Talk:Winston Churchill (novelist)

Untitled
Information on Churchill's plays from around and after the turn of the 19th century was obtained from Internet Broadway Database. Information on his watercolors was obtained from Ask Art, a database covering American artists working in a variety of media.

WSC
Re the correspondence with Winston S Churchill : I suggest adding a reference, such as to the Oldham chapter in WSC's "My Early Life". 82.163.24.100 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Section on Confusion confuses me
Take a look at this: "Churchill met and occasionally communicated with his namesake, the British statesman and author Winston Churchill (no relation). It was the American Churchill who became famous earlier, and in the 1890s he was much better known than his British namesake"

Now, namesake refers to someone who is  named after  someone else, not people who share the same name. It's impossible for someone to be named after someone who was born 3 years later.

And then we have:

"The British Churchill, upon becoming aware of his namesake's books, wrote to him suggesting that he would sign his own works "Winston S. Churchill", using his middle name, "Spencer", to differentiate them. This suggestion was accepted, with the comment that the American Churchill would have done the same, had he any middle names."

Now the British is named after the American. Also, who is the British suggesting this to? Himself? If so, how does the American accept? I'd fix it myself, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Also, I haven't read the letter.

Thanks, The Luizer (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "namesake" is quite frequently used in the sense of "happening to have the same name" as here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A shame we can't use common words in their usual sense (according to all dictionaries of the English language - and also most American ones!!!!!) without the bleating of the ignorant - in this case probably not worth the bother, as the amended text remains clear and unambiguous, if a little verbose. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because you never heard of him!!
If the "British WC" had not led Britain through WWII - and the American WC had not retired as a writer at an early age - who can say which would have been "the" Winston Churchill in most people's minds? During their youth, while the American Winston Churchill was a best-selling American novelist - the British Winston Churchill was a totally undistinguished former army officer and journalist. At the point in the 1920s when the U.S. novelist became so disillusioned with war that he gave up writing, there was still no question that he was by far the more distinguished of the two - "our" Churchill's "first" war left him little to look back on but political and military failure. The U.S. Novelist's star gradually faded through the decades that he was producing no new novels, but even for students of British History the British statesman would have meant little were it not for the role of wartime PM that he took over in 1940.

This is just in response to a person who had apparently never heard of the American Churchill - and imagined that the British one's career was a simple "rise and rise". The paragraph he was so keen to change is actually more than fair enough. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On the other hand - another well-meaning editor wanted to delete the reference to Winston Spencer Churchill from the lead. But the fact remains that this fellow is nowadays almost totally unknown - and even his books are often ascribed to the "British bloke with the same name". LOTS of our readers "come across" this article when they are looking up the BBWTSN. Lots of our readers either never (or at least not very often) read past the lead - it really does need to mention the salient points. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@soundofmusic. I was only half way through editing and was about to complete my changes when you reverted my first edit. Perhaps I should have not assumed someone would be so quick in reading my first edit or i should have made a greater effort to do everything in one edit. Anyway, my later version is lost.

More generally, and before I try to re-do my edit, there are some issues with the article. As well as some style issues there is too much attempted comparison with WSC. This article is about the American Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest discuss changes here first rather than picking at edits on the article's main page. I was tempted to remove the entire sub section about comparison with WSC. This article is about the US man, WSC has enough about him already. We are not here to find irrelevant links. They were both good amateur painters, true. But then so are many others, and so what anyway? I think the comparison comment should be a couple of sentences at the start and that is all. The link to the 1940 article/letter is interesting and should be included, even though it says more about WSC than the US Churchill (the amusingly clever word play style) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that original confusion - but you really never know how quickly someone will get onto any changes you make. Substantial changes are often best prepared off line or in your sandbox, so they can gop in in one whack!. It seems we have totally different ideas about what constitutes a lead (or "lede") section. Last time I looked up the guidelines we were told that it was supposed to summarise the article as whole - and that provided it didn't mention anything that WASN'T featured in the main article, that one should keep references there rather than clutter the lead with them. The paragraph you cut is hardly "opinion" - it is referenced in the body of the article. I own a "reliable source" type biography of the man - we may well add a few quotes and refs from that if you feel it is necessary. Frankly, to me this man is nowadays especially of very marginal notability - we don't need an extended article about him, although I could wasily write one. He is here principally because of the coincidence of his having the same name as his very much more famous counterpart. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above went in while you were adding your bit - definitely agree it is best we discuss things here, obviously! Hope you realise I am not altering your edits just for the sake of it! To me the WSC bit is the main reason this fellow is notable (to make the point yet again!!! - --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Raising stuff on the talk page is totally another thing to starting an edit war. Sorry that I lost my cool for a moment there - but you have not made any coherent answer to the point of my argument above. Most people coming across this article will imagine it is about WSC (really) - or will even find it when they are looking for that personage. Expunging mention of WSC from the article - or in fact reducing it from what is already there - would be totally confusing and misleading. If you want to word the second paragraph differently, then be al;l means have a go - but we absolutely need something like it at that point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. The main point for its editors is the possible needs of readers. Both WCs being painters could be the main point for anyone faced with a painting by one or other of them!! Not all all far-fetched, by the way - as paintings by both certainly still exist! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I had three concerns. 1/ Basic style and grammar which is easy to fix.2/ There was a not too subtle feel of a personal essay to the article with personal opinion without citation. That has been partly fixed but not fully. It is a basic WP no-no. 3/ This article is not about WSC so reference to him should only be made if directly relevant to the US WC. At the very top it is made clear who it is about with links to other WCs - just like with thousands of other articles with the same or similar titles. To keep comparing the guy to WSC does the US WC no favours. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. According to his biography (currently buried down in "further reading") he wanted to make his pen name "Winston Churchill the American" but his publisher vetoed the idea. IF the "personal opinion" is that WCTA was much more famous that WSC in the 1890s - but that he is nowadays largely forgotten then that's nonsense. But ion any case it actually IS referenced anyway in the body of the article. If there is something else (ANYTHING else!) you feel needs a reference then please be specific and we'll find one. If its really a "basic WP no-no" then surely you can instance where and when. And MOST importantly WHY.


 * 2. The article is indeed about WCTA. BUT for our "typical reader" the fact that he happens to have the same name as WSC is the main point - the main reason the article is in Wiki. It is rather unlikely we'd even mention him for any other reason, i.e. he wouldn't even be notable enough for a Wiki article. Really. Now I have said this over and over and over, so you, or anyone else reading this thread for that matter, would be entitled to be very bored indeed with me for saying it yet again - but the point is that you haven't once presented what you could describe as a counter argument. I suspect you agree with the obvious truth of the statement but somehow don't think it's relevant - do, pray, let us know.


 * 3. We don't "keep comparing the guy to WSC". No we just don't. Read the article. We don't do it. (Sorry but I'm trying to goad you into actually discussing the point. The bulk of the article (under the heading "biography") is a 545 word account of his life and career that has nothing to do with WSC and does not mention him. This is followed by a brief (many might well say over-brief, in view of the fact that this isn't just the most important fact about him but the ONLY fact about him of any real interest whatever to a 21st century reader) of 151 words - and more than half of this is pretty relevant to both men. The single most important thing I learned from it (no, I hadn't heard of him either) was the reason for the "S" in the middle of Winnie's pen name!


 * 4. You still think WSC shouldn't get a mention in the lead (lede). But the lead SHOULD summarise the important points in the article. Still say this bit isn't important? Have to disagree - its not only the main point - its almost the only point worth making. It's hinted about in the little disambig thingee? Only very indirectly - and nobody reads them anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Pen name
Winston Spenser Churchill - the form of his pen name that the British Winston promised in his letter to the American WS WAS actually used at first! See the title page of early editions of his first works. The abbreviated form (Winston S. Churchill) was apparently quietly substituted by his publisher at quite an early stage. Frankly - NOT notable enough for mention in any of WSC's articles - much less here. But if we shy at giving tedious detail, not notable in itself - at l;east we must avoid giving directly misleading information. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote necessary?
A thoughtful and obviously well-meant edit recently removed this. One can see the reasoning - the main likely "ambiguity" - the "British statesman of the same name" is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead - and the photo of the subject of the article is obviously (one would have thought) not him. On the other hand this chap is really rather obscure, and the article is very likely to be "found" by someone looking for "another person of the same name". The hatnote is not itself ambiguous, it is short, neat, and unobtrusive, and does not seem to fall into any of the categories mentioned in WP:NAMB. It might honestly be left in place, if only on the grounds that it does absolutely no harm, even when it is strictly superfluous. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's necessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, and, and thanks for taking note of my edit. What do you guys think about this for a hatnote?
 * I would say that the above is certainly less superfluous, than the hatnote we have up right now IMHO.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that the above is certainly less superfluous, than the hatnote we have up right now IMHO.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Certainly a much more specific hatnote - focusing on one (perhaps the most likely?) source of confusion. In fact, what about:
 * Adding "of the same name" makes it just a little clearer, for someone coming across this article by accident while looking up something completely different, just what has happened, and (most likely) where to go to find what s/he was actually after.
 * But I am still wondering if the original, which while it is a bit of a blunderbus, does cover a few more bases, might on balance be preferable after all. Provided we are agreed that a hatnote here is definitely not "superfluous" I am not greatly fazed anyway, what ever you two think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I am sure the For hatnote will serve readers without inconvenience, in future. Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I am sure the For hatnote will serve readers without inconvenience, in future. Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of WSC in lead
This is important, if only to avoid confusion between the two. Facts mentioned in Lead are dealt in detail (and in fact cited) later in the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article and assume you refer to the section about WSC (UK). There are some things mentioned that they had in common and a citation that cannot be properly viewed because there is no page number. Also, what they had in common is so not notable it almost amounts to trivia. Whatever, the lead should only carry the most important points of the main article. That comment in the lead took up about 25% of the lead which is well above its importance. I think this article should play down the connection with the UK man, who has his own article, and focus more on the US guy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The reasons it's in the lead (and for that matter the reason it's in the article at all) is that this fellow, while once a very well known novelist (much better known even than WSC when they were both young) is now almost totally forgotten. Alas, this is what happens to most writers of popular fiction! Except that he had the same rather unlikely name as someone else altogether he quite probably wouldn't even rate a Wikipedia article. In fact he is so very obscure that most people coming across his name, either somewhere like this article, or on the spine of an antique book, do a little double take (I must admit I did myself!). None the less his article very properly DOES focus on him - if fact if you read it carefully you will notice that most of the the stuff about the "English guy" - even what might look like "trivia" in another context - is there for the purpose of making as sure as we can people don't get them mixed up. Citations are another matter - this fellow is rather difficult when it comes to cites, as has been stated. Some of the citations we have may well be in need of a little further research - but just from memory some of them are not very academic, in fact not necessary even paginated! Someone once did what should have been a proper biography, but unfortunately it is not very academic either. Altogether a hard one, this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Chris Churchill
This is genuine - I have been in touch with the gentleman concerned. I have explained that we are seeking a reference, and asked him if he has something (like a reference in a column of his) we can use. Any regular readers of his, or fellow cits. of his with access to his paper's archives? not exactly high notability but a nice personal touch. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)