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)