Talk:Winston Churchill as writer

Step by Step
Step by Step: 1936–1939 is listed under "Speeches", yet my copy describes it as a collection of articles, or letters. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge Winston Churchill as writer here
As has already been on the Winston Churchill as a historian page since January now, I propose that the pages should be merged.

The historian page doesn't have any content on it, has one source if memory recalls and is primarily original research. As well as that this page of him as a writer already covers his actions as a historian.

I see no reason why the pages should be kept separate especially when the historian page is incredibly sparse. Dubarr18 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the terms 'historian' and 'writer' are two different topics. The page is not that sparse as it includes several important book series that Churchill wrote as a historian. He covered World War I and World War II in definitive works like few others. Keeping both articles is an accurate representation of Churchill's work and does justice to his varied careers. In fact, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for "his mastery of historical and biographical description". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * His Noble Prize in literature and his entire works in historical literature are already covered on the page of him as a writer. On this writer page they are also all properly citated and referenced. The page if him as a Historian has no such citations and all round is a very poor article as noted above. There is no reason to keep it around when another article already covers all of it's content and is much higher quality overall.Dubarr18 (talk)
 * Support, If you search “historian,” it’s related to writing. I can’t find a good reason to prevent this page from merging. For starters, historian’s write about their experience’s (mostly) and this article is no exception. If you oppose this merging, please consider this. This is a basic argument. AndroidRedrafting (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unless the historian article can soon be revised and substantially improved. There is a content overlap which may justify a merger, but the historian article has serious issues including OR. While I agree with Randy's point that a historian should ideally be treated separately, in this case I think it would be more practical to merge. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)



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 who had consensus to move the content from Winston Churchill as historian (now a redirect) per agreement reached at Talk:Winston Churchill as writer.
 * 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)