Talk:Winston Churchill as a writer

Churchill as historian section

I have removed the information that was recently added as it was not supported by any citations. As this is a piece of Featured content, any additions should be at the same standard. This new information isn't. Poorly written, badly structed and without citations, it should not be re-added without re-writing, trimming and being supported with citations, per WP:BURDEN. For those who are unaware, WP:BURDEN is one of WP's policies. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

BURDEN includes: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Another site policy is WP:CON and your WP:POINT is not a consensus. The merger was completed less than three weeks ago by Klbrain who had consensus to move the content from Winston Churchill as historian (now a redirect) per agreement reached at Talk:Winston Churchill as writer#Merge Winston Churchill as writer here.

I object to removal of content added in good faith by Klbrain who was following due process. Per BURDEN, I am restoring it with a no sources banner to highlight the issue. The IP claims to be a former editor but there is no proof that they are bona fide and they have no consensus to remove this content.

I'm prepared to edit the content myself over the next few days as I have access to several relevant sources. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted again. Neither WP:CONSENSUS and WP:MERGE allow uncited (and poorly written) information to be added. In other words, the POLICY of WP:BURDEN takes precedent to the guidelines. This is featured content, so WP:FAOWN also applies alongside WP:BURDEN. If you are prepared to add sources, then do so, but don't add unsourced information onto featured content. You are free to object to its removal as much as you want, but you should try looking to the policies. As to "proof that [I am] bona fide", that's not the way WP:AGF works. I could make comments about someone adding unsourced information onto any article, let alone featured work, but my AGF is sufficient to allow that you will add such citations and re-write the poor text. The removed information is not important to an understanding of the subject and it is still available for you to access in the history, so some of it (only the relevant pieces) can be re-added once you have citations to support it.

I do not know why you refer to WP:POINT: it is unconnected to this situation. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Are There Men on the Moon?

I wrote a short article on an interesting Churchill essay which received considerable media attention in 2017 titled Are There Men on the Moon? Would it be appropriate to add it here and if so where? Thanks! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Fiction section incomplete

The novel A Far Country (1915) is missing, although it has its own article. 68.205.210.115 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

See The American novelist of the same name (Winston Churchill (novelist)) - yes, there really was such a person, and he is the author of this novel, as clearly stated at the head of "its own article". Just in case someone else is similarly confused.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move per WP:NATURAL along with Winston Churchill as painter to Winston Churchill as a painter per WP:CONSISTENT. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Winston Churchill as writer → Winston Churchill as a writer – "Winston Churchill as writer" is confusing and makes no sense. It would make more sense to be titled "Winston Churchill as a writer". 92.9.187.249 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC) 92.9.187.249 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - as with Winston Churchill as painter, it is fine as it is. KJP1 (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Current title makes no grammatical sense. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. "as a writer" is a more WP:NATURAL way of stating the list's subject. Although I couldn't find any other articles with a similar titling format aside from Winston Churchill as painter, the proposed spelling is grammatically correct and probably more likely for readers to search up. Also, saying that it is "fine as-is" isn't a policy based argument. Fathoms Below (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom, current doesn't make sense. Although both this and Winston Churchill as painter should be consistent with each other and moved together as there are simultaneous RMs by the IP but they weren't combined. DankJae 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments have carried on after closing at Talk:Winston Churchill as a painter § Requested move 17 October 2024, which had less support than this RM. Ham II (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• Winston Churchill as a writer → Winston Churchill as writer
• Winston Churchill as a painter → Winston Churchill as painter

– The indefinite article is unnecessary and unhelpful. Article titles should prioritise conciseness and clarity while remaining natural and grammatically correct. The previous titles were already succinctly communicating the subject matter without additional linguistic clutter.

The phrase "as writer" or "as painter" is not ungrammatical but rather reflective of a common stylistic choice that is clear and idiomatic in its own right. Similar constructions are frequently used in literature and academia: for instance, David Cannadine's Churchill: The Statesman As Artist. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: Maybe it's a stylistic choice, but it's one I am not familiar with. To me, the proposed titles seem ungrammatical. Perhaps it's a WP:ENGVAR matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  These are titles, not prose. It's the very same reason the United States article isn't named The United States. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  "United States" is the name of a place. The current article titles are descriptions, not proper nouns, and therefore should be held to the same grammatical rules as prose. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Titles, by their very nature, are not beholden to the full grammatical conventions of sentence structure. Adding the indefinite article introduces unnecessary length and reduces the titles' readability without offering any substantive improvement in comprehension. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Seriously? We had this discussion less than a month ago. Is there nothing else at all you can find to do with your time? It's not surprising we have such a problem with incivility when some editors are such obvious so-and-sos. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't even notice how recent the previous RMs were. I suggest a speedy procedural close and to wait a year or so before revisiting the decision. If something about the previous RMs was improper, the way to appeal them is WP:MR, not WP:RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  There haven't been enough RMs here to justify a moratorium. Nor was there any actual consensus to move the page in the prior request, so if this RM is indeed closed procedurally, I'll take the previous move to MR. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  There was one oppose and three supports, plus the nom. You say that isn't consensus, the closer says it is. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's hardly a consensus, and the RM ought to have been relisted. The arguments in favour were extremely weak. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sez you. So take it to WP:MR. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, seriously, so assume good faith please. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion. You could just as easily direct your question of Is there nothing else at all you can find to do with your time? to the IP who introduced this move in the first place. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The IP wasn't revisiting something decided very recently. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose - agree with Duncan Hill's above question: seriously? The present title is far more WP:NATURAL than the proposed/former titles. The proposed/former titles aren't substantially more concise to justify sacrificing naturalness. The example cited by the nom is a proper noun as the title of a work: the current titles are descriptive titles and not proper "names" per se. Also support a speedy procedural close per BarrelProof. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. The indefinite article in these titles is redundant and counterproductive, cluttering the title without adding value. Article titles are not casual conversational statements. NATURAL encourages titles that reflect how topics are commonly referred to in reliable sources. Phrases like Winston Churchill as writer or Winston Churchill as painter are more idiomatic and consistent with established usage in similar contexts, including academic and literary references. Cannadine demonstrates that this structure is perfectly natural and widely understood. Adding the indefinite article does not make the titles more "natural", it simply makes them longer and unnecessarily verbose. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• close nothing has changed in the last month—blindlynx 21:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• Winston Churchill as a writer → Writing career of Winston Churchill
• Winston Churchill as a painter → Painting career of Winston Churchill

– WP:TITLECON, far more common formulation per similar titles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Now it's just getting silly and disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's absolutely nothing "silly and disruptive" about it. It's an infinitely more logical title format. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was just discussed a short while ago. The current title is already WP:CONCISE. Theparties (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  These are new titles that were not discussed at all. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - have we really no better contributions to make than this? KJP1 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - again I agree with @DuncanHill. This second proposal being made just 24 hours after the first was closed screams WP:GAMENAME to me. In any case, the proposed titles could be misleading as most similar titles that the nom mentioned are about a subject's principal career(s) (eg. Business career of Donald Trump, US Senate career of Joe Biden. At the very least, Churchill's painting was only a hobby. His writing could be considered a "career", but I think it's best this two titles remain WP:CONSISTENT with each other. The current titles are more also WP:CONCISE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.