Jump to content

Talk:Duncan Barrett

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

COI Editor suggestions

[edit]
I have added the citations inline as requested & removed the original list.

Hello, my name is Ruth Ward. I am the granddaughter of one of Ronald Skirth's semi-fictional characters who is portrayed very negatively in The Reluctant Tommy. I am the author of the study held at the Imperial War Museum & the Canadian Army Journal article mentioned below. For these reasons it is not appropriate for me to edit the article directly.

  1. Please add the following text at the end of the section headed: 'Work as Writer and Editor' & immediately after the sentence ending "...in the Sunday Express."

However, Phil Tomaselli’s review in the BBC’s Whodoyouthinkyouare? Magazine was mostly negative[1] and in a Sunday Times article the Imperial War Museum “…admitted that they [Skirth’s papers][2] are mostly fictional.”[3] An article by Ruth Ward in the Canadian Army Journal[4] summarized the main findings of her study in which she had investigated the authenticity of Skirth’s original memoir.[5] The article criticized Barrett’s introduction stating it was “…partial, because it did not reveal or discuss the full extent of Skirth’s fictionalizing” and that “little, if any, independent, reliable evidence was given to corroborate the memoir’s substance.”[6] . The article concluded that Skirth had satirized his WW1 military service to implicitly ridicule British Army failings affecting his war service.[6] 

 2. The statement, "The book also came under attack from critics who objected to its pacifist politics..." needs a 'citation needed' tag.

Thank you. *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Reply 13-NOV-2018

[edit]

  Unable to review edit request   Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear which references are connected to which claim statements in the text of your proposal. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. The point of an inline citation is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation's note number is not clearly placed. Note the example below:

 INCORRECT

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.

References

      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
      2. Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
      3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above there are three references provided, but the claim statements do not indicate which reference applies where. Your edit request similarly does not specify where the references you have provided are to be placed. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:

 CORRECT

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References

  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
  2. ^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above the links between the provided references and their claim statements are perfectly clear, as reference notes have been placed indicating which reference aligns with which claim statement. Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I have reformulated my edit request & will re-submit it. *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tomaselli, Phil (May 2010). "The Reluctant Tommy - Ronald Skirth's extraordinary memoir of the First World War". Who Do You Think You Are? (34). Bristol: BBC Magazines: p.90. OCLC 244797897. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ Skirth, J R (2000-05-20). Private Papers. Imperial War Museum (Documents.9023).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ Anonymous. "Reluctant Tommy book 'clearly fictional'". The Sunday Times (online). The Times. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  4. ^ Ward, Ruth (2017). "The Satirical Tommy" (PDF). Canadian Army Journal. 17.3: 133–153. OCLC 926212813.
  5. ^ Ward, Ruth (2014). A Study Examining the Authenticity of John Ronald Skirth's Memoir. Imperial War Museum LBY 14/695.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ^ a b Ward, Ruth (2017). "The Satirical Tommy" (PDF). The Canadian Army Journal. 17.3: 133–153. OCLC 926212813. Retrieved 21 October 2018.

check Partially implemented I have reworded the information down to its basics — that the veracity of the publication was disputed — and I've placed that into the article.  Spintendo  18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you have written is incorrect. My study (Ward's study) is held at the IWM and examines the authenticity of Skirth's papers (the original memoir), as well as critiquing The Reluctant Tommy, Casualty Figures & Not Forgotten. (My study was accepted into the IWM in 2014). Actually, the study concludes that Skirth's papers constitute a literary fraud (fake memoir), because it is very evident he fictionalized/satirized his war service, but asserts throughout he is being sincere & truthful in his recounting of it. My article in the CAJ (published 2017) summarises the main findings of that study including the critique of e.g. TRT. The Sunday Times article was published in 2011 when the IWM had said they were going to remove the original memoir (Skirth's private papers) from their catalogue and then reversed that decision. This was after they had received some preliminary research from me. That preliminary research is not the same as the study the IWM now hold. Please can you make sure that Phil Tomaselli's book review is included in the piece. (He is a noted family & military historian with several publications under his belt. See https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Phil-Tomaselli/a/799). Thank you *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then I will remove my edit of the page until you are able to better summarize the findings of the report. The summary you have presented above is an entire paragraph of text. Due to the size of the Barrett article itself, this amount of information is unacceptable to be placed into the article, as the article is not the place to carry on this dispute. If you are able to summarize in two sentences this alternate side of the case then the information may be added. But I urge you to keep the information you are attempting to present as precise as possible, and when ready to proceed, you should present it either here on the talk page using a {{request edit}} template or present it to the WikiProject which governs this page.[a]  Spintendo  14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The WikiProject is the preferred route, as there may be WP:NOR concerns with this information which would benefit from additional editor input.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duncan_Barrett&oldid=1199552486"