Jump to content

Talk:Sir Arthur Wilson, 3rd Baronet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arthur Knyvet Wilson)

Wilson's comments about submarines "underhand, unfair and damned un-English"

[edit]

I note that someone removed Wilson's comments about submarines "underhand, unfair and damned un-English" as being unreferenced. His comments about submariners being hanged as pirates has also been removed. Whilst I'm certain this was good faith, both items were already referenced in this earlier version via an internal link to Royal Navy Submarine Service#The Jolly Roger and the Submarine Service. If the references in these links are wrong, then that's a different matter.

Wilson was an incredibly brave man as well as arguably the leading torpedo expert of his day, fully aware of the submarine threat to Britain's command of the seas. I intend to restore his comments, but include sufficient context to enable the reader to understand the reason and background for his comments though I'm happy for someone else to do this. I hope this will not be contentious but comments welcome.
JRPG (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, as long as the reference is put in a citation (footnote).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "underhand, unfair and damned un-English" as unreferenced. Captain Peter Hore, in The Habit of Victory (p. 302) states categorically that there's no evidence of him having ever said it. I didn't remove the reference to hanging (that was Dormskirk), but the context it was provided with was utterly inadequate. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, should we not amend the text somewhere to indicate that it is incorrectly widely believed that he said that, but it is merely 'urban legend.'? Otherwise someone will probably go and add it back in again at some point. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Hore disagrees with what appear to be quite authoritive references 8 and 9 in Royal Navy Submarine Service#The Jolly Roger and the Submarine Service.
8.^ "underhand, unfair, and damned un-English."(Stephen Wentworth Roskill (1968). Naval Policy Between the Wars, Walker, ISBN 0870218484 p. 231. cites A. J. Marder, Fear God and Dread Nought, vol. I (Oxford UP, 1961), p.333 and also Williams Jameson, The Most Formidable Thing (Hart-Davis, 1965) pp. 75-76.)
9.^ "underhand, ... and damned Un-English. ... treat all submarines as pirates in wartime ... and hang all crews." (J. R. Hill (1989). Arms Control at Sea, Routledge, ISBN 0415012805. p.35 cites Marder, From the Dreadnoughts to Scapa Flow p.332)
There may be nothing better than to change both pages that references disagree.JRPG (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marder's hardly authoritative anymore, and his biographer (Professor Barry M. Gough) acknowledges that he had an axe to grind against British admirals. Just because Roskill repeats something Marder wrote doesn't make it authoritative. The "underhand, unfair, and damned un-English" quote isn't referenced in Marder's book, which suggests that it's gossip and not based on official sources (which are referenced). The reference to hanging is actually a shocking misreading of of what Wilson actually wrote in a minute on 21 January, 1901, when he advocated that politicians should not say anything which might prevent the "sternest measures" being employed against submarine crews "caught in the act of using them." No mention of piracy whatsoever. See Lambert. The Submarine Service. pp. 20-23. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know wiki editors are supposed to be painfully polite but let's be honest - this reeks of bad faith editing. There is clearly a strong interest by some parties to cover up Wilson's opposition to submarines. The man is single-handedly responsible for the "jolly roger" tradition - HOW on earth can this be debated in good faith? IMO this article and its talk page are an excellent example of why this website has become so unreliable. By creating a hierarchy of editors who can strike down edits by anon users and obsessing over proper etiquite (rather than robust academic debate) you have [intentionally] created an environment where bad faith editors can easily push their POV while hiding behind often painfully transparent (and meaningless) rhetoric. Given the direction the site has been going it is clear that this behavior is being encouraged for political purposes and NOT academic accuracy.

Now ban me again for speaking the truth you all know; I care not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.183.1 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montagu

[edit]

The Montagu story in Booth is by his own admission based on the autobiographical account of the salvage officer's son, who was a little boy at the time. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY I'd say there's a "conflict of interest" in using such a source as the sole basis for trashing Wilson's handling of the Montagu salvage. For the record, the Admiralty had noted in Wilson's service records, "T.L. satisfaction expressed at manner in which operations for salvage of 'Montagu' were carried out." (ADM 196/86. f. 30.) Unless someone wants to cry "Conspiracy!" then there is a clear discrepancy here - one can't lose a battleship then be commended for the manner in which one did it - and to err on the side of a patently dubious source is madness. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Simon. We're all trying to get a better article. Wilson was a brilliant engineer who recognised the threat submarines posed and an extremely brave leader. He was not to blame for the loss of the Montagu, there was no navy expertise in salvage and the Admiralty failed to put an expert authority in place. I'm happy with one sentence saying that the Montague was lost but it led to the setting up of a specialist salvage department. JRPG (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Wilson (Royal Navy officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

[edit]

I've updated this - his biographer, who served alongside him, seemed to think that being named after Tug Wilson, the boxer, was more likely. The dates certainly make sense - the boxer was briefly world-famous in 1882, just the right time for Arthur Wilson to pick up the nickname after his VC.

The story about him offering a tug to a ship failing to come into harbour is fairly widely quoted, but there are a few other versions of it floating around (eg threatening to tow a sluggish cruiser out of dock), and the earliest versions of it seem to be quoted in the early 1900s. Would be interesting to know when the "Tug" nickname is first recorded for him. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2024

[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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved by strong consensus. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Wilson, 3rd Baronet → Arthur Wilson, 3rd Baronet – 'Sir' is a prefix and it's more common to not include in article titles; see Winston Churchill and Isaac Newton. Engineerchange (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With baronets we normally include the "Sir" as well as the suffix. See for example Charlton baronets or Chapman baronets as well as other Wilson baronets. Dormskirk (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inconsistent with other articles and it is unidiomatic to use the suffix without the title. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Understood. Thanks for the clarifications here. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sir_Arthur_Wilson,_3rd_Baronet&oldid=1210972988"