Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

Is there any reason that this page is at Winston Spencer Churchill and not Winston Spencer-Churchill, or can it be moved? Proteus (Talk) 22:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is the correct version "Spencer-Churchill"? I thought there was no hyphen. However equally I can't recall this Churchill being called WSC - that name is more commonly associated with his grandfather's books which included Spencer (to distinguish from "Winston Churchill the American"). Dare we go for "Winston Churchill (grandson)? Timrollpickering 08:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have Charles de Gaulle (grandson). so.... Morwen 08:22, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
This one's "Winston Churchill", not "Spencer-Churchill", as per Burke's (sub Marlborough). "Spencer" might in his case be a middle name rather than part of a surname. So "Winston Spencer Churchill" (no hyphen) might be correct, but we know "Winston Churchill" is right. - Nunh-huh 08:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of them here, where it appears that Winston Sr. is known simply as "C", but his less distinguished relatives are "S-C" Mmartins 10:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name is formally "Spencer Churchill" or "Spencer Churchill" (the hyphen has a habit of appearing and disappearing) since the early 19th century. However Lord Randolph Churchill believed a double barrelled name would be a disadvantage (this wasn't the only thing he was wrong about!!!) and so he and his descendants in politics used "Churchill". I don't know if he formally changed the name, though it wouldn't affect other branches of the family. Winston the War PM added "Spencer" only on his books to disambiguate them from the American author, and I've seen books by both the later Randolph and the later Winston using both versions. However when the grandson was in Parliament he was always called "Winston Churchill". So I say copy de Gaulle and go for the grandson option. Timrollpickering 08:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe this article should be moved to Winston Churchill (1940–2010), with Winston Churchill (born 1940) made into a redirect. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Winston Churchill (1940–2010) or Winston Churchill (born 1940). The current name Winston Churchill(grandson) is terrible: I have it on good authority that the original Winston Churchill was also someone's grandson.-AlexTG (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Years in article titles are only much use to people already familiar with the dates for individuals and unhelpful for others. The younger Winston was pretty much always identified and disambiguated in the media as the grandson of the wartime PM and that seems the natural way to go. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How about Winston Churchill (Conservative politician) or Winston Churchill (Conservative MP)? The grandson thing really isn't very helpful - everyone (male) is someone's grandson! He may well be famous as being the grandson of a better known owner of the name, but it's a bit disingenuous to define him as such. And yes, his grandfather was also both of the things that I've suggested, but is sufficiently famous to be known by name alone. Ultimately, a link to his grandfather's article is right there in line one in case anyone goes wrong. danno 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just get this moved to Winston Churchill (1940–2010). Unfortunately there is no other obvious way do disambiguate this from Winston Churchill, as both were Conservative MPs. Someone had already attempted this move four years ago and was reverted, but the action created a redirect. I'll look into Wikipedia:Requested moves. djr13 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace[edit]

Ref 2 Express says London; ref 7 Guardian obit says Chequers. Jim Michael (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From GRO Name: Winston S Churchill Mother's Maiden Surname: Digby Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1940 Registration district: Wycombe Registration county: Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Middlesex Volume Number: 3a Page Number: 2870

(as an aside there were 6 Winston Churchill's born in 1940) 86.176.12.58 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) CMICHAEL[reply]

Well then it might make sense to cite this additional source. Otherwise, we need to agree with the sources cited. The infobox also said chequers. It certainly could be that the Independent got it wrong. So what is "GRO" anyway, something published by the General Register Office? W Nowicki (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Colville (Churchill's wartime Private Secretary) in his diary on 12 October 1940, says he (Colville) was at Chequers that day and that Churchill's grandson had been born there two days earlier. I am not adding this reference because the article's information is correct (dare I say "true") and adequately referenced. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next generation?[edit]

I'm sure many people would be interested to know the current state of the dynasty. His eldest son is not far off fifty. Do we know anything about him? Is there a new generation? 86.143.232.183 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with you. Time is getting on.--Brenont (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The younger younger Randolph is generally not a public figure but does have children, including an eldest son called Winston, continuing the Winton/Randolph alteration into a sixth generation. [1] Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill (born 1940) → Winston Churchill (1940–2010) – Subject died in 2010. No other obvious way to disambiguate from Winston Churchill than by birth/death date, as both had been Conservative MPs. djr13 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - uncontroversial. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular objection to this, but if there is only one "Winston Churchill" who was born in 1940, why do we need to mention the year of death? We have titles for dead subjects that only note their birth year, e.g. Tom Hughes (pitcher, born 1878). bd2412 T 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be correct, the suggestion seems to be to refer according to birth or death depending on which has a "higher recognisability," with no mention whatsoever of "birth–death": Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. There doesn't seem to be a convention against using both for greater context and clarity. (I think the suggestion to use just one, for deceased subjects, is a terrible convention, although this obviously isn't the place to raise that broader concern. For here it's just whether this is or isn't desirable for this article.) djr13 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with Djr13 that the use of the birth year alone for deceased subjects is misleading, except in cases where the year of birth is sufficiently remote from present such that it implies the subject is deceased (as is the case with BD2412's example.) In the case of this Winston Churchill, proper notation of his death in the article title is warranted. Xoloz (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lifetimes should be used for all biographical articles that need year disambiguation whenever possible -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but support Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940) per WP:NCPDAB. When we do have to resort to years for disambiguation, birth year alone is preferable because we won't need to move a page when the subject dies. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it bad to move the page when the subject dies? Articles already normally receive extra attention upon the death of their subject. A page move could become as routine as adding the template:recent death. Xoloz (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While there are tons of good reasons for moving pages, moves still involve a certain amount of disruption (cf. WP:TITLECHANGES), so changing existing practice to encourage such moves strikes me as an incredibly counterproductive measure. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In a case such as this one, I fear that having the birth year alone in the title creates the misimpression that the subject still lives. I consider the prevention of that misimpression more important than the technical disruptions caused by the move. I fully confess that I may not appreciate the scope of technical disruptions, however. Xoloz (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Journalism career[edit]

The article currently says:

In the 1950s he covered conflict in Yemen and Borneo, and in the 1960s the Vietnam War.

Churchill was born in 1940, so for the entirety of the 1950s he was either a child or a teenager. Was he really off covering foreign wars (in Yemen and Borneo) as a journalist? Perhaps the wording could be modified by someone who knows the relevant details to give specifics about the years he spent there. --Saforrest (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Daily Telegraph obituary which someone has included as a source refers to these journalistic assignments, but there is no indication that he moonlighted as a journalist while he was a schoolboy. Several sources say he attended Eton, which normally would have covered him from ages 13 to 18, and then that he attended Oxford University where he got a fourth class degree. I didn't know Oxford did fourth class degrees, but it's in the Daily Telegraph, so ... maybe they did back then. Anyhow, that would normally have taken him three years, so from ages 19 to 22. Which takes us well into the 1960s. It's not impossible that he worked at some stage as a journalist in the university vacation, but it would be ... very unusual. Anyhow, it's not what the sources I found say. I'll adjust the text appropriately unless someone else has got in first. Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rommel gag"?[edit]

Under the heading "Early life: political career", the third sentence of the second paragraph states "When visiting an engineering firm he was again met by the Rommel gag, highlighting as his father had told him of the comparative disadvantage in his name." I am at a loss to understand what the phrase "the Rommel gag" means. A Google search turns up essentially nothing for that phrase, so apparently it is not a common figure of speech. Can anyone explain? Bricology (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bricology, see his Telegraph obituary here, [2]. What it's saying is that, on introducing himself as Winston Churchill, he received the disbelieving/mocking response, "Yes and I'm Erwin Rommel". It could perhaps be more clearly expressed. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The example in the Telegraph obit is from some squaddies after the Gulf War, not at an engineering firm early in his career. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the "Rommel gag" is the same. I wasn't offering as a source, just as an explanation for the gag in response to the enquiry. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2019[edit]

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 section.

Not moved. See a pretty fair general agreement below to not requalify this article's title. Other different disambiguators have been suggested, so there does not appear to be consensus for a different qualifier looming in the near future. Excellent args all around. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill (1940–2010) → Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940) – The current name contains a non-standard disambiguator that is not per WP:NCPDAB standards. The proposed title would both 1) distinguish the subject of this article from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Winston Churchill and 2) comply with WP:NCPDAB disambiguation standards. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 16:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  22:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: in an effort to garner consensus, members of associated WikiProjects have been notified of this requested move discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Winston Churchill (born 1940). I'm concerned that having "politician" as the descriptor will be more likely to confuse readers, as the most well known politician by this name is his grandfather. I've read over WP:NCPDAB, and the last paragraph states: "For historical figures for whom there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death. For historical figures, this will often be the date of death, when it is better known, more certain, or is more recognisable than their date of birth. Example: George Heriot and George Heriot (died 1610)." The example doesn't use the descriptor of "goldsmith" I assume because the most famous goldsmith of that name was his son. So that leads me to conclude that Winston Churchill (born 1940) would be the best title for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NCPDAB states that "...For historical figures for whom there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death.". For this subject "(politician)" would seem to clearly be the necessary dominant/practical qualifier for it. In the aforementioned example with George Heriot and George Heriot (died 1610), they do not have "qualifiers" since they had multiple roles which they were notable for, so just calling them "(politician)" or the like would not make sense; the oppose holds true with the subject of this article proposed to be moved since he was essentially solely notable for his role as a "politician". Steel1943 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was only a backbench MP. I'd say he's far more notable as Sir Winston Churchill's grandson and namesake than as a politician in his own right. Opera hat (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Emphasis added. Opera hat (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a pretty notable and long-serving backbench MP. I think it's unfair to say he was more notable as Sir Winston's grandson and namesake. He was certainly notable as a politician in his own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to suggest Winston Churchill (grandson of the Prime Minister) as another option, but I'm guessing you wouldn't support that! Opera hat (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Standard disambiguator in these circumstances: occupation and DOB. He certainly was a politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NCPDAB says that the "qualifier, born XXXX" format should only be used when all other options are exhausted. An alternative way to disambiguate would be by the constituency he represented: Winston Churchill (Stretford MP), Winston Churchill (Davyhulme MP) or even Winston Churchill (Greater Manchester politician), which would cover both. (His more famous grandfather was MP for Manchester North West in the 1900s, but Greater Manchester did not exist until 1974.) Opera hat (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would normally agree, but given he was MP for two different constituencies, both for a considerable period of time, this is not really feasible. "Greater Manchester MP" is an artificial construct that does not distinguish him from his grandfather in any case, given "Greater Manchester" could be taken to refer to the conurbation at any time. The "occupation, born XXXX" version is surely better than the "XXXX−XXXX" version? The latter really should only be used when all other options are exhausted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about Greater Manchester, but why is using one of the constituency names not feasible? It wouldn't really matter which, though he represented Davyhulme more recently and for slightly longer. Opera hat (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Winston Churchill (born 1940) per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about this since I first saw this RM some time ago, and frankly I can't see a good way of disambiguating him. I would incline to "Winston Churchill (born 1940)" being perhaps the least-worst of the options suggested. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NCPDAB says that when a single use of date of birth or death is used, for historical people it should usually be the date of death, so Winston Churchill (died 2010). He was more notable when he died in 2010 than he was when he was born in 1940. Opera hat (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. WP:NCPDAB says to use date of birth/death by itself for "...historical figures for whom there is no dominant qualifier". The subject's "dominate qualifier" is "politician", so using "(politician, born 1940)" is preferred over just "(born 1940)" or "(died 2010)". The policy even seems to prefer using the date of birth over the date of death when the date of birth is known. Steel1943 (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That's three people now who are backing Winston Churchill (born 1940), so would appear not to agree with you that "politician" is the dominant, or a practical, qualifier. I wrote "when a single use of date of birth or death is used" (and this is the option with the most support so far) "for historical people it should usually be the date of death", as this is more recognisable: people are almost always more famous when they die than they are when they are born. If consensus is swinging towards a single date, I think Winston Churchill (died 2010) would be better than Winston Churchill (born 1940). Opera hat (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "Politician" doesn't add anything of value, as I think there was at least one other Winston Churchill who was a politician. A date of birth seems to me to fix someone more securely in time than a date of death. DuncanHill (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm reluctant to drop the "politician", but if necessary.... Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article says that “Winston Churchill MP” is often used as his name. Would that work? Another option: Winston Churchill, Jr.? Or even, Winston Spencer-Churchill? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • His parliamentary career didn't overlap on his grandfather's life, but the "MP" distinction hasn't applied since 1997 and in any case is useless for distinguishing two historic figures. Ditto the full surname - all this branch of the family generally use(d) "Churchill" with "Spencer Churchill" (nobody's been able to agree about the hyphenation which is another obstacle) in some contexts, so again it's more associated with his grandfather. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current is perfect. Not a standard disambiguator? Well that’s stupid, it should be. People not particularly famously notable for anything are best disambiguated by birth/death years. Both, birth-death, is actually most concise, and standard, is particularly suitable for people who could be alive, and is suitable for all long dead people if both birth and death years are known. Definitely don’t move per TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...WP:TITLECHANGES? Interesting ... it says to use Wikipedia:Requested moves for controversial discussions ... which I did ... so don't move it per ... umm ... I don't see what you are referring to in there. Are you proposing to shut down Wikipedia:Requested moves? Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don’t do pointless fiddling. Page moves break all sorts of things. Name (born-died) is a perfectly good recognised consistent style, one of very few real world uses of parentheses. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider attempting to conform with established naming standards. That, and thanks to redirects, page moves don't break things. (Either way, thanks for clarifying since I found that previous statement a bit enigmatic.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On-wiki things are mostly looked after, downstream offsite uses are not. Human memory, personal bookmarks, saved versions, printed copies, and all forms of reuse. NB. Strong oppose to “politician”, he was not world-remarkable unlike his grandfather, and strong oppose “MP” as not distinguishing from his grandfather. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article has been on a bit of a tour over the years. At various times it has been at:
Much of the problem stems from the younger Winston never really making a mark in politics - he was a long serving backbencher but was largely known to the wider world because of his name rather than his actual career. Even his most prominence in his last years in Parliament came because of family matters and I'm not sure Winston Churchill (National Lottery winner without buying a ticket) would be terribly NPOV. I guess the current title is the least worst option, regardless of whether it fits the letter of naming conventions. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just do not get why we are making an exception for him from our standard disambiguator in these circumstances, which would be Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940)! That's the form we use for everybody else who needs disambiguating, so why is he different? Is it because he had a famous name? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: You tell us, you're the one who moved it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because that was the consensus at the previous RM and we're bound by consensus. I didn't support that decision and would have supported the move now proposed if I'd taken part in the previous debate. We now have an opportunity to move it to the correct title by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the logs of the various titles, this, this, this, this, this, and this, we really should stop buggering about with this page. The logs and the history of moves are getting to the point that we should seriously think about a ban on any further moves or even move discussions. It's not helping. I haven't found all the RM discussions alluded to, the only previous one on this page is from 2014. DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we should move it to the standard disambiguator and leave it there! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940)? Why not? Do you not read that as answered above? He is not primarily notable as a politician, but as a grandson of his namesake. Born 1940? That implies he is still alive. 1940-2010 is perfect disambiguation. Recently alive, but now dead. If our standard disambiguator routinely identifies dead people as living, it is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's known as a politician. He was an MP for years. I clearly remember him as a politician. So, you don't agree with WP:NCPDAB then? Because occupation and year of birth is the standard way to disambiguate there. You may think it is "stupid", but that's the way we do it and you thinking it's "stupid" is, with all due respect, irrelevant to the fact that's the long-established method of doing it that we seem to be ignoring in this debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Politician" is not practical because his grandfather is much better known as a politician, as a disambiguator it fails. Disambiguating by occupation is great, if it works. Disambiguating by birth year implies a living person. "Long established method" is a really bad argument, especially where there are obvious unstated assumptions, such as is the person historic (known by years active and year of death), or a living person, or in between. The following are all perfectly disambiguated in keeping with real world styling that readers know and understand: Anna of Saxony (1567–1613), Princess Anna of Saxony (1836–1859), Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976), Princess Anna of Saxony (1929–2012). For the recently deceased, the year of death is likely the most helpful disambiguator over occupation and birth year. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have, I think, four Winston Churchills, of whom three were politicians. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
""Politician" is not practical because his grandfather is much better known as a politician, as a disambiguator it fails.". Yes, that's why I'm proposing Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940) as our standard disambiguator! Good grief! As for the rest, you're arguing against the guidelines, which support the form I've just stated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, I think the guideline you are citing is meant to be implemented evenly, as it is at this moment with Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1927) and Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955), and not when one of the names has been deemed primary. Havradim (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline WP:NCPDAB doesn't actually support the proposed title. It says "failing a practical single qualifier, the disambiguator can be expanded with a second qualifier" and gives the example of Roger Taylor (Queen drummer)—not Roger Taylor (drummer, born 1949). As the most obvious primary qualifier here, politican or MP, could apply to at least three people of this name, standard practice in similar cases is to add a second, geographic qualifier, e.g. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme MP) as I suggested above. WP:NCPDAB says that only when "the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers" should the date of birth be added to the primary qualifier. It can be resolved in a more straightforward manner, so to move to Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940) would go against WP:NCPDAB. Opera hat (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and as for other guidelines: WP:CRITERIA says that article titles should be concise: no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Winston Churchill (1940–2010), Winston Churchill (born 1940) and Winston Churchill (died 2010) are all the same length and all unambiguously identify the subject. WP:PRECISION says that titles should be precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more precise than that - adding "politician" is needlessly precise when using the date or birth or death alone unambiguously identifies its subject. And as for WP:CONSISTENCY, titles should be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. I just checked the categories for Churchill's contemporaries from Category:UK MPs 1970–1974 through to Category:UK MPs 1992–1997 and only one(!) article out of the hundreds, John Wells (British politician, born 1925), used the proposed format. The form of disambiguation most consistent with similar articles would be to use a constituency name. So different guidelines could be used to argue for different titles, but none of them supports the title proposed in this RM. Opera hat (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Interesting that you chose to quote only the following from WP:NCPDAB regarding how it works, stating that the date of birth should be added to the primary qualifier only when "the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers". The entire sentence from WP:NCPDAB states, in full, states the following: "Where the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers, e.g. for the two notable poker players called David Baker, date of birth can be added in this format: [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]].". So, there are now multiple claims and disputes regarding what the disambiguator should be to a point where "...the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner..." definitely applies in this case, and WP:NCPDAB states in casss like this to use [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]] as a disambiguator in this case ... which would be "(politician, born 1940)". So, I have no idea why you are claiming that "...none of [the mentioned guidelines] supports (sic) the title proposed in this RM" when WP:NCPDAB states almost plain as day and supports that the a disambiguator such as "(politician, born 1940)" could be used in a case such as this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of using full quotes: Where the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers, e.g. for the two notable poker players called David Baker, date of birth can be added in this format: "Name (qualifier, born YYYY)". A comma should be used, and born should not be abbreviated to b., so: David Baker (poker player, born 1972) and David Baker (poker player, born 1986). The precise implementation of the above would be Winston Churchill (politician, born 1873) and Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940). Havradim (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Havradim: Minor touché there. A monkey wrench gets thrown into that thought when one has to consider the subject currently at the title Winston Churchill is the obvious primary topic. Either way, I'm going to create Winston Churchill (politician, born 1873) Winston Churchill (politician, born 1874) now as a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed birth year. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Timrollpickering. As others have pointed out, putting "politician" immediately after his name would be very confusing. This article should be left as is. Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth would it be confusing to use Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940)? Might someone confuse a politician born in 1940 with the famous Winston Churchill?! Maybe he was a few months old when he became PM and five when the war finished! The most precocious person of all time! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, firstly, your comment does nothing to indicate what is wrong with the current title. Secondly, we usually use the title "born" in articles only for someone who is still alive. That is what it implies. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...we usually use the title "born" in articles only for someone who is still alive..." I'm sorry, but that is just not true. The "(...born ####)" is preferred over and used over "(...died ####)" whenever the birthdate is known. Using "died" instead of "born" primarily occurs when the subject's birth date is unknown. Using "born" over "died" and vice versa in disambiguators is not dependent on the subject being alive or not. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm I was talking about doing things the way we have it in the title of this article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "...I was talking about doing things the way we have it in the title of this article." That was not clear in the statement you made in the least. That, and I am also not understanding what you mean anyways. To me, it sounds like you are saying "don't change the title's disambiguator since the proposal is different than the title's current disambiguator" ... which, to me, is not a strong reason to keep it where it is, especially given the multiple WP:NCPDAB issues with it I have pointed out thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Winston Churchill (died 2010) per Opera hat. Policy should be followed, but what to do in this case if both were politicians and both were associated strongly with the 1940s. Ergo, both (1940-2010) and (politician, born 1940) don't work for me. Although upon close inspection no one would really confuse the two, WP:LEAST tells me that we ought to employ the KISS principle. I would invoke WP:IAR anytime the normal rule isn't really working, but the case of George Heriot (died 1610) invoked in WP:NCPDAB (and mentioned above) is instructive: Similar occupations, with the seemingly less notable subject being dabbed by death date—there because birth date isn't clear, and here because birth date is, well, confusing. Havradim (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. We use the date of death for Heriot because we don't know his year of birth for sure! But why is this Winston Churchill's birth date in any way confusing? I should have thought it was a clear disambiguator if he was born in the year that his grandfather became Prime Minister! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'm looking for Winston Churchill and I see Winston Churchill (politician, born 1940) or even just Winston Churchill (born 1940), I might click (at first glance—the eyes can play tricks on us) on those thinking that Winston Churchill is less specific and the other ones are the target. There is a far less chance of this happening with Winston Churchill (died 2010) because there can be no mistaking the two centuries. The same cannot be said for 1940, as you yourself have pointed out he was born in the year that his grandfather became Prime Minister. Havradim (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but people not reading things correctly is just not a good reason to go against standard practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just adding that the above option is the only one mentioned clearly in NCPDAB in a case of two similar historical figures (both George Heriot, both goldsmiths) where one remains primary and the other disambiguated. Havradim (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: As I see that the discussion for this seems to be kind of everywhere, I have a thought/question: Is there a form of natural disambiguation (with no disambiguator) for the subject of this article that would differentiate the subject from Winston Churchill? Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source [3] seems to imply we can use Winston Churchill Jr. The Wall Street Journal is more explicit with ...better known as Winston Churchill Jr., but I couldn't find the link. It's not much, but maybe enough to not be made up. A more COMMON but far worse option is Winston Churchill's grandson. Havradim (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never commonly known as Winston Churchill Jr in his own country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Necrothesp on this point. Opera hat (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles use (yyyy - yyyy)?
Winston Churchill (Davyhulme MP) looks like it may as well be Winston Churchill (not the real one). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not the whole point of disambiguation when we have a primary topic? It's very odd that a special case appears to be being made for this person just because he had a famous name. For British MPs, we usually disambiguate as "politician", "British politician", "English (or Scottish etc) politician", "[Party] politician", "[Constituency] MP", and "politician, born XXXX", in that order. Since the first four obviously don't serve to disambiguate him from his grandfather, we can default to constituency. Usually I don't like doing this when an MP has represented two constituencies for more or less equal periods, but given the circumstances... -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have disambiguated hundreds of British MP articles. Strange how controversy over this method of disambiguation, which has always worked perfectly well, only begins when we come across someone with a famous name! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must realise though that his notoriety is the cause of all the problems—there are historical icons the names of whom we don't want to botch. Otherwise we could have had Winston Churchill (prime minister) alongside Winston Churchill (parliamentarian) with scarcely a problem. I don't quite like the Davyhulme MP either but I could agree on it. Havradim (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly like it myself, but I think (and the guidelines say) it is to be preferred to the proposed title. Opera hat (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and keep current title. The proposed title "Winston Churchill (born 1940)" or "Winston Churchill (politician born 1940)" reads as if the person is still alive. When we see lists of names (for example in the index of a reference book), we are used to seeing them as bbbb-dddd for deceased individuals and born bbbb or bbbb- for those still living. Therefore the proposed change introduces a confusion where none exists at present, and does nothing to improve the disambig function as the current title clearly serves to distinguish him from his grandfather.
And the "politician" part is otiose as we are not concerned with distinguishing him from a cricketer, a comedian or a musician, but from a (more famous) politician. There is nothing wrong with the name the article is currently at and the proposal should probably be closed. Sussexonian (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sussexonian I agree with all your points to the exclusion of this one (emphasis mine): ...the proposed change introduces a confusion where none exists at present, and does nothing to improve the disambig function as the current title clearly serves to distinguish him from his grandfather. This might have been true if we also had Winston Churchill (1873-1965) Winston Churchill (1874-1965) to compare to. It would also be in keeping with precedent, such as in the example Princess Anna of Saxony (1903-1976) and Princess Anna of Saxony (1929-2012) mentioned above. But Winston Churchill is so powerful an historic icon that we don't want to add that descriptor. In WP:NCPDAB it states Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)... It is not a stretch to imagine a young student having some difficulty with the dates, especially with nothing else to compare them to. Havradim (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A student who is even slightly familiar with Wikipedia practice will understand that the very notable Winston has no disambiguator attached. And seeing that your proposal is to add the year of death but no birth I don't see how your objection does not apply to your own proposal too. It might be best to use Winston Churchill Jr (which is seen occasionally) or Winston Churchill (grandson) (which is ugly but clearly identifies who the subject is) - but I'm not proposing either of those as they don't seem to have any support here. Sussexonian (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this point above; (died 2010) is the only date-based title from a different century altogether, greatly minimising any confusion, and it seems (to me) to be strongly policy-based. But Winston Churchill Jr. is the silver bullet, although so far there is no consensus for it. Havradim (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Winston Churchill Jr." would be a completely made up name. It implies the son of a man with the same name, which is rare these days in the UK (Ian Paisley Jr and Roy Beggs Jr are the only British politicians who spring to mind and both are actually called that). Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Political career - questionable statements[edit]

There are a few statements in the "Political career" section of the article that could be seen as dubious. Firstly, the claim relating to his failure in the 1967 Manchester Gorton by-election "spite of the unpopularity of the incumbent Labour government, he lost, but only by 577 votes" suggests (perhaps unintentionally) that this was a poor result. In fact he still achieved a swing of over 9% and Gorton was considered a safe seat for Labour. Secondly the claim "Churchill resumed the family tradition of protecting Ulster Unionism" is contentious as his grandfather, Winston Churchill's record on this was mixed as he was seen as an opponent of Ulster Unionism in the years leading up to the Great War when he was in Asquith's Liberal Government. That said Lord Randolph Churchill had been a strong Unionist in the 19th century (and indeed in the 1910s Winston Churchill's attitudes were contrasted with those of his father). Most problematic is the claim "Boundary changes which took effect at the 1983 general election made his seat more marginal (it was subsequently taken by the Labour Party), and he transferred to the nearby Davyhulme constituency". Actually Davyhulme was a new constituency in 1983 which included parts of Churchill's Stretford seat, notably Urmston. The post 1983 Stretford was very different to its predecessor and the estimates produced for the BBC and ITN prior to the 1983 election suggested that had the new boundries been used in 1979 it would have been won by Labour with a majority of over 3,000. Saying it was more marginal is an understatement. Dunarc (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal[edit]

In either 1958 or 1959, Winston was a summer intern on the copy desk of the Wall Street Journal. 74.105.130.157 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winston_Churchill_(1940–2010)&oldid=1206693577"