Talk:Winston Churchill (novelist)

message: 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)
thread_title:  WSC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Confusion confuses me 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pen name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention of WSC in lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chris Churchill