Talk:Winston Churchill as a painter

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Churchill painting the Sorgue in 1948 ]]

Churchill painting the Sorgue in 1948

• ... that Winston Churchill (pictured) was an amateur but his paintings now sell for more than Hitler's professional work?

• Reviewed: bill hopper
• Comment: There's going to be a lot more expansion but I'm getting the nomination started while the timing is ok. For evidence in support of the hook, please see Churchill v Hitler - Who was the better artist?, "Churchill's art outvalues Hitler's today".

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk) and No Great Shaker (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

I am interested and willing to review when I have time. Two things: we need to show somehow that the article is not about Churchill but "as a painter", and the piped link doesn't. The caption needs the work italic, and is it worth knowing what he wears? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the paintings of Winston Churchill (pictured) now sell for more than Hitler's professional work despite being an amateur?

@Gerda Arendt, No Great Shaker, and Andrew Davidson: How does this alternate phrasing work? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is better, striking the other. I'd like to give less prominence to Hitler, - can we have the amateur/professional distinction outside the pipe for both? ... something like "while Hitler was a professional painter and Churchill an amateur, Churchill's paintings ... - just waking up, review later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Are you still planning on reviewing the article? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Will you give me an ALT with less prominence to Hitler? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  At a glance, it looks well referenced, and well told, but much of the prose seems to cover biography rather the paintings, and we still have a merge request. I'll watch for these points before going into a detailed review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  ... unless you want to do it, - also fine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that the information about them selling for more than Hitler's work is no longer in the article; as such I have now struck ALT1. Until the merge request is resolved the nomination should probably be put on hold. As for another (non-Hitler hook), there doesn't seem to be a lot of other options left. One could be the most simple: "... that Winston Churchill was also an amateur painter?", the other could be that he exhibited his paintings but under a pseudonym. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, we must have had a misunderstanding. I didn't say "no Hitler", only: don't give him prominence, meaning don't give his paintings more words than the other's, and better don't end with them. Also, a hook just saying he was a hobby painter whose paintings sell surprisingly high would be enough for me, but I am aware that mentioning Hitler in a hook gains you 1000 extra clicks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the article be better titled "Paintings by Winston Churchill" or "Winston Churchill's paintings", or at the very least "Winston Churchill as a painter"? CMD (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Gerda Arendt: The merge tag has been removed so I guess the review can now continue. A new hook is still needed, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Waiting for a hook. In the article, I miss something about the later time, - the image is from 1948 which to know would be better in the caption than his hat (with a link!) which we see anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

How about:

ALT2 ... that Winston Churchill was also an amateur painter?

ALT3 ... that Winston Churchill cited his painting hobby as one of his antidotes for his bouts of depression?

ALT4 ... that when Winston Churchill held the first exhibition of his paintings in Paris, he did so under a pseudonym?

Of the three new hooks, ALT3 is my least preferred option due to how depressing it is, though I suggested it as an option. Courtesy ping to nominator Andrew Davidson Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and the last one is my favourite, only I think it could be said shorter. Also: the image is great, and how would we include it? Will return to this after taking care of my FAC and planned article for the day, which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting aspect of his life, on fine sources, mostly offline but accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The last hook is fine with me, but I suggest to say:

ALT4a: ... that Winston Churchill, an amateur painter (pictured), held the first exhibition of his paintings in Paris under a pseudonym?

Andrew Davidson, No Great Shaker, the lead of the article says he painted until old age, but without a source, and not mentioned in the body. I'd prefer a sentence or two devoted to that in the body. The 500 paintings also need a source, best in the body. I was bold and changed the caption here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson and No Great Shaker: Please respond to the concerns that Gerda raised above. If they are not resolved soon, the nomination may be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the warning. There are, as usual, competing demands on my time. I shall give it more thought... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  We have a misunderstanding, I think. I'd approve ALT4, but think ALT4a is better. What do you think, Andrew? That's all you need to do. Recommendations for the article - unless marked as needed - are just recommendations which you can follow or not. Let's do this: I

  approve the ALT4s, and if someone thinks I shouldn't approve "my hook" (which is just a rewording) they can approve that one. Interesting facts on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and perfect! Please add two sentences about painting in old age to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to review this for promotion, but I suspect the image (c:) is a copyright violation of an image stored on Getty Images, and I've tagged it on Commons for deletion. Edge3 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The image has been deleted. Edge3 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Material?

• [1] - this might be worked in somewhere, although comparing anything with Hitler is always a mistake. However, Sewell’s “load of bloody rubbish” quote is rather nice. KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• [2] - and one he gave to Onassis. KJP1 (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Breccles Hall was bought by Edwin Montagu in 1917, which explains what WSC was doing there, [3]. KJP1 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• [4] - WSC’s last painting? KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Money!!!

While appreciating the vulgarity of talking about money, do others think we should have a little on prices? The astronomical rise in the value of Churchill’s pictures is a feature of his work as a painter. Cannadine throws up the interesting snippet that Beaverbrook offered £150,000 for all of them in 1959. That would have been a spectacularly good deal, even by Max’s standards. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2022 (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 a painter per WP:CONSISTENT per the other RM held at Talk:Winston_Churchill_as_a_writer#Requested_move_17_October_2024. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Winston Churchill as painter → Winston Churchill as a painter – "Winston Churchill as painter" is confusing and makes no sense. It would make more sense if it was titled "Winston Churchill as a painter". 92.9.187.249 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC) 92.9.187.249 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is fine as it is. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As I recall, the title was modelled on the equivalent article, Winston Churchill as writer. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. The current title makes no grammatical sense. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom, current doesn't make grammatical sense. DankJae 17:21, 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.

this discussion should not have been closed so quickly. There are two opposes to two supports. I can see merits to both naming and certainly there should have been more time to establish a consensus. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this RM and the one for Winston Churchill as writer (now "as a writer") were split up rather than combined. There was more support for the latter RM than for this one, and the two results had to be consistent. "Winston Churchill as painter" is still natural language, though two users here disagree (WP:NATURAL was misused as a justification for these moves – that's about natural disambiguation; WP:UCRN is the one about natural-language expressions), and it was WP:CONSISTENT with Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition (i.e., not "Keir Starmer as the Leader of the Opposition") in omitting an indefinite (in this case) or definite article. Ham II (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if you count the nominator in the “Move” camp, there was a slight majority. Although the nominator’s reaction to a collegiate discussion - now removed but can be seen in the Talk history - is instructive. It’s certainly not a hill worth dying on but, for the record, the original title, and that of “WSC as writer” weren’t ungrammatical. Less usual, less readily comprehensible, perhaps, but not wrong. See David Cannadine, Churchill: The Statesman As Artist. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

All reasonable, I am not advocating to reopen the discussion as the new titles work but a few more weeks beyond the standard 7 days for the discussion would have been appropriate. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)