3000 is a lot. fact remains, 0.044% is not a resonable sample of an entire population. and you made a hasty generalization. i'm not trying to save anyone, even for 3000 people those are pretty dismal results, but 3000 isn't 60,700,000, so 1/4 of all brits isn't a proper claim.

Quote Reply

Armchair Private 2/12/2008 6:44:58 PM

3,000 is a good sample size, and would generally be considered representative. But it does depend on how the people involved were selected etc, their are policies in the UK that polling companies (self regulating) must sign up to for any results to be considered valid, anything else is a quiz, not a poll. also (a quick google) this 3,000 have been described as "people" in some places and "teenagers" in others.

I had a look for past GCSE (aimed at 16 year olds) history exam papers, couldn't see any, but found some past questions seperately, quoted here from a 2003 paper:

'Describe how Chamberlain helped to prevent war over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia in September 1938'.

'Describe how the organisation of the League of Nations was meant to keep the peace.'

'Describe Soviet involvement in Afghanistan 1979-1989.'

(Presumably not all questions start with 'describe' maybe just a type of question or standard section of a paper?)

Wonder what the average SP poster would score on those three?

Quote Reply

paul1970 2/13/2008 5:04:59 AM

its not the sample size that is the main problem..... it is who is picking the people and the time it is done. if you call homes during the day then you get stay at home mothers and the unemployed ect.... this is going to slant any poll.

I could pool 3000 people in the RAF and get you >99% on Winston Churchill....

but anyway... British education needs to put more focus back into teaching history.

Quote Reply

bob the brit 2/13/2008 11:27:33 AM

I could pool 3000 people in the RAF and get you >99% on Winston Churchill....

but anyway... British education needs to put more focus back into teaching history.

Here here.

Quote Reply

Padfoot 2/17/2008 10:22:47 PM

I wonder how many respondents were taking the piss?

What is the point of these surveys anyway?

Quote Reply

Ehran 2/19/2008 1:23:46 PM

while i would really like to support you on this bob i'm afraid jimme is right. a properly designed/executed poll can be done with a surprisingly tiny number of people. course the question of whether this was a serious poll or not is open to question. oh well at least they didn't ask about flashman.

Quote Reply

1 2